GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Census adjustment, who are the census bureau btw (they never contacted me for anything :eyebrow: )

A couple of thoughts, if this is true someone might want to notify MSNBC then because they are still printing articles (as of yesterday) which state that over 1 million people have given up looking for work:

Bottom Line - Jobless want you to quit already!

Even though the unemployment rate dipped to 8.3 percent last month, there were still nearly 13 million jobless searching for work, and the number of discouraged workers, or workers who gave up looking, topped 1 million.

We already know that American Airlines is cutting 10,000 - 15,000 jobs, announced last week, and now Pepsi is getting ready to layoff 8700 poor souls:

Bottom Line - PepsiCo plans to cut 8,700 jobs

PepsiCo also said it plans to increase its advertising and marketing investments by $500-$600 million in 2012, with particular focus on North America. PepsiCo’s Chairman and CEO Indra Nooyi appeared on CNBC to discuss the investments, the company’s outlook and the planned job cuts.

“Layoffs are very very difficult,” she said, adding that even though the company is laying off 8,700 people, overall those cuts will be offset by the fact that PepsiCo hires between 15,000 and 20,000 workers globally.

Well done Pepsi, spend $600 million advertising your shit so you can cut 8700 jobs, which is okay because you can turn around and hire a bunch of people overseas for less than 1/4 the wages of the 8700 you cut in conus. :down:

:|
 
Mrs. Garrison said:
Census adjustment, who are the census bureau btw (they never contacted me for anything :eyebrow: )
Do you happen to live in a cave? They stalked me worse than an ex-girlfriend.

Mrs. Garrison said:
We already know that American Airlines is cutting 10,000 - 15,000 jobs, announced last week,
:|
The airlines is a dying industry, has been since 9/11 they haven't learned how to evolve. I don't think any president is going to be able to do much for them.
 
Do you happen to live in a cave? They stalked me worse than an ex-girlfriend.

Yes, in fact i do live in a cave :sexywink:

The airlines is a dying industry, has been since 9/11 they haven't learned how to evolve. I don't think any president is going to be able to do much for them.

Much like the soft drink industry is a dying industry?
 
Census adjustment, who are the census bureau btw (they never contacted me for anything :eyebrow:)
you didn't get a form? every household was supposed to get a form. if you're talking about a visit from someone, that's completely random and they obviously can't visit everyone. i remember when the forms went out and all the
tinfoil.gif
friends on my facebook said they weren't going to fill it out because they thought it was an invasion of privacy. give me a break. don't come crying to me when your district loses funding because they thought less people lived there so they close a school or library.

my mom worked for them, they wanted me to work for them too but they waited a full year to contact me after i replied. by the time they contacted me i was about to move out of the country in a couple weeks.
 
i remember when the forms went out and all the
tinfoil.gif
friends on my facebook said they weren't going to fill it out because they thought it was an invasion of privacy. give me a break. don't come crying to me when your district loses funding because they thought less people lived there so they close a school or library.

Yeah, I don't get that argument, either. It's a population survey, basically. I've seen the census forms when my family filled them out and it's not like they're asking questions about your daily personal showering habits or anything.

Not to mention, it specifically states in our Constitution that a census will happen every 10 years. So if this is some sort of invasion of privacy, we're going to need to do some Constitution altering again :p.
 
Yeah, I don't get that argument, either. It's a population survey, basically. I've seen the census forms when my family filled them out and it's not like they're asking questions about your daily personal showering habits or anything.

Not to mention, it specifically states in our Constitution that a census will happen every 10 years. So if this is some sort of invasion of privacy, we're going to need to do some Constitution altering again :p.
exactly. yet some of these people are the same people who want to regulate so much personal stuff that's frankly no one's business but yours, which you could argue is the real invasion of privacy. :hmm:
 
exactly. yet some of these people are the same people who want to regulate so much personal stuff that's frankly no one's business but yours, which you could argue is the real invasion of privacy. :hmm:

:yes: Exactly.

These are also the same sorts of people who will willingly share every last bit of information about their lives on Facebook and such, too.
 
