In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 04 2015 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Rick Perry is running again.
And now 30 seconds later, we remember why he'll never be relevant.
Well he did do something impressive. He's the first person to officially run while under indictment for corruption.
Walker wants to sign a 20 week abortion ban with forced ultrasounds (hey government check out that uterus...BY FORCE) no exception for rape or incest. Meanwhile the radical pro lifers are still not satisfied because it leaves in an exception to save the woman's life.
Carson wants a two state solution, He figures a good way to do that would be just to put the new Palestine in Egypt somewhere...
“We need to look at fresh ideas,” said Carson. “I don’t have any problem with the Palestinians having a state, but does it need to be within the confines of Israeli territory? Is that necessary, or can you sort of slip that area down into Egypt? Right below Israel, they have some amount of territory, and it can be adjacent.
And now 30 seconds later, we remember why he'll never be relevant.
Well he did do something impressive. He's the first person to officially run while under indictment for corruption.
Walker wants to sign a 20 week abortion ban with forced ultrasounds (hey government check out that uterus...BY FORCE) no exception for rape or incest. Meanwhile the radical pro lifers are still not satisfied because it leaves in an exception to save the woman's life.
Carson wants a two state solution, He figures a good way to do that would be just to put the new Palestine in Egypt somewhere...
“We need to look at fresh ideas,” said Carson. “I don’t have any problem with the Palestinians having a state, but does it need to be within the confines of Israeli territory? Is that necessary, or can you sort of slip that area down into Egypt? Right below Israel, they have some amount of territory, and it can be adjacent.
And now 30 seconds later, we remember why he'll never be relevant.
Well he did do something impressive. He's the first person to officially run while under indictment for corruption.
Walker wants to sign a 20 week abortion ban with forced ultrasounds (hey government check out that uterus...BY FORCE) no exception for rape or incest. Meanwhile the radical pro lifers are still not satisfied because it leaves in an exception to save the woman's life.
Carson wants a two state solution, He figures a good way to do that would be just to put the new Palestine in Egypt somewhere...
“We need to look at fresh ideas,” said Carson. “I don’t have any problem with the Palestinians having a state, but does it need to be within the confines of Israeli territory? Is that necessary, or can you sort of slip that area down into Egypt? Right below Israel, they have some amount of territory, and it can be adjacent.
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I strongly believe that most (if not all) Republicans don't truly want smaller government. They run on that platform, but they tend to just want less government intervention on policies they disagree with, whereas they're totally fine with government intervention when it comes to supporting their ideals.
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify?
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm pretty sure everyone wants smaller government, it's just a matter of what you want smaller.
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
No one is "pretending that Republicans are crazy" except maybe the republicans themselves. But if anyone heard Rick Perry talk with Hannity he actually sounds like the smart reasonable one in the group if that's any indication of how lost this is.
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify?
There are tons of people who always post things like "look at this" or "isn't this one position on a minor point insane" videos when it comes to Republican candidates.
As far as I have seen 0% of those people would vote for a Republican who didn't say said thing, so long as that Republican advocated core Republican policies.
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
No one is "pretending that Republicans are crazy" except maybe the republicans themselves. But if anyone heard Rick Perry talk with Hannity he actually sounds like the smart reasonable one in the group if that's any indication of how lost this is.
Rick Perry is a highly qualified candidate who made a few crucial errors during his last national campaign, primarily (apparently) being on painkillers onstage following back surgery.
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify?
There are tons of people who always post things like "look at this" or "isn't this one position on a minor point insane" videos when it comes to Republican candidates.
As far as I have seen 0% of those people would vote for a Republican who didn't say said thing, so long as that Republican advocated core Republican policies.
What are these 'core republican values' you speak of and who's been legislating them? Not just nationally but at the state level?
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify?
There are tons of people who always post things like "look at this" or "isn't this one position on a minor point insane" videos when it comes to Republican candidates.
As far as I have seen 0% of those people would vote for a Republican who didn't say said thing, so long as that Republican advocated core Republican policies.
What are these 'core republican values' you speak of and who's been legislating them? Not just nationally but at the state level?
Lets just go national. Describe a candidate that advocates: 1. Lower income taxes. 2. No increased debt as a result (less spending). 3. Low/minimal loss of military spending (not me, but core Republican). 4. Policies that more likely for 1-3 to prevail in future elections.
On June 05 2015 13:52 IgnE wrote: Those policies are brain dead policies, so it's not surprising that most people wouldn't vote for them.
