|
|
On August 27 2012 13:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 12:46 white_horse wrote:On August 27 2012 12:26 BallinWitStalin wrote: Are you for fucking real? Are you completely ignoring the Nicaraguan contras issue?
Holy shit. I really do not understand the fetishization of Ronald Reagan by conservatives. Holding a single man up as a "perfect embodiment" of conservatism is a strange thing....
Reagan wasn't the super-conservative that republicans paint him to be. Reagan was involved in one of the biggest proportional tax increases in american history. Not sure how that fits in with the "cut taxes or go to hell" policy the modern GOP platform is about. It's amazing really, at the level of ignorance, stupidity, and the two-faced antics. Slashing tax rates and broadening the base by closing loopholes is about as conservative as you get. By that standard what would you call the republicans from pre Reagan tax level days? Communists?
On August 27 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 13:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 27 2012 12:46 white_horse wrote:On August 27 2012 12:26 BallinWitStalin wrote: Are you for fucking real? Are you completely ignoring the Nicaraguan contras issue?
Holy shit. I really do not understand the fetishization of Ronald Reagan by conservatives. Holding a single man up as a "perfect embodiment" of conservatism is a strange thing....
Reagan wasn't the super-conservative that republicans paint him to be. Reagan was involved in one of the biggest proportional tax increases in american history. Not sure how that fits in with the "cut taxes or go to hell" policy the modern GOP platform is about. It's amazing really, at the level of ignorance, stupidity, and the two-faced antics. He's popular because he was the first neo-con, from my understanding. So he's the first president from the current republican party. Wait, wait ... You have worked for a republican politician and this is your answer for why Reagan is revered? Reagan is revered because 1) he was infinitely better than Carter, and 2) Reagan projected big ideas and a vision of America that no recent president can match. EDIT: and 3) Reagan LED, both domestically and internationally. Love him or hate him, the man spoke with absolute moral clarity and conviction. Sure he spoke with conviction, but he acted horribly immoral. Remember he was a divorced Hollywood actor, he was able to give "charismatic" speeches, then go on to blunder foreign relations and the economy. I'm still not sure why people have such rosy memories of him. I take people on the internet(TL in particular) to be people that can research things, so I'd expect you to look up any arguments and criticisms against Reagan before you say he's such a great man.
|
Ron Paul 2012
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 27 2012 16:42 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 12:46 white_horse wrote:On August 27 2012 12:26 BallinWitStalin wrote: Are you for fucking real? Are you completely ignoring the Nicaraguan contras issue?
Holy shit. I really do not understand the fetishization of Ronald Reagan by conservatives. Holding a single man up as a "perfect embodiment" of conservatism is a strange thing....
Reagan wasn't the super-conservative that republicans paint him to be. Reagan was involved in one of the biggest proportional tax increases in american history. Not sure how that fits in with the "cut taxes or go to hell" policy the modern GOP platform is about. It's amazing really, at the level of ignorance, stupidity, and the two-faced antics. Slashing tax rates and broadening the base by closing loopholes is about as conservative as you get. By that standard what would you call the republicans from pre Reagan tax level days? Communists?
Considering that Nixon was left-wing of Obama on a lot of measures, yes, any pre-Reagan style Republican would probably never make it because they would be slurred as a Marxist, like the radical left-wing Communist Adam Smith.
|
Reagan was responsible for the fake and ineffectual regulation that you see the government with today. Paying corporations to regulate themselves. Shittier, fake regulation while still spending money on it. Responsible for the massive amount of corruption that we see today in so many areas of the private sector. Fuck Reagan.
Edit: as far as Guantanamo, I was surprised to see xDaunt go from revering the Constitution to completely abandoning his principles in the space of like a single post. Hilarious.
|
On August 27 2012 10:52 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 10:22 Defacer wrote:On August 27 2012 08:57 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On August 27 2012 08:29 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 07:09 darthfoley wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote: I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Bush: "Iraq has WOMD" Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol. He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever. Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product. Scary times.