ABC News, Feb. 9
“[Obama]’s trying to weaken them, churches, trying to say that anybody who believes in the values of the Judeo-Christian policies,” Santorum said to about 2,000 people in a converted barn [in Plano, TX, Feb. 8], one of his largest audiences of the campaign...“They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God given rights then what’s left?” Santorum asked and an audience member offered, “Communism!”

“The French Revolution,” Santorum answered.
ThinkProgress, Feb. 9 (video embedded)
"[The French Revolution] was a secular revolution on which we relied on the goodness of each other. This is the left’s view of where America should go. And of course where did France go? To the guillotine. To tyranny. If there are no rights that government needs to respect, then what we see with ObamaCare is just the beginning of what government will do to you."
And the most unique take on de Tocqueville I think I've ever heard (New Yorker, Feb. 9 [video embedded]):
"He came from a country, they had a revolution, too…Their constitution by the way was very similar to the American Constitution. But it was one difference. Their constitution was based on three principles. Liberty—good. Equality—good. And fraternity—brotherhood. Brother-hood. But not fatherhood. The rights came from each other. Came from the government. Not inalienable rights that came from God."
Qu'ils mangent de l'Eucharistie!
 
Sometimes I get frustrated when I can't get a real, honest and adult answer about something like healthcare, but then I read something like that and I'm reminded why...

We're fucked :|
 
:rolleyes: I'd say f you, but that would just be a hormonal, emotional reaction.

Hey Ricky, would that be only during that time of the month or just all the time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWAR7FeY4pA&feature=player_embedded



"I do have concerns about women in frontline combat. I think that can be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. And I think that’s probably – you know, it already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat. But I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat. I think that’s probably not in the best interests of men, women or the mission."
 
In 2005 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported:

So not long after his first book, “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good,” hit Washington bookstores over the Fourth of July weekend, his opponents were sifting through the 430 pages at warp speed -- culling controversial passages in which the Pennsylvania Republican criticizes public schools, America’s “divorce culture” and argues that more American families should consider whether both parents really need to work. . . .

Many women, he adds, have told him that it is more “socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children.”

That ideology, he says, has been shaped by feminists who demean the work of women who stay at home as primary caregivers.

“What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else -- or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon -- find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism,” Santorum writes.

“Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root,” said Santorum. “The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”
 
"I do have concerns about women in frontline combat. I think that can be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. And I think that’s probably – you know, it already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat. But I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat. I think that’s probably not in the best interests of men, women or the mission."



no one running would do more to limit your personal freedoms than Rick Santorum. he knows what's best for you.

and to think, people believe that universal health care or an individual mandate is somehow a limit on freedom. it's not. what *is* a limit on freedom is Rick Santorum telling you how to have sex, when to have sex, where to have sex, and what you may and may not do on the basis of your gender. such truths are self-evident, to him, because they are his beliefs, and impervious to evidence.
 
“Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root,” said Santorum. “The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”




do tell us, Rick. what is the key to happiness for women?

i'm sure you know.
 
Somebody should tell Santorum that just because he's taken Gingrich's spot as the non-Mitt frontrunner, he doesn't have to take Gingrich's charm with women as well.

“Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root,” said Santorum. “The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”

Psst... hey Rick. You do realize that women make up a larger percentage of the population than men, right? You do want them to vote for you, don't you?
 
There are few things in this world that disturb and creep me the hell out more than a man trying to act as though he knows about women's "cycles"/"emotions" and the effects of them on any activities we do.

Santorum? We women have learned how to balance our "types of emotions" with any situation we've been put into. We've been doing so for centuries. So how about you kindly shut up and focus on topics you actually know something about (which may be a difficult task, I know).

Many women, he adds, have told him that it is more “socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children.”


...“Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root,” said Santorum. “The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”

So...he doesn't want women to be part of the capitalist society and American dream?

I'd like to point out how the warped economic policies he and other politicians favor are often why so many families have both parents working instead of one staying at home to raise the kids, but I get the feeling that would fly over his head.