My point is that you hate those policies, and thus your potential to vote for a candidate who espouses them is nearly 0%, so your opinion on Republicans is meaningless.
You have proven said point.
Edit:
I don't go around posting videos of Democrats advocating for 90% top marginal tax rates, raising the minimum wage, and silencing documentaries about political candidates followed by "Lol", because I know those are fundamental Democratic policies. That's the difference.
If only he'd pressed for Roman involvement in charity first, before that pesky business about personal salvation. Then we'd have the complete socialist religion, beloved by luminaries from Gorbachev to Clinton. Alas, all we've got is the usual religion trolls.
On June 04 2015 14:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A pipeline rupture that spilled an estimated 101,000 gallons of crude oil near Santa Barbara last month occurred along a badly corroded section that had worn away to a fraction of an inch in thickness, federal regulators disclosed Wednesday.
The preliminary findings (PDF) released by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration point to a possible cause of the May 19 spill that blackened popular beaches and created a 9-mile slick in the Pacific Ocean. Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency in Santa Barbara County due to the effects of the spill.
The agency said investigators found that there was "extensive external corrosion" at the break site. It had degraded the pipe wall thickness to 1/16 of an inch, and that there was a 6-inch opening near the bottom of the pipe. Additionally, the report noted that the area that failed was close to three repairs that had been made to the pipeline because of corrosion after 2012 inspections.
The agency documents said findings by metallurgists who examined the pipe wall thickness at the break site conflicted with the results of inspections conducted on that area of pipe on May 5 for operator Plains All American Pipeline. Those inspections pinpointed a 45 percent loss of wall thickness in the area of the pipe break, meaning they concluded the pipe was in far better condition.
Government inspectors "noted general external corrosion of the pipe body during field examination of the failed pipe segment," the report said.
Investigators found "this thinning of the pipe wall is greater than the 45 percent metal loss which was indicated" by the recent Plains All American inspections.
The agency ordered the company to conduct additional research and possible repairs on the line, which has been shut down indefinitely.
StealthBlue, I'd been missing these! I hope if there was negligence, the parties are found out.
Read the Book of Acts. The followers of Jesus who lived with him, followed him around Judea and heard him preach, when trying to build a community worthy of him while waiting for his return, pooled their property and resources. They didn't believe in individual charity, they believed in creating a community where each contributed according to his means and received according to his needs. I know pretty much the entire appeal of Christianity is you can believe any thing you like, act any way you like and do anything you want while trusting in God's mercy but the people who actually walked and talked with Jesus had a pretty clear idea of what a Christian society was and it certainly wasn't individualistic.
Edit: The Book of Acts, and the way it is often overlooked, is really fascinating. You would think it would be the single most important book because we don't have a primary source from Jesus on how to build a model Christian society, all we have is an account of what those who knew him, lived alongside him, heard his late night musings by the campfire and so forth did. They did have that information. They knew the answers to questions that subsequent Christians would long to and from they could accurately speculate on his answers to unasked questions because they were friends with the guy. The Book of Acts is an account of what the people who understood what Jesus is about better than any subsequent individual did. And it's literally communism. I'm not saying Jesus was a communist but the people who hung out with him all day and listened to him and then tried to live according to his teachings sure as hell thought he was.
Now before I break out scriptures in Acts, the rest of the gospels, and the rest of the Bible, I remember every single other religion thread in my years at TL and how it goes down. A cheap quip about a famous purportedly socialist jew is not good grounds for the discussion for the historical figure and his teachings. I'm sure you've heard the mainstream argument, for encouragement towards personal and family charity, by faith to God. Not an a-religious collective effort on behalf of some State that is primarily a political entity in large secular society. I hold it was antithetical to any broad construction of communism because that refers to something quite different. I don't want to be embroiled in that defense and exposition unless its some well-moderated religious discussion thread or blog post. If it suits your flavor, maybe in time we'll have a chance for discussion with the authority in eternal paradise, hopefully with a lot of laughter.
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify?
There are tons of people who always post things like "look at this" or "isn't this one position on a minor point insane" videos when it comes to Republican candidates.
As far as I have seen 0% of those people would vote for a Republican who didn't say said thing, so long as that Republican advocated core Republican policies.
What are these 'core republican values' you speak of and who's been legislating them? Not just nationally but at the state level?
Lets just go national. Describe a candidate that advocates: 1. Lower income taxes. 2. No increased debt as a result (less spending). 3. Low/minimal loss of military spending (not me, but core Republican). 4. Policies that more likely for 1-3 to prevail in future elections.
And that you would also support.
Hear hear. People that outright reject your cores (and they're pretty much on-mark. Maybe add govt agency power/regulation-writing) aren't the types that would ever be persuaded to vote for them HAD they not made that cah-ray-zeeeee point in one of their speeches. The divide is real.
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify?
There are tons of people who always post things like "look at this" or "isn't this one position on a minor point insane" videos when it comes to Republican candidates.
As far as I have seen 0% of those people would vote for a Republican who didn't say said thing, so long as that Republican advocated core Republican policies.
What are these 'core republican values' you speak of and who's been legislating them? Not just nationally but at the state level?
Lets just go national. Describe a candidate that advocates: 1. Lower income taxes. 2. No increased debt as a result (less spending). 3. Low/minimal loss of military spending (not me, but core Republican). 4. Policies that more likely for 1-3 to prevail in future elections.
And that you would also support.
are there any republicans that advocate for and actually practice that? Also, that's a questionable set of policies, as they're almost mutually unsatisfiable, unless they're willing to touch the big social welfare programs (which they generally aren't).
I wish I were in congress, then I could propose a long term fiscally sound budget which fixes the entitlement programs. It'd never get passed of course, but at least I could submit it.
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify?
There are tons of people who always post things like "look at this" or "isn't this one position on a minor point insane" videos when it comes to Republican candidates.
As far as I have seen 0% of those people would vote for a Republican who didn't say said thing, so long as that Republican advocated core Republican policies.
What are these 'core republican values' you speak of and who's been legislating them? Not just nationally but at the state level?
Lets just go national. Describe a candidate that advocates: 1. Lower income taxes. 2. No increased debt as a result (less spending). 3. Low/minimal loss of military spending (not me, but core Republican). 4. Policies that more likely for 1-3 to prevail in future elections.
And that you would also support.
Well see I think you may have a point. The reason I wouldn't support a Republican isn't because of the "little minor" crazy things they say. Pointing out the crazy is because positions like "low/minimal loss of military spending" are also crazy but harder to explain why.
This is a short summary of a fraction of what makes that crazy: + Show Spoiler +
Because of its persistent inability to tally its accounts, the Pentagon is the only federal agency that has not complied with a law that requires annual audits of all government departments. That means that the $8.5 trillion in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996, the first year it was supposed to be audited, has never been accounted for. That sum exceeds the value of China’s economic output last year.
Congress in 2009 passed a law requiring that the Defense Department be audit-ready by 2017. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in 2011 tightened the screws when he ordered that the department make a key part of its books audit-ready in 2014.
Reuters has found that the Pentagon probably won’t meet its deadlines. The main reason is rooted in the Pentagon’s continuing reliance on a tangle of thousands of disparate, obsolete, largely incompatible accounting and business-management systems. Many of these systems were built in the 1970s and use outmoded computer languages such as COBOL on old mainframes. They use antiquated file systems that make it difficult or impossible to search for data. Much of their data is corrupted and erroneous.
Whereas it's really easy to point at statements on foreign policy like:
"Well, it's not nation-building. We are assisting them in building their nation."
--- Future former Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
or
“I don’t have any problem with the Palestinians having a state, but does it need to be within the confines of Israeli territory? Is that necessary, or can you sort of slip that area down into Egypt?"
-- Ben Carson (R)
or a fun one every once in a while like
"Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE,"
"I'm pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, 'Coach, I think I'd rather shower with the girls today.' ."
-- Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
or one that makes you wonder if it's a joke or a serious idea...
"The 40 percent of the people that have come illegally came with a legal visa and overstayed their bounds. We ought to be able to find where they are and politely ask them to leave."
Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL)
Although, even the Palestinian one is a little tough because you know Americans don't have a clue about geography let alone the actual regional issues.
When Rand Paul isn't pandering he generally sounds like someone in the Republican party I could support if by some freak occurrence all the better candidates on the left died in a plane crash or something.
I'd really like if he came clean on his hair though. That would get mad respect from me and I might vote for him over Hillary if he just ripped that rug off and stuck it to his podium and said something to the effect of
"I'm willing to be honest and put it all out there for the American people. Which one of these chumps is man enough to do the same?"
On June 05 2015 13:52 IgnE wrote: Those policies are brain dead policies, so it's not surprising that most people wouldn't vote for them.
My point is that you hate those policies, and thus your potential to vote for a candidate who espouses them is nearly 0%, so your opinion on Republicans is meaningless.
You have proven said point.
