Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#602 Jan 25 2012 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
So, I've seen Newt's space farmers platform, and it's changed my opinion of him considerably.

[edit: fixed a stray apostrophe]



Edited, Jan 25th 2012 4:13pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#603 Jan 27 2012 at 10:53 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,740 posts
Romney seems to be ahead in Florida so far, though the tea-party and white evangelicals seem to favor Gingrich. Overall it could still go either way.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#604 Jan 27 2012 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I didn't bother watching but, by all reports, Gingrich had a terrible, terrible debate performance last night. I'd assume Romney in FL and the whole thing wrapped up with a bow within the next two weeks.

Edit: Not that it'll make a difference in FL, but Romney has defended multiple investments by saying "It's a blind trust". Video turns up of him debating Ted Kennedy in 1994, saying that blind trusts are an "age old ruse" and that you can control what goes in there.

Edited, Jan 27th 2012 11:15am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#605 Jan 27 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
Yeah, Newt was pretty flaccid.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#606 Jan 29 2012 at 6:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Samira wrote:
Yeah, Newt was pretty flaccid.



There's a reason he's on wife number 3.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#607 Jan 30 2012 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,740 posts
That's mean. You know at least one broke down and he traded in for a newer used car.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#608 Jan 30 2012 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
More Republicans than ever feel their presidential candidates suck.
Quote:
A new Pew Research poll finds Republicans remain unimpressed with their party's presidential field. In fact, more Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the GOP field is only fair or poor (52%) than did so in early January (44%).

By comparison, just 46% of Republican voters have positive opinions of the GOP field. At about this point four years ago, 68% of Republican and GOP-leaning voters rated the field as excellent or good.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#609 Jan 30 2012 at 5:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
For those curious, I was in a training class all last week, so I didn't get to post much. Been avoiding this specifically because it's not an easy/quick response (yeah, I know):


PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Boy you sure love to be patronizing don't you? Do you really think the gays would care if they could get married if there wasn't certain benefits that marriage gave? If there weren't benefits to getting married over getting a civil union, they wouldn't really care about the difference. And yes, I do know that marriage gives special government benefits.


Why not? Heterosexual couples have been getting married for thousands of years before the US government started granting them benefits for doing so. Why then is this considered by *** couples to be the defining point in terms of what is or isn't a marriage? Isn't that silly?

Quote:
So following your logic, there was no need to give people of different colors of skin the right to marry, because that was giving them rights they wouldn't have had otherwise? But yet, when straight people get married, they get all these benefits that they wouldn't have had before. Any person who married another person of the opposite *** would get those benefits. By telling people they can't have those benefits if they marry someone of the same ***, you ARE taking those benefits away from them. Not only is that wrong (even by your book) it's discrimination.


You switched from rights to benefits mid-paragraph. Did you notice that? People of different skin colors were denied the right to marry. Meaning that simply living together and claiming to be husband and wife was illegal in many states and they could be fined and/or jailed for it. That's not the same as being denied a set of benefits because you are married.

And while I suppose technically we can speak of "taking away benefits", since the benefits are something given to you, this does not on total actually take anything away from you. I suppose it's just a matter of how you look at the issue though. I tend to start with the base condition, what things are like if the government doesn't step in and do anything. Then I ask how things are changed by the government's actions. Who gains and who suffers. Not getting a benefit doesn't make you suffer any more than anyone else (like single people) who pay for the cost of those benefits.

Quote:
There certainly aren't any sustained expense of being married, so I don't get why married people get a tax credit. To encourage people to get married I'm guessing, but why does the government care if people get married? So that they have kids so that the cycle of life continues? People already get a tax credit for having kids, and one doesn't need to get married to procreate.


There's an argument for it, but honestly I don't feel like re-hashing it. I will observe that if you can't figure out why we provide marriage benefits for anyone in the first place, then perhaps you're not in a good position to argue about who should receive those benefits.

Quote:
Quote:
When? The GOP controlled both houses of congress and the White House for 6 years. Can you show me a single thing done at the federal level during that time which works towards turning our country into a theocracy? This is often claimed by screaming folks on the left, but it's amazing how it never actually happens.


Okay, that probably is a bit of a hyperbole on my part. But can you at least understand why those of us who aren't Christian might feel that way? Perhaps for you the reason to oppose *** marriage is because it would cost the tax payers more money, but that isn't ever the argument we hear against it. It's always "The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman!" or some variant of that.


