Republican nominations - Page 18

On August 17 2011 05:47 On_Slaught wrote:


During the Fox News debate each and every one (Perry wasn't there but 1000000% chance he is anti taxes based on what he has said and done) said they wouldn't take a deal that was 10 to 1 Spending cuts to Tax increases.

They are all against it.

On August 17 2011 05:19 Bibdy wrote:


He's against them because there's been many cases where the Federal government has intruded on private lives as a result of them. The man believes in States rights to decide things like freedom of religion, privacy, sexual behaviour and so on and so forth. He has reason for resisting them, not because he's just a 'loon'.

The man is fiercely pro-life and anti-abortion, yet believes the States have the right to make those decisions. I have absolutely nothing but respect for a person that can sit in the political theatre and admit something like that.

On August 17 2011 05:57 xDaunt wrote:


I guarantee you that some, if not all of them, would take a 10 to 1 deal, particularly if it involved significant tax reform (ie not just raising rates necessarily, but significantly adjusting the tax structure). They just can't say they would would take that deal right now because it would end their campaigns immediately. The next day someone would be screaming from the rooftops that X candidate wanted to raise everyone's taxes. I don't really blame them for avoiding political suicide.

...and before any of you say, "well that's hypocritical/disingenuous," don't pretend that democrats don't do the same thing all of the time. In fact, they're ultimately doing the same thing right now whenever they say that they'll never touch Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They've already broken that pledge by passing Obamacare and stripping $500 billion from Medicare. They've also done it in the recent debt deal (go look at the automatic cuts if the super-committee fails). They'll do it again in the near future out of necessity.

On August 17 2011 03:41 Kaitlin wrote:


So, this is what you were "taught", huh ? Did you apply any critical thinking of your own ?

How about:

Consider some of the greatest minds and success stories throughout history. Were they "highly educated" by the system, or were they self-educated, such as Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, etc. I'm not convinced that the most intelligent people are the ones with the PhD's, but the ones with the best ideas.

PhD's require large amounts of money being invested in not only the education itself, but in the opportunity cost of delaying the commencement of an income-earning career. Conservatives are more ... fiscally conservative and are less likely to take that option. Does that choice make conservatives inherently stupid ? I think not. How many "highly educated" liberals are unable to find work these days ? Do you think they are pissed that they can't get jobs because "stupid" Republicans took their jobs while they were pursuing their "advanced degrees" ?

What are the fields of study in which PhD's are commonplace ? The areas where people pursue PhD's are either planning to become teachers (professors) in that area or they are involved in social services, etc. These are not the job creation types. On the other hand, business-related areas of study have little use for PhD to enter the workplace. PhD's in these areas are mainly only needed to become professors. Do you need a PhD in computer science to become successful in that area ? Nope. Spanning across the various areas of study relating to learning a field and getting out there and making a living, a PhD is not only not required, but a waste of time and money.

Finally, has anyone who thinks Republicans are stupid ever just stopped to consider why so many people are Republican ? It can't be just the rich because the richest 1% pay more income taxes than 95% of the population, and there are far more Repubs than just 1% that don't want income taxes raised. Is it because Republicans tend to understand that raising corporate tax rates simply makes American companies less competitive than their foreign rivals ? Is it because Republicans tend to understand that most of the job creation in this country is through small business and Democratic regulation and desire to raise taxes makes it much more difficult for small businesses to operate and grow in this country ? Is it because Republicans tend to understand that all the restrictions on oil drilling in this country, not only hurts the employment of Americans in that sector of the economy, but forces us to pay other countries to drill in their own land and off-shore instead of retaining that income in the U.S. ?

None of these areas require higher education to understand, but an ability to think for yourself instead of what you were "taught" in your one political science class.

On August 17 2011 05:57 thehitman wrote:

http://www.foil.org/resources/9-11/Brzezinski-980115-interview.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
"Iraq was a strategic buffer state for the United States against the Soviet Union, and Saddam was often seen as an anti-Soviet leader in the 1960s and 1970s. Some even suggested that John F. Kennedy's administration supported the Ba'ath party's takeover.[26] Although Saddam was al-Bakr's deputy, he was a strong behind-the-scenes party politician. Al-Bakr was the older and more prestigious of the two, but by 1969 Saddam Hussein clearly had become the moving force behind the party."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/


http://links.org.au/node/2179
European leaders flocked to Libya with greedy businesspeople hanging on to their coat tails and before long several European oil companies were back in business, with banks, airlines and hotel chains following. Former British Labour PM Tony Blair and scandal-plagued, right-wing Italian President Silvio Berlusconi played leading roles in the process.
- Apart from the first few lines of propaganda and obvious dramatization the rest of the article is 99% accurate.

Better get educated about the massive fraud that is going on in the USA and half of the European Union countries. And this fraud is purported by the business elites, the massively corrupt politicians. Right now its worst in the USA and Britain.

On August 17 2011 05:27 Uncultured wrote:
If we don't get Paul into office I've lost faith in humanity.