Shame one of them will win. America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. Herman Cain? lol So much for this thread being closly moderated, when people can troll your posts and not add anything to the conversation. *Golf clap* Hermain Cain would of been a great leader. 1) He isn't a real politican. 2) He had great ideas. 999, lower taxes for EVERYONE, less government red tape, Working with the EPA to get them to help business find alternative solutions to help him them into complicance and protect our water and air. 3) He has expereince being a 'Leader'. 4) Unlike Obama,Romney,Clinton,Bush He never said a falsehood. (refering to his political works, obv everyone has lied at some point) Are you fucking nuts? Herman Cain would have had less experience or knowledge of policy than Palin. He was a joke candidate, like Trump. The only reason he was in the primary was to market himself and get a bump in speaking fees. Sheesh. Even Herman Cain knew he wasn't qualified to be president. Well what experience do you need to be president. Obama proved you don't need much. The standards for the presidency have been on decline- just like the rest of my country. Probably not a good idea to point out the lack of experience of one Candidate when the current seated president isn't any better (argueably worse as he never held a real job). SayGen, please -- elaborate on this alternate reality you live in. I would, but when you insult me i'm not so inclined. Thanks for adding to the count of positive TL community members. To my most current knowledge Reagan Show nested quote + The smartest thing that Obama did this term was "lie" about closing Guantanamo Bay.
Lie number 3 and counting. Obama did want to close Gitmo, and tried to, but for political reasons was unable. You can certainley say he failed, but he didn't lie.
|
On August 27 2012 16:42 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 12:46 white_horse wrote:On August 27 2012 12:26 BallinWitStalin wrote: Are you for fucking real? Are you completely ignoring the Nicaraguan contras issue?
Holy shit. I really do not understand the fetishization of Ronald Reagan by conservatives. Holding a single man up as a "perfect embodiment" of conservatism is a strange thing....
Reagan wasn't the super-conservative that republicans paint him to be. Reagan was involved in one of the biggest proportional tax increases in american history. Not sure how that fits in with the "cut taxes or go to hell" policy the modern GOP platform is about. It's amazing really, at the level of ignorance, stupidity, and the two-faced antics. Slashing tax rates and broadening the base by closing loopholes is about as conservative as you get. By that standard what would you call the republicans from pre Reagan tax level days? Communists? Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 13:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 27 2012 12:46 white_horse wrote:On August 27 2012 12:26 BallinWitStalin wrote: Are you for fucking real? Are you completely ignoring the Nicaraguan contras issue?
Holy shit. I really do not understand the fetishization of Ronald Reagan by conservatives. Holding a single man up as a "perfect embodiment" of conservatism is a strange thing....
Reagan wasn't the super-conservative that republicans paint him to be. Reagan was involved in one of the biggest proportional tax increases in american history. Not sure how that fits in with the "cut taxes or go to hell" policy the modern GOP platform is about. It's amazing really, at the level of ignorance, stupidity, and the two-faced antics. He's popular because he was the first neo-con, from my understanding. So he's the first president from the current republican party. Wait, wait ... You have worked for a republican politician and this is your answer for why Reagan is revered? Reagan is revered because 1) he was infinitely better than Carter, and 2) Reagan projected big ideas and a vision of America that no recent president can match. EDIT: and 3) Reagan LED, both domestically and internationally. Love him or hate him, the man spoke with absolute moral clarity and conviction. Sure he spoke with conviction, but he acted horribly immoral. Remember he was a divorced Hollywood actor, he was able to give "charismatic" speeches, then go on to blunder foreign relations and the economy. I'm still not sure why people have such rosy memories of him. I take people on the internet(TL in particular) to be people that can research things, so I'd expect you to look up any arguments and criticisms against Reagan before you say he's such a great man. Republicans miss the boat when trumping Reagan. Everybody liked him personally and the economy got better while he was in office. Likability is far more important than any policy positions since most people don't believe most of what politicians say anyway. It's why Obama is probabley going to be re-elected dispite the bad economy - people like him.
Romney may be a smart businessman, and who knows, maybe a potentially good President, but he is not likable. That's his problem.
|
On August 27 2012 13:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 12:46 white_horse wrote:On August 27 2012 12:26 BallinWitStalin wrote: Are you for fucking real? Are you completely ignoring the Nicaraguan contras issue?
Holy shit. I really do not understand the fetishization of Ronald Reagan by conservatives. Holding a single man up as a "perfect embodiment" of conservatism is a strange thing....
