EPTRepublican nominations - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Weedk
United States507 Posts
| ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html Krugman hasn't written an intellectually honest article in the NY Times in recorded history. http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/274695/paul-krugman-still-wrong-about-texas | ||
|
thehitman
1105 Posts
| ||
|
Vore210
Ireland256 Posts
Well, good luck ;/. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:30 kzn wrote: My personal opinion is that Democrats are equally loony, but they're loony in ways that are easier to ignore. Conservative policies typically seem heartless on the face of things, and only make sense if you make a proper effort to understand the philosophical underpinnings, while Liberal policies appeal to most people's sense of altruism and fairness, even if they're utterly ridiculous when you look closely at them. Isn't what your post is that at the heart of conservatism there's sensible philosophical underpinnings....and at the heart of liberal thinking it's just bogus? How does that make Democrats equally loony? I think this new class of Republican that just echoes tax breaks and cutting government spending as the resolution to our financial crisis are all just proposing short term and short sighted solutions to the problem. Why are we still not looking into the mortgage crisis and resolving issues there? Why are we not resolving and reforming our entitlements, safety nets, and benefits? Why are we not stopping tax cuts that were extended for no good reason and have long outlived their usefulness. Democrats and Republicans are both at fault for being a bunch of panzies on doing policy, but in my opinion, the Republican nominees don't have a solid plan but are more concerned about a policy that puts "jobs" in the market, when there are so many more underlying issues that need to be addressed. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:23 kzn wrote: I like how you bunch up "ultra-conservatives" with the tea party and religious fundamentalists, when about the only overlap that actually exists there is that a lot of religious fundamentalists are ultra-conservative. The Tea Party, despite what European news reports will tell you, is primarily and fundamentally conservative only in the economic sphere, and thats why it gets support. I will grant that a lot of conservatives hold views that are (in my view) correct while holding them for utterly retarded reasons, but I'd say that's better than the liberal alternative, which is holding retarded views for retarded reasons. While that might be true for the core of the tea party, the actual republican platform runs on both fiscal and social conservatism, which is the core of the problem for the republicans in the coming election. Claiming to want government interfere less with people's lives, while simultaneously wanting government to dictate what people can and can't do with their bodies, and simultaneously proscribing a certain way of life doesn't go over too well. The two simply don't mix, and with extremists on both sides unwilling to compromise at all, they're going to get torn apart either by themselves or by the democrats for it. In the past, these issues would be mitigated by the republican establishment, but that doesn't seem possible anymore in the current climate. They'll end up with a platform so extreme all independents and all democrats run away screaming. On August 17 2011 00:33 thehitman wrote: Rick Perry is a bilderberg member working for the big banks and corporation. Why would anyone vote for a guy that supports carbon taxes, which is basically taxing everyone for breathing? Breathing is carbon neutral you know. | ||
|
aeyr
United States60 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:26 KimJongChill wrote: Hey Republicans, serious question. How can you stand by this party when there are so many nutjobs? I'm not a Democrat either, but it's just that I hear so much crazy stuff about Republicans that I seriously wonder why they are still a political party? Are Democrats as crazy, but we just don't hear about it as much? You're right. The democrat and republican party are essentially the same thing. However, Ron Paul is a libertarian at heart running for the republican party because there are only two parties that have ever stood a chance to become President. Registered libertarian voting for Ron Paul. :D | ||
|
macil222
United States113 Posts
To be honest foreign policy was the one area where I thought I could support Obama but he just took Bush gave him and ran with it. In every other issue the guy is a complete and utter disaster. Perry is just Bush 2.0. Herman Cain is a nice speaker but hasn't actually said what he believes in. Romney and Pawlenty are both fakers who believe in nothing who simply gear their resume towards the job that they are currently seeking. Pawlenty is worse, he reminds me of that scum bag John Edwards..Seeing his perfectly rehearsed hand gestures during the debates makes me want to vomit. Rick Santorum (Rick Sanitarium anyone?) is insane. I would call myself prolife in general but talking about throwing doctors in prison, having the government involved in every decision, and basically desiring a theocracy. The man is a social conservative but I consider him to be liberal based on his views of government. He seeks to use the force of government to solve any perceived problem at any level. Bachman is someone that I almost like. I think she is sincere in her ideology but she seems to be a tea party band wagoner and lacks experience and knowledge in a lot of areas. I see her getting elected and just being a pawn for the powers that be (just like Obama btw). Ron Paul is in my opinion what the country needs. People say he is extreme because he tends to get very cerebral when talking about any issue and how he thinks things "ought" to be. He also has a reputation for not compromising his principles. In reality he is a very good at compromising. He has said many times that he wants to take the money we use overseas to fund our care for people here. He wouldn't pull the rug out from underneath anyone. And he has worked with liberals such as Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich on several issues. He even expressed willingness to have someone such as Kucinich in his cabinet if he were ever to get elected. | ||