It's the argument you choose to hear. You ignore all other arguments. And frankly, it's the most common argument because when you seek out the opinions on *** marriage from religious people, you can't be surprised that you'll get a religious answer. And let's face it, whenever someone in the media wants to ask someone on the right about *** marriage, they magically find the most religious person they can. Perhaps if you spent the effort looking for other reasons, you might just find them? ****. Google "secular arguments against *** marriage" sometime. Here's the first result. Amusingly, this is *exactly* the same argument I've made on this forum many many times.

Yet, every time this subject comes up, someone insists that "no one makes any argument other than religious". No. You just don't listen to any argument other than the religious ones. And when you do hear them, you promptly forget them the next time the subject comes up.

Quote:
Conservatives in several different states have tried to get person-hood amendments passed, so that legally, an embryo is a person. Why do they want to do this? Because they believe that life begins at conception because that's what it says in the bible. That is a great example of how some conservatives are trying to pass laws that are based on theology.


Lol. It doesn't say that in the bible. In fact, one can make a strong case that the bible hints not only at abortion being acceptable, but also a somewhat "pro-choice" position (men are not allowed to abort a child, but women are under no such restriction, for example). The argument against abortion, while often expressed in religious terms (a soul entering the body from the moment of conception), has a **** of a lot more to do with broader ethical changes over time. It's a case of religious rules following social and ethical changes and *not* the other way around.


Quote:
Besides complaining that they don't want to pay for other people's health problems, one of the biggest complaints I hear from the right against having a universal health care system, is that it would take away their choice. I don't see how that's any different than what health insurance companies do. They have a list of preferred providers, and if you want to have your medical bills paid for, you have to go to those doctors. How is that a choice?


You can choose not to buy insurance from that company, or even to buy it at all. Mandated insurance takes that choice away and is a direct infringement of our rights.

Quote:
I suppose you could switch to a different health insurance company, but what if you have diabetes? What if you're pregnant? What if you have a history of ear infections? Those are all pre-existing conditions, and any new health insurance company you go to will not pay for any care related to those conditions. So once people pick a health insurance company, they're pretty much stuck with it unless they are healthy.


You're arguing by exception though. And the fact is that those people still have a choice. If continuing to keep that insurance is the better economic choice for them, then they'll make it. If it isn't, then they wont. It's not about the people who, because of their own health issues would make that choice anyway, but about all those who might make a different choice, but are now forced to make the one the government wants them to make.

Quote:
Quote:
Because liberty does not guarantee an outcome. Liberty simply means that no one else will step in and change your outcomes against your will. Even if it's for the better. There's a difference between arguing that we should do something because you think it's a nice thing to do and demanding that we do it because it's a violation of someone's rights if we don't.


So what you are saying, is that it's okay for a health insurance company to deny paying for treatment for a life-threatening condition, even though they have paid their premiums every month, because if they hadn't had the insurance in the first place they wouldn't have been able to afford it anyways, and they still would have died? That makes no logical sense whatsoever. If that's not what you were trying to say, please elaborate.


Where the **** did you get that? If the thing you are paying the insurance company to do includes covering you if/when you get a life threatening illness, then you absolutely have a right to receive that treatment. You've paid for it.

All I'm saying is that you should always have the right to choose to buy or not buy that insurance in the first place. If you choose not to, then *you* have to suffer the consequences. Liberty does not guarantee an outcome. It does mean that you are free to make your own choice and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences naturally. I'm not sure how you got that so wrong.

Quote:
When you pay your premiums for health insurance, you are doing so under the belief that if you get sick, your insurance company will pay for you to get better. If you get sick, and the insurance company decides not to pay for you to get better, because it would cost them too much money, that IS stepping in and changing the outcome against your will. The insurance company paying for you to get better is not a "nice thing to do," it is what they owe their customers for them paying their premium. To not pay for their clients to get better, is essentially theft. They paid for a service they did not get.



Yes. And no one is arguing that insurance companies should be free to do this. We're arguing against the mandated payment of insurance premiums by everyone who can afford them (and government subsidizing the rest). That's the point where liberty is involved. The outcome I'm talking about is that someone who can't afford insurance wont have it. Taking money from someone else to give them insurance is altering the outcome. We can do this because it's a nice thing to do, but we should never do so because the person has a right to have their health insurance paid for.