Reagan wasn't the super-conservative that republicans paint him to be. Reagan was involved in one of the biggest proportional tax increases in american history. Not sure how that fits in with the "cut taxes or go to hell" policy the modern GOP platform is about. It's amazing really, at the level of ignorance, stupidity, and the two-faced antics. Slashing tax rates and broadening the base by closing loopholes is about as conservative as you get.
When you say "broadening the base" do you mean making the effective rate closer to the nominal rate, reducing the progressive elements or both?
Edit: Not as far as what Regan did (I can Google!) but modern use.
|
On August 27 2012 16:34 kwizach wrote:Obama did his best to achieve that. It was Congress that blocked his efforts. I'm not sure that even Politifact agrees with you.
|
On August 27 2012 22:15 DoubleReed wrote: Edit: as far as Guantanamo, I was surprised to see xDaunt go from revering the Constitution to completely abandoning his principles in the space of like a single post. Hilarious.
Constitutional protections don't and shouldn't (I forget what the Hamdi decision did) apply to foreign nationals captured in wartime.
|
On August 27 2012 23:01 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 12:46 white_horse wrote:On August 27 2012 12:26 BallinWitStalin wrote: Are you for fucking real? Are you completely ignoring the Nicaraguan contras issue?
Holy shit. I really do not understand the fetishization of Ronald Reagan by conservatives. Holding a single man up as a "perfect embodiment" of conservatism is a strange thing....
Reagan wasn't the super-conservative that republicans paint him to be. Reagan was involved in one of the biggest proportional tax increases in american history. Not sure how that fits in with the "cut taxes or go to hell" policy the modern GOP platform is about. It's amazing really, at the level of ignorance, stupidity, and the two-faced antics. Slashing tax rates and broadening the base by closing loopholes is about as conservative as you get. When you say "broadening the base" do you mean making the effective rate closer to the nominal rate, reducing the progressive elements or both?
I think "broadening the base" means that a greater % of people pay "some" income tax, not the <50% of the population that currently does. It's much easier to vote for tax increases on other people when it doesn't cost you anything.
|
ok who else came here because they thought the title read "us general erection"
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 27 2012 23:01 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 12:46 white_horse wrote:On August 27 2012 12:26 BallinWitStalin wrote: Are you for fucking real? Are you completely ignoring the Nicaraguan contras issue?
Holy shit. I really do not understand the fetishization of Ronald Reagan by conservatives. Holding a single man up as a "perfect embodiment" of conservatism is a strange thing....
Reagan wasn't the super-conservative that republicans paint him to be. Reagan was involved in one of the biggest proportional tax increases in american history. Not sure how that fits in with the "cut taxes or go to hell" policy the modern GOP platform is about. It's amazing really, at the level of ignorance, stupidity, and the two-faced antics. Slashing tax rates and broadening the base by closing loopholes is about as conservative as you get. When you say "broadening the base" do you mean making the effective rate closer to the nominal rate, reducing the progressive elements or both? Edit: Not as far as what Regan did (I can Google!) but modern use. The former -- making the effective rate closer to the nominal rate -- and having more people pay some taxes.
|
I want to see if all the major news orginzations will split-screen the RNC bordcast with the New Orleans evacuations.
One place I'm seeing is 13-15 feet of storm surge in New Orleans.
NHC is saying 12 feet or so. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/WTUS84-KLIX.shtml
...STORM SURGE AND STORM TIDE... AS TROPICAL STORM ISAAC APPROACHES THE COAST...THERE IS AN INCREASING CHANCE FOR COMBINED STORM SURGE AND ASTRONOMICAL TIDE WATERS UP TO 12 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL WITHIN AREAS CLOSER TO THE COAST...RESULTING IN WORST CASE FLOOD INUNDATION OF 4 TO 7 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL IN LOW LYING AREAS AND BAYS.
|
On August 27 2012 11:36 SayGen wrote:US+Russia have enough Nukes to destory all land mass on the planet.
Personal pet peeve of mine is when ppl overestimate how strong nukes are. We could not put a dent in the land mass. We could kill humans but not effect any significant land mass.
|
On August 27 2012 13:24 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 12:46 white_horse wrote:On August 27 2012 12:26 BallinWitStalin wrote: Are you for fucking real? Are you completely ignoring the Nicaraguan contras issue?
Holy shit. I really do not understand the fetishization of Ronald Reagan by conservatives. Holding a single man up as a "perfect embodiment" of conservatism is a strange thing....