|
nozaro33
Taiwan1819 Posts
How the mighty have fallen..... | ||
|
Duban
United States548 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote: I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world. Well, good luck ;/. I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote: Perry created 40% of the nations jobs but still has a 8.2% unemployment rate in his state (which is higher than many others http://www.bls.gov/lau/). This just proves that it easier to rise from rock bottom than it is from being average or good. He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html Funnier still, something like 2/3 of the jobs he added were public sector jobs - something he's supposed to be against. Also, Texas not has the second or third highest percent of minimum wage jobs of any state in the country. So he added jobs by stealing them from other states and expanding the state government, and the jobs he "created" suck. | ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:31 ShadeR wrote: Genuine Q. Which of the 18 listed is not a creationist/ID? none. But how is all this related? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote: He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. | ||
|
DerNebel
Denmark648 Posts
| ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
Also, isn't the majority of TL democrats anyways? In that case, most of TL will probably choose the worst republican nominee  | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote: I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world. Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote: This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too. | ||
|
Evs
Philippines330 Posts
Would be interesting to see a US led by Bachman though... it would satisfy my morbid sense of curiosity PS Fox news doesn't seem to like Ron Paul which makes him the most likable contender in my book. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:34 Zergneedsfood wrote: Isn't what your post is that at the heart of conservatism there's sensible philosophical underpinnings....and at the heart of liberal thinking it's just bogus? How does that make Democrats equally loony? A lot of the classic Conservative/Liberal divide comes down to differences of pure opinion, about which there can be no reasoned debate. The question of whether or not everyone, regardless of income, should have access to healthcare of a certain standard, for instance, is a matter of opinion - it turns fundamentally on personal views of ethics. Thus plenty of Liberal policy can be supported in a perfectly non-loony fashion. The same is true for Conservative policy (and so is the reverse - there's idiocy on both sides in roughly equal amounts). I think Democrats have more idiocy in terms of quantity than Republicans, but we have people like Bachmann, so our quality of idiocy is through the roof, if that makes any sense. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:38 kzn wrote: A lot of the classic Conservative/Liberal divide comes down to differences of pure opinion, about which there can be no reasoned debate. The question of whether or not everyone, regardless of income, should have access to healthcare of a certain standard, for instance, is a matter of opinion - it turns fundamentally on personal views of ethics. Thus plenty of Liberal policy can be supported in a perfectly non-loony fashion. The same is true for Conservative policy (and so is the reverse - there's idiocy on both sides in roughly equal amounts). I think Democrats have more idiocy in terms of quantity than Republicans, but we have people like Bachmann, so our quality of idiocy is through the roof, if that makes any sense. In terms of social issues, I tend to not care. It'd be nice if people had access to healthcare benefits, but at the heart of the issue, I'm not concerned with that. Nor am I concerned with abortion, gay marriage, religion, etc. Those to me seem like issues that are only important to people actively involved in the advocacy of said things, and I'm not one to just impose an opinion because I don't understand enough of it myself. My biggest beef with the conservative opinion is that..currently at least..they're reassurance that spending cuts and no revenues are the one size fits all solution to our economy seems so idealistic that for a minute I didn't know if they were conservatives. | ||
|
Vore210
Ireland256 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:36 Duban wrote: I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well. Thats why I said he was opposed at practically every turn, by those factors. However he didn't stand up to the republicans, he compromised a heck of a lot (from what I can see internationally, with guantanamo and the recent talks with boehner (wasn't it?)). The problem, as far as I can see, is that the democrats don't go far enough in the opposite direction to the republicans. The dems seem to be somewhere near the middle, maybe centre left though a lot of what they've done has been more conservative. The repubs have moved so far to the right they've lost their way and ended up in a nuthouse. There needs to be a lunatic left wing to counterbalance the zany right wing, so at least a middle ground can be found rather than the frequent right wing outcome. Edit@ Thoradycus well personally, and I dunno about you, but if one was to put someone in charge of nuclear weapons and launch codes you wouldn't want them to be a religious nut? There's enough problems with that in Iran these days... | ||
| ||