(By the way, when I was a kid, my mom worked during the day, and my dad didn't work until night. So my dad was actually staying at home with me during the day and taking care of me! Clearly I have been horribly screwed up by this experience)

no one running would do more to limit your personal freedoms than Rick Santorum. he knows what's best for you.

and to think, people believe that universal health care or an individual mandate is somehow a limit on freedom. it's not. what *is* a limit on freedom is Rick Santorum telling you how to have sex, when to have sex, where to have sex, and what you may and may not do on the basis of your gender. such truths are self-evident, to him, because they are his beliefs, and impervious to evidence.

Small government interference at work :up:.
 
I'm no fan of Santorum. I never voted for him as Senator and will never vote for him as President, but I'm thinking the emotions he might have been referring to were men's emotions--ie, thinking they might be more protective of a woman in a battle situation than they were another man and that the focus would be more on protecting the woman than on the mission. That might be an initial response but I figure the men would get over it soon enough.

Then again, Rick Santorum is a doucebag.:D I've never understood why anyone would decide what would make EVERY woman happy as if we are interchangeable and as if we might not harbor some of the same ambitions other human beings (ie, men) might have. But perhaps, we are not in the full human being category to them. I'm kind of thinking the people who decide what's best for women lean that way. Women serve; men get to soar.:heart:
 
Yeah, I was reading yesterday that's what his point was.

So now the men can get insulted instead of the women. Men can't focus when women are around, you guys! They feel the need to protect them all the time!
 

As a complete outsider (i.e. non-American not even living there) the impression I have of Mitt Romney is that he wants to be president because of being president. It's the highest office reachable for him and so he wants it.
Whereas with the others I have the impression they at least have a slight idea what they want for the USA for the next four years.
 
As a complete outsider (i.e. non-American not even living there) the impression I have of Mitt Romney is that he wants to be president because of being president. It's the highest office reachable for him and so he wants it.
Whereas with the others I have the impression they at least have a slight idea what they want for the USA for the next four years.

Actually, I kind of see it the opposite.

With Gingrich and Santorum, you have two guys who have legacies that badly need to be repaired- Gingrich from being thrown out of the Speakership and Santorum from losing re-election in 2006 by 20 points. I truly think that was their sole reason for running in 2012- to try to run an honorable, positive campaign (with no realistic expectation of going anywhere), and then ending their careers on a better note than they otherwise would have. But since all the non-Romneys proved to be sub-par candidates, I think they were legitimately surprised when they actually started gaining some traction.

With Romney you've got a guy who is incredibly wealthy, has a massive family to keep him busy, could probably get a job anywhere in the country if he wanted one, and has no legacy that needs repairing. Yet he seems to have a knack and a passion for turning things around, and feels he would be a competent fit for the presidency and the needs of America right now. But unlike the others, he in no way "needs" this run for office.
 
Obama's manufactured contraception controversy definitely drew out some doozy comments from the Republican field.

Obama riled up Republicans on contraception, and then delivers a knock-out punch.
That's the nitty-gritty. The fun part of this is that Obama just pulled a fast one on Republicans. He drew this out for two weeks, letting Republicans work themselves into a frenzy of anti-contraception rhetoric, all thinly disguised as concern for religious liberty, and then created a compromise that addressed their purported concerns but without actually reducing women's access to contraception, which is what this has always been about. (As Dana Goldstein reported in 2010, before the religious liberty gambit was brought up, the Catholic bishops were just demanding that women be denied access and told to abstain from sex instead.) With the fig leaf of religious liberty removed, Republicans are in a bad situation. They can either drop this and slink away knowing they've been punked, or they can double down. But in order to do so, they'll have to be more blatantly anti-contraception, a politically toxic move in a country where 99% of women have used contraception.

My guess is that they'll take their knocks and go home, but a lot of the damage has already been done. Romney was provoked repeatedly to go on the record saying negative things about contraception. Sure, it was in the frame of concern about religious liberty, but as this incident fades into memory, what most people will remember is that Republicans picked a fight with Obama over contraception coverage and lost. This also gave Obama a chance to highlight this benefit and take full credit for it. Obama needs young female voters to turn out at the polls in November, and hijacking two weeks of the news cycle to send the message that he's going to get you your birth control for free is a big win for him in that department. I expect to see some ads in the fall showing Romney saying hostile things about contraception and health care reform, with the message that free birth control is going away if he's elected. It's all so perfect that I'm inclined to think this was Obama's plan all along.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom