GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3 - Page 57 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-03-2012, 05:00 PM   #841
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 03:07 AM
quick fox, sweep that shit under the carpet!
__________________

__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 05:06 PM   #842
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
Sadly I have yet to hear a rational argument in here as to why we should re-elect him this year.


But seriously...there are only two choices.

To me - it is a question over firing Obama for his missteps during the first two years. But you have to consider the alternative.

I believe Obama will be better served in his second term with a Republican Senate and House, which will force him (Clinton-style) to be more fiscally conservative. And I think he's smart enough to adopt the best ideas and be able to get enough of his own in.

And I think that is exactly what will happen.
Obama - second term -Republicans take all of Congress.
Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 05:13 PM   #843
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
It's happened twice: Polk lost TN but won the 1844 election. Wilson lost NJ when he won his second term in 1916.
You are a google-monster. I couldn't find that. Thanks and an interesting bit of trivia that may have to be amended this fall.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 05:30 PM   #844
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
I believe Obama will be better served in his second term with a Republican Senate and House, which will force him (Clinton-style) to be more fiscally conservative. And I think he's smart enough to adopt the best ideas and be able to get enough of his own in.
Clinton came to the White House with executive experience in a conservative state. He also was head of the Democratic Leadership Council, a moderate answer to the increasingly liberal national Democratic party and the disasters of Mondale and Dukakis. Sen Obama was ranked at the top of the liberal voting records.

Has there been even a hint of Clinton-style triangulation from Obama after the wave election of 2010 that brought in a GOP house?

After 3+ years I think we state with certainty that:
 
Barack Obama is no more a political pragmatist than he is the Messiah.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 06:43 PM   #845
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Very positive and unexpected jobs report out today. Stock market futures immediately jumped.
Ha ha. Dig into the data. Most of the new jobs are part time jobs. Employers can't afford to create proper jobs with proper benefits any more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I'm sure Obama will get a lot of credit for this from the GOP. If you saddle him with job losses, then you saddle him with gains too.
If they're clever, they'll dig behind the data.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 06:46 PM   #846
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HBK-79 View Post
My friend thinks the same way. He once said to me: "As long as I have a job, I'm happy with whoever is President".

As a result, my friend liked Reagan, hated Bush Sr., liked Clinton, hated Dubya, and now likes Obama.
You know, I wouldn't criticise your friend particularly. Millions have voted and will continue to vote on the basis of much, much worse reasons than that - e.g., religion, belief in Biblical inerrancy or lack thereof, whether or not one smoked or inhaled dope at college, sheer blind prejudice, etc, etc.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:01 PM   #847
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 08:07 AM
Very true, financeguy. And as such, it's hard to take some people seriously when they then turn around and complain-you're the ones who didn't bother to focus on things like their policies or their experience or competence at the job, so you get what you voted for.

From that bit yolland shared:

Quote:
Mitt Romney accused President Obama this week of ordering “religious organizations to violate their conscience,’’ referring to a White House decision that requires all health plans--even those covering employees at Catholic hospitals, charities, and colleges--to provide free birth control.
I just find this whole thing hilarious. Like I said in another thread about this sort of issue, this is a great example of religious people's constant insistence on church and state blending coming back to bite them in the ass.

I could go into all the insanity regarding that debate, but I won't drag that whole thing in here. I'll simply say this about Romney: I don't care what your position is anymore, buddy, I just want you to freakin' PICK one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
To me - it is a question over firing Obama for his missteps during the first two years. But you have to consider the alternative.

I believe Obama will be better served in his second term with a Republican Senate and House, which will force him (Clinton-style) to be more fiscally conservative. And I think he's smart enough to adopt the best ideas and be able to get enough of his own in.
I fully agree. Hopefully he will take notes on where he made mistakes in his first term and learn how to rectify them the second time around. My big hope is that he'll get tougher. I hope he'll fight back more often against the Republicans.

As for the jobs report, well, part-time jobs aren't exactly anything wonderful in terms of pay and living, no. But it's better than having no job at all and collecting unemployment that is constantly in danger of getting cut off by Congress every few months.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:08 PM   #848
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy

Ha ha. Dig into the data. Most of the new jobs are part time jobs. Employers can't afford to create proper jobs with proper benefits any more.

If they're clever, they'll dig behind the data.
Actually that's not true. This isn't like a seasonal jump, this is an upswing in real jobs. They may be contract jobs due to oil production, etc. but those aren't the same as part time jobs.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:17 PM   #849
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
I just find this whole thing hilarious. Like I said in another thread about this sort of issue, this is a great example of religious people's constant insistence on church and state blending coming back to bite them in the ass.
since separation of church and state is in the constitution, you'd think the people that cling to the constitution so desperately for stuff like the right to bear arms etc would respect this.

but then again, it isn't in the republican constitution. the one where they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 08:05 PM   #850
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
since separation of church and state is in the constitution, you'd think the people that cling to the constitution so desperately for stuff like the right to bear arms etc would respect this.

but then again, it isn't in the republican constitution. the one where they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.
There is the Establishment clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." but is followed by the Free Exercise Clause, "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I think it can certainly be argued that forcing an individual or religious organization to act against its religious conscience (in this case Catholics to purchase contraceptives, or other groups the morning After Pill) is prohibiting their free exercise of religion.

Both clauses are equally important in protecting personal liberty. The first protects religious pluralism, the second individual sovereignty.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 08:46 PM   #851
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 08:07 AM
I actually do agree on that, INDY. I do think there's just as much danger in the state getting involved in church affairs as there is the other way around.

I'm just saying that that's the thing religious people often tend to forget when they talk about wanting church and state to mix. Sure, that means the church will have control over the state, so yay for the religious people there, but it also means the state's going to control them, too. It's all fun and games until you're the one who's in the position of being forced to do something you may not agree with. And now the people objecting to that birth control thing might start to realize how those of us who don't want religion running people's lives feel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
since separation of church and state is in the constitution, you'd think the people that cling to the constitution so desperately for stuff like the right to bear arms etc would respect this.
One would think so, yes. Ironic how the Constitution is like religious text in that people cherry pick the parts they want to follow, and has the same "purist vs. adapting to the times" debate going on.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 09:44 PM   #852
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post
I just glossed over the press release. Employment Situation Summary

In January 243,000 new jobs were created. There have now been 23 straight months of job growth. Unemployment is down to 8.3 percent, the lowest it has been since February 2009 (with this trend continuing Obama might even be able to claim that unemployment is lower then when he became president.

And oh...


So I think Obama will also get credit from the GOP for making government smaller.
Did you just quote direct from a US government press release?

Christ. That really wins the argument.

Here are the really numbers, for the benefit of those still living near Lake Reality:

- 1.2 million working age people no longer have the honor & privilege of being 'counted' for purposes of tabulating unemployment

+ inherently flawed 'seasonal january adjustment'

+ a whole lot of temporary workers with no benefits and mostly at or near minimum wage

= turn an actual survey data of a loss of 2.6 million jobs into a labour department reported gain of 243,000 jobs.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 09:48 PM   #853
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
I'm just saying that that's the thing religious people often tend to forget when they talk about wanting church and state to mix.
There is huge difference between "church and state" and "religion and state" however. Most people confound the two but they are very different. The Founders well understood the dangers of combining church and state but also stressed the importance of a virtuous, religious populace to the concept of self-governance and limited government. The two clauses in the First Amendment clearly shows that as do the abundance of quotes, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

It is the difference between a theocracy and a government and populace made up of people of faith.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:00 PM   #854
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 08:07 AM
But then of course that presents an issue for those in this country who aren't religious at all. "Moral and religious"-one should remember the two are not always synonomous.

Either way, be it the church, or religion, neither one should be used to influence state decisions. Add in the conflict over which faith is to be represented, if any, and then there goes the can of worms.

Like I said, it's all not a problem until it's your faith or lack thereof that is the one being overruled.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:30 PM   #855
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
But then of course that presents an issue for those in this country who aren't religious at all.
Protecting religious pluralism includes the right to be a non-believer.
Quote:
"Moral and religious"-one should remember the two are not always synonomous.
Lots of evidence of that I'm afraid.
Quote:
Either way, be it the church, or religion, neither one should be used to influence state decisions.
Then you've just made secularism the official religion of the government. You've taken down that wall between the two.
We want a secular government free of legislated dogma but do we really want to say that values and principles informed by faith and religious teachings are inherently inferior for framing our laws, nay illegitimate, to those arrived at by a more temporal or nonspiritual means? Where's the evidence that that is even true? And where's the evidence of such a system of governance that we would want to emulate?
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
 

Tags
gop, republican

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com