Edit:
I don't go around posting videos of Democrats advocating for 90% top marginal tax rates, raising the minimum wage, and silencing documentaries about political candidates followed by "Lol", because I know those are fundamental Democratic policies. That's the difference.
I think what republicans are going to get a crash course in is the majority of America is closer to Bernie Sanders than they are stuff like lowering taxes in anyway for people making 7 figures.
That's why Hillary just threw down the gauntlet on voting.
20 days nationwide early voting and automatic registration. I can't wait to see how republicans handle that. So far the best argument is "huh? What about ISIS!"
I actually think it might be the best way to get Republicans to sign on to education reform.
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify?
There are tons of people who always post things like "look at this" or "isn't this one position on a minor point insane" videos when it comes to Republican candidates.
As far as I have seen 0% of those people would vote for a Republican who didn't say said thing, so long as that Republican advocated core Republican policies.
What are these 'core republican values' you speak of and who's been legislating them? Not just nationally but at the state level?
Lets just go national. Describe a candidate that advocates: 1. Lower income taxes. 2. No increased debt as a result (less spending). 3. Low/minimal loss of military spending (not me, but core Republican). 4. Policies that more likely for 1-3 to prevail in future elections.
And that you would also support.
are there any republicans that advocate for and actually practice that? Also, that's a questionable set of policies, as they're almost mutually unsatisfiable, unless they're willing to touch the big social welfare programs (which they generally aren't).
I wish I were in congress, then I could propose a long term fiscally sound budget which fixes the entitlement programs. It'd never get passed of course, but at least I could submit it.
Its basically the old Ryan budget. And its the Romney/Ryan platform with subtle rhetoric on the entitlement side. Curbing entitlement spending is baked into reality regardless of who is in power long term.
GH, I can really only understand the first half of your post (pre spoiler + spoiler).
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify?
There are tons of people who always post things like "look at this" or "isn't this one position on a minor point insane" videos when it comes to Republican candidates.
As far as I have seen 0% of those people would vote for a Republican who didn't say said thing, so long as that Republican advocated core Republican policies.
What are these 'core republican values' you speak of and who's been legislating them? Not just nationally but at the state level?
Lets just go national. Describe a candidate that advocates: 1. Lower income taxes. 2. No increased debt as a result (less spending). 3. Low/minimal loss of military spending (not me, but core Republican). 4. Policies that more likely for 1-3 to prevail in future elections.
And that you would also support.
Aren't those just the core economic values though? There seem to be core social/ environmental conservative values as well, and those seem to be bigger issues to a lot of people... hating on gays/ atheists, rejecting climate change/ stem cells/ other science, being 100% against abortion in any way, injecting God into schools and every other facet of life, etc. These are generally shared values of the Republican party as well, and I think these are why they shoot themselves in the foot in front of so many people.
On June 05 2015 12:45 cLutZ wrote: My favorite is people who pretend that "Republicans are crazy", but really would never vote for anyone who wants smaller government anyways.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. could you please clarify?
There are tons of people who always post things like "look at this" or "isn't this one position on a minor point insane" videos when it comes to Republican candidates.
As far as I have seen 0% of those people would vote for a Republican who didn't say said thing, so long as that Republican advocated core Republican policies.
What are these 'core republican values' you speak of and who's been legislating them? Not just nationally but at the state level?
Lets just go national. Describe a candidate that advocates: 1. Lower income taxes. 2. No increased debt as a result (less spending). 3. Low/minimal loss of military spending (not me, but core Republican). 4. Policies that more likely for 1-3 to prevail in future elections.
And that you would also support.
Hear hear. People that outright reject your cores (and they're pretty much on-mark. Maybe add govt agency power/regulation-writing) aren't the types that would ever be persuaded to vote for them HAD they not made that cah-ray-zeeeee point in one of their speeches. The divide is real.
Most people don't point to the "cah-ray-zeeee" shit republicans say as anything except evidence of extreme stupidity or of cynical pandering to the extremely stupid (which is arguably worse). It's just a fact that Palin is a very poor thinker and a very poor judge of anything. Her "policies," if you can call them that, stand to the side; it's her character which is being called into question.
I also have to say that your obsession with the monolithic State is a bit disappointing, because you always cast yourself as an educated, nuanced conservative thinker. Like why are you referring to a State when talking about Jesus's socialistic policies? Are the only two reference points on your ideological spectrum the hundred-million-strong State and the atomistic individual? What about voluntary associations of free individuals? You know, something like churches?
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1Pr39Ut.jpg)