Reagan wasn't the super-conservative that republicans paint him to be. Reagan was involved in one of the biggest proportional tax increases in american history. Not sure how that fits in with the "cut taxes or go to hell" policy the modern GOP platform is about. It's amazing really, at the level of ignorance, stupidity, and the two-faced antics. He's popular because he was the first neo-con, from my understanding. So he's the first president from the current republican party. . He was pretty popular to everyone across the board.
|
On August 27 2012 23:57 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 13:24 BluePanther wrote:On August 27 2012 12:46 white_horse wrote:On August 27 2012 12:26 BallinWitStalin wrote: Are you for fucking real? Are you completely ignoring the Nicaraguan contras issue?
Holy shit. I really do not understand the fetishization of Ronald Reagan by conservatives. Holding a single man up as a "perfect embodiment" of conservatism is a strange thing....
Reagan wasn't the super-conservative that republicans paint him to be. Reagan was involved in one of the biggest proportional tax increases in american history. Not sure how that fits in with the "cut taxes or go to hell" policy the modern GOP platform is about. It's amazing really, at the level of ignorance, stupidity, and the two-faced antics. He's popular because he was the first neo-con, from my understanding. So he's the first president from the current republican party. . He was pretty popular to everyone across the board. + Show Spoiler +
We were talking about today, not when he was elected. The question is "why is he still relevant/revered?"
|
On August 27 2012 23:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 22:15 DoubleReed wrote: Edit: as far as Guantanamo, I was surprised to see xDaunt go from revering the Constitution to completely abandoning his principles in the space of like a single post. Hilarious. Constitutional protections don't and shouldn't (I forget what the Hamdi decision did) apply to foreign nationals captured in wartime.
They apply to everyone on US soil. Somehow they claimed Gitmo was US soil. Something like that, huge discussion of de jure and de facto control which determined whether constitution applied. Really confusing and messy. Although that may be Boumendine or Hamdin... I always get the insular cases line all mixed up.
|
Unlike President Barack Obama, who’s drawn complaints for being stingy with his campaign cash, Mitt Romney is spreading the wealth among his GOP congressional allies.
Romney’s biggest grossing committee last month steered at least $3 million to boost GOP congressional candidates who will share the ballot with him, according to finance reports filed last week.
Romney Victory, a joint fundraising committee set up by Romney’s campaign and the Republican National Committee, on the last day of July transferred $1.5 million each to the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
The July transfers, reported here for the first time, were revealed in the congressional committees’ latest Federal Election Commission reports. They helped both committees outraise their Democratic competitors – the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Obama’s campaign had transferred money to the Democratic committees in 2008 and 2010, but has yet to do so this year, despite pleas from top Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Reid and Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). They and other lawmakers have implored Obama’s campaign both to transfer at least $10 million to the Party’s congressional campaign arms and also not to max out wealthy donors.
The reluctance of Obama to heed such requests – and Romney’s willingness to make such transfers – is another in a series of troubling signs on the money front for Democrats. They have struggled to rally their big donors to write big checks to the types of unlimited-money outside groups airing millions in ads boosting Romney and congressional Republicans.
Meanwhile, Romney’s fundraising over the last few months has surged past Obama’s once unparalleled cash machine on the strength of Romney Victory.
Source
|
On August 27 2012 11:36 SayGen wrote:US+Russia have enough Nukes to destory all land mass on the planet. We havn't done it.
Just want to clarify for the others in the thread:
We (and they) do not have enough nukes together to destroy all land mass on the planet.
We don't even have enough nukes to destroy populated land mass.
We have enough to take out about 0.4% of Russia.
They have enough to take out about 0.7% of the United States.
Just clarifying.
|
On August 27 2012 11:19 Fredbearr wrote: I don't understand my own country. Am I the only one who feels bragging about getting revenge is worthless? I don't care if Osama is dead or not. It doesn't change the fact that once Clinton repealed the Glass–Steagall Act the whole U.S. economy has turned to shit after 60 years of prosperity. If the people would focus on who has better ideas rather than who is a republican or who is a christian, we might get a decent politician once and a while who is actually capable of changing for the better.
I agree I am so fucking sick and tired of campaign ads that focus on the negatives of their opponents instead of the positives of their own candidates.
America is fucked.
|
|
|
|