Does that make sense?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#610 Jan 30 2012 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Sorry. Teal deer.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#611 Jan 31 2012 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,740 posts
So I turned on CNN to see how the Florida Primary was going, and there's a talking horse discussing Santorum's future prospects. I'm ... I'm not quite sure what the **** that is about.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#612 Jan 31 2012 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Romney's trouncing Gingrich. Big time. I think that the initial bump from South Carolina wore off as people suddenly realized that as much as they liked Gingrich for beating up on stupid CNN journalists, his career choices and actions for the last decade basically kneecaps 3/4ths of the GOP case for replacing Obama with a Republican.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#613 Jan 31 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
So as romney goes so goes gbajis post count?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#614 Jan 31 2012 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
******
49,740 posts
The most stunning thing is the pundits keep calling it a heated campaign, like somehow there was any chance Romney wasn't going to get the nod.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#615 Jan 31 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
So I turned on CNN to see how the Florida Primary was going, and there's a talking horse discussing Santorum's future prospects. I'm ... I'm not quite sure what the **** that is about.


Mr. Ed is a fundy Republican. You knew it all along. You just didn't want to believe it.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#616 Jan 31 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,740 posts
Samira wrote:
Mr. Ed is a fundy Republican.
Of course, of course.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#617 Jan 31 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The most stunning thing is the pundits keep calling it a heated campaign, like somehow there was any chance Romney wasn't going to get the nod.


According to Joph, Romney was the GOP establishment pick last time around, and he didn't win then, right? So maybe some mavericky type candidate will come along and win it. You just never know!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#618 Jan 31 2012 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,740 posts
That's actually not the argument he made about you, but seeing as how he didn't hold your hand and led you down the path I'm not at all surprised you didn't figure it out.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#619 Jan 31 2012 at 8:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
That's actually not the argument he made about you, but seeing as how he didn't hold your hand and led you down the path I'm not at all surprised you didn't figure it out.


/shrug

He specifically argued that my support of Romney back in 2008 didn't mean that I wasn't just following the current GOP party line because Romney was the "GOP establishment candidate" back then too. Which, given that Romney didn't win the nomination in 2008, apparently means that this supposed "GOP establishment" is somewhat meaningless. Either they aren't who Joph thinks they are *or* they don't have the sort of power/influence he thinks they have. Pick one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#620 Jan 31 2012 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Being the establishment candidate doesn't mean you'll automatically win. Smiley: oyvey

It does make it more likely.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#621 Jan 31 2012 at 9:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Being the establishment candidate doesn't mean you'll automatically win. Smiley: oyvey


So what exactly makes a candidate the "establishment candidate" then? I mean, aren't we just basically picking a term out of our butts and bandying it about based on what we want people to think of a candidate? When Romney wasn't showing huge polling margins, it was because the "establishment wasn't behind him". This last week, when he's trouncing Gringrich in the polls, suddenly he's the "establishment candidate". So, were the people saying those things talking about two different groups?

Who is this establishment? I still basically think that the group who make it up change based on what the person using the word wants it to be at the moment. So one week it means some sort of council of religious leaders. The next week, it's a group of business lobbyists. And maybe next week, it'll be whomever the Tea Party leaders (hah. Whoever we decide those are this week) support.


I just think that's an incredible simplification of what's really going on. So much so that it's a meaningless thing to say.

Quote:
It does make it more likely.


If you say so. No one yet seems to be able to give me a list of the names of those who make up this establishment, so I'm not sure how valuable that really is. Ever think that people just make this up as they go along to suit whatever angle they want to present at this moment?

Edited, Jan 31st 2012 7:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#622 Jan 31 2012 at 10:12 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
I'm calling cross-threads shenanigans here. Keep this shit in the ******* thread!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#623 Jan 31 2012 at 10:39 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Debalic wrote:
I'm calling cross-threads shenanigans here. Keep this shit in the ******* thread!


Wah! Smiley: smile

Ok. So out of the first 4 primaries, Romney has won two handedly, tied/came in silly-close second in one, and came in a respectable 2nd in one. Versus Santorum, who won/tied one, came in far 3/4th/whatever in three. Or Gingrich who won one, came 2nd on one, and came in far 3/4th/whatever in two. Or Paul who won one, came in second in one, and distant 3/4th/whatever in the others. Honestly might be off on some of the 2nd or 3rd places, but despite what appears to be massive spin in the media, I haven't seen this strong a start in an open primary for a very long time (maybe not even in my lifetime, but I don't feel like looking it up).


Anyone still playing the "Romney just doesn't have the support he needs" card out there?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#624 Jan 31 2012 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Debalic wrote:
Keep this shit in the ******* thread!


Now that's an Asylum post I can get behind.
#625 Jan 31 2012 at 10:56 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,740 posts
Out of the first four primaries, there has been five first place finishes? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#626 Jan 31 2012 at 11:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Out of the first four primaries, there has been five first place finishes? Smiley: dubious


One of them was a "tied/close second place" and the other a "won/tied". Or did you miss the whole bit where Iowa was initially called for Romney, then on final count went to Santorum, with a total of 40 vote differential between the two counts?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (53)