On August 17 2011 06:04 GrimmJ wrote:
Everytime I think of Ron Paul...I think of the movie Bruno.

On August 17 2011 05:59 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh I absolutely agree with that. They had to raise their hands during the debate just because of the audience. Things will change once they have to appeal to a wider audience in the general (where i'm sure this clip will be played).

I'm not sure about Perry though. I honestly think he is so against taxes and so entrenched in his position that he is the one who could actually turn down the deal no matter what.

On August 17 2011 05:43 Cloud9157 wrote:
Oh, and btw, Huntsman will not run against Obama. Tradition is that the president is never ran against by his own party, and I don't think Democrats will let that happen.

On August 17 2011 06:02 jcarlson08 wrote:


Bill Gates went to Harvard. Albert Einstein had a PhD from the University of Zurich. There are certainly intelligent people without PhDs, but PhDs are what so often gives them the base of knowledge they need to come up with NEW ideas in their field.



Here you are betrayed by your ignorance of the education system, as you completely ignore the overwhelming number one reason people pursue PhDs: research. (Also, do you even know what Social Services means? I'm not convinced you do...) You're correct that you don't need a PhD in Computer Science to get a job in computer science. Hell, you don't even really need a bachelor's to be a code monkey. But you are completely wrong in assuming that these people are creating jobs or that people with PhDs do not. Bill Gates is a one in a million success story; the reality is that the vast majority of people with no more than a bachelor's degree do not employ anyone and are responsible for exactly 0 jobs created, ever. On the other hand, PhD powered research, whether conducted publicly at a research university or privately at a place like Bell Labs is responsible for spawning entire INDUSTRIES and creating MILLIONS of jobs in this country alone. Among other things, research at Bell Labs has resulted in the creation of the transistor (without which modern computers would not exist), the laser, the C programming language and it's derivative, C++ (The two languages that power most of the world's computer programs), and the CCD sensor (the type of circuit that detects the image in nearly every digital camera in the world). By their nature, PhD research results in the creation of NEW knowledge in a field, the practical applications of which very often result in industry growth and job creation. The PhDs may not in every case be directly employing the people working in their field, but make no mistake, if it wasn't for them, there wouldn't be a field at all.

Also, your "theory" that the higher educated are losing jobs and wages to the lower educated is pretty much flat-out wrong. Unemployment and Wages by Education Level.



I'm pretty sure most Republicans don't understand these things at all, some of which have some truth to them, some of which don't. I'm pretty sure most Republicans are Republicans because they are either evangelical Christians who are completely against abortion and teaching evolution and caring for the environment and think Democrats are the devil, or because they've been convinced that they're living in a dreamworld where trickle-down economics is effective at producing economic growth.

On August 17 2011 06:02 jcarlson08 wrote:
Here you are betrayed by your ignorance of the education system, as you completely ignore the overwhelming number one reason people pursue PhDs: research. (Also, do you even know what Social Services means? I'm not convinced you do...) You're correct that you don't need a PhD in Computer Science to get a job in computer science. Hell, you don't even really need a bachelor's to be a code monkey. But you are completely wrong in assuming that these people are creating jobs or that people with PhDs do not.

Bill Gates is a one in a million success story; the reality is that the vast majority of people with no more than a bachelor's degree do not employ anyone and are responsible for exactly 0 jobs created, ever. On the other hand, PhD powered research, whether conducted publicly at a research university or privately at a place like Bell Labs is responsible for spawning entire INDUSTRIES and creating MILLIONS of jobs in this country alone. Among other things, research at Bell Labs has resulted in the creation of the transistor (without which modern computers would not exist), the laser, the C programming language and it's derivative, C++ (The two languages that power most of the world's computer programs), and the CCD sensor (the type of circuit that detects the image in nearly every digital camera in the world). By their nature, PhD research results in the creation of NEW knowledge in a field, the practical applications of which very often result in industry growth and job creation. The PhDs may not in every case be directly employing the people working in their field, but make no mistake, if it wasn't for them, there wouldn't be a field at all.

On August 17 2011 05:38 Xinder wrote:


This makes me laugh. At what point in a presidents term does the economy become his responsibility? Please enlighten me to this as I kinda figured that after being in office for 4 years the economy becomes your responsibility? Guess it's always the other guys fault if he was a disliked president then just blame him. Why blame the savior of the country? Obama the first black president!

On August 17 2011 05:39 xDaunt wrote:
Anyone who thinks that Perry can't beat Obama is fooling themselves. Obama is very beatable right now by most anyone, and he'd lose in a landslide if the election is this November. However, he has a solid year to turn things around. Let's see what he makes of it.

On August 17 2011 06:16 Kaitlin wrote:


Here's what I don't understand. Obama has been on his bus tour the past couple days telling us about a "plan" he has for the economy and jobs. He's been in office for 2 1/2 years, people are out of work, but he has a plan. He promises to tell us ... in September ... WTF. Who believes this guy ?