Careful -- they'll make you drink the hemlock if you keep that up.
Hemlock was Socrates' thing, Hype beverage, like absinthe.
Hemlock was Socrates' thing.
...and Socrates was Plato's mentor, and the main character in many of his dialogues.
Templeton, you lost me when you decided to go all wall of text on Obama, a man whom this thread isn't even about.
@Templeton: You may want to be careful with mixing the "mom's basement" accusation and politics while talking to this crowd. You never know if the person you're accusing of un-American nerdiness may actually be way more patriotic than you — and on the other side of the argument. I'm not rushing to defend Mr. Obama, I just think the way you ended that post was really shallow.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am the author of the article under the link there. It was a few years ago and they never fixed the damned typos.
It's to the negative of the Republican party that they've allowed Newt to get this far to begin with because as the OP states, the Newt of the 90's has a LOT of problems. If Hermain Cain's derailment due to affairs knocked him off, Newt, who has had multiple affaris and is a known pain killer abuser, has a hella lot mot backstory to come into play.
It's not the scandals, it's how the candidate responds to the scandals. Cain was just terrible at rolling with it, and it showed.
It's not the scandals, it's how the candidate responds to the scandals. Cain was just terrible at rolling with it, and it showed.
I fully agree with this. Everyone has things in their past that embarrass them -- it's part of life to make mistakes. In the political arena it is extremely common for such mistakes to be brought back to haunt you. How a politician responds and copes with these set backs shows their ability to think and act under fire -- when things aren't going their way and they have problems pressing in.
Cain folded. He showed a clear lack of capability to deal with pressure and his past mistakes. Such behavior clearly marks him as not being presidential material.
Like a turtle, I was slowly working my way through this thread. Then I saw that DA had bunped it back up again and I chewed him out for it. "I'm not done reading!" I yelled.
Then he did his coy b#!$~@%+ and went "Hee hee hee!"
Slanderous falsehood! I only go "Hee hee!" not "Hee hee hee!"
I, a staunch conservative despite having never cracked the $40k a year barrierNo surprise there. Everyone within the 40K to 140K range moved over to the Democrats (or simply gave up in frustration, like me) years ago. The Republican platform is that wealth inequity is the greatest development since the wheel, and their support group is accordingly the rural poor and the ultrarich.
Nailed it.
Funny how many people in the former group have are convinced that the hand in their pocket is the governments... :P
Remember the whole impeachment thing? Still mad/ticked off/mildly annoyed by it? Time to get even, methinks.
Newt stated that he would have John Bolton as Secretary of State, to thunderous applause in front of the Republican Jewish Coalition. A thunderous applause of criminality!/Tick voice
So Newt now appears to be the Republican front-runner, while Huntsman is bringing up the rear.
W
T
F
?
Remember the whole impeachment thing? Still mad/ticked off/mildly annoyed by it? Time to get even, methinks.
Newt stated that he would have John Bolton as Secretary of State, to thunderous applause in front of the Republican Jewish Coalition. A thunderous applause of criminality!/Tick voice
That's interesting and actually provides a lot more insight into how campaigns are ran and why some stuff is done and other stuff isn't.
On a side note I've heard it said that Newt has a file cabinet in his office with five drawers. The first four are labeled "Newt's Ideas" and the last one is labeled "Newt's Good Ideas" -- not that I fault a guy for that, not every idea can be a good one.
The trick there is
for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy
You're allowed to say you'd put him in the office because you agree with his policies to get OTHER people that agree with his policies to support you. Just not to get HIM to support you.
Seriously, congress never writes a law that stops congressmen from doing anything. If a law looks like it says they can't then you're just not thinking evil enough.
But again it does show reasoning behind why and how they say things, like, "Well I suppose someone like (person x) would be a good person to have for (position y)." or as Newt put it, "I would have (person x) for (position y)." With no qualifiers on it.
*procures white hat and swivel chair*
Another loophole: any time you're asked a question you can answer it. You're not promising anyone a position for the purpose of securing their support you're answering for the purpose of answering the question.
Oh well, it was a good try. Anyways, try this short quiz, It is hilarious.
Oh well, it was a good try. Anyways, try this short quiz, It is hilarious.
Argh! Hilarity...utter despair. Cognitive dissonance...too strong.
The only comfort I can offer Romney is this: At least you aren't trying to get nominated while being an atheist. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paul was leading the polls in Iowa a few days ago...
Yeah, i think people learned what a fraud Newt is. Just another "conservative" with absolutey no conservative ideas.
Newts a seasoned politician and the best statesman this counry has right now BUT some fools will elected Obama the community organizer of Crook county and will vote for him again to the detriment of this country.
Paul was leading the polls in Iowa a few days ago...
Odds are long that he'll actually get the nomination but I'd love it if he did. I would actually be able to vote for someone I truly support and who has a chance to win an election. That would be a first.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Newts a seasoned politician and the best statesman this counry has right now BUT some fools will elected Obama the community organizer of Crook county and will vote for him again to the detriment of this country.
If i see a better option than Obama I'll vote for it, but Ron Pauls chances of winning the primary are pretty slim.
As it is, there is no freedom in the republican party for anyone except millionaires. There's no capitalism, only a rigged system. Until I see a fair system I'm going to vote for the unfair one that gets more people what they need.
|
Newts a seasoned politician and the best statesman this counry has right now BUT some fools will elected Obama the community organizer of Crook county and will vote for him again to the detriment of this country.
Are you trying to be derogatory? Because Crook County is pretty f#&*in awesome. I know people there. And it has cool birds.
As it is, there is no freedom in the republican party for anyone except millionaires. There's no capitalism, only a rigged system. Until I see a fair system I'm going to vote for the unfair one that gets more people what they need.
+1
This is sort of a twist on the way I summarize my political views:Both socialism and laissez faire capitalism work as economic systems, on average, and in the long run. However, socialism (we're talking Euro model) has less suffering for less people, and I'd like to err on the side of less suffering.
I'd say neither pure socialism nor laissez faire capitalism work as an economic system. A merged approach, basically capitalist but with strong regulation and a good safety net is the best approach we've found so far.It won't work in the long run though. Capitalism, even restrained, requires infinite expansion and this remains a finite system.
Depends what you mean by "work". What doesn't work about either seems to be the social implications. But, disregarding the human factor, cap works just fine. Again, as a model. The human race may fail in the long run because we are expanding and our resource pool is contracting, that remains to be seen.
Newts a seasoned politician and the best statesman this counry has right now BUT some fools will elected Obama the community organizer of Crook county and will vote for him again to the detriment of this country.
*yawn*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, after 433 posts, I'm still wondering what the hell the title of this thread even means.
I don't either, but I think we should keep this thread alive.
My apologies to the Occupy crowd, who've already seen it.
You know, after 433 posts, I'm still wondering what the hell the title of this thread even means.
I think it means the OP didn't proof-read.
The pattern continues. Another Not-Romney has risen and fallen.
Ron Paul is the next. He may peak at the right time to win Iowa, but it's nothing more than that.
The Republican base doesn't want Romney, but each of the alternatives falls apart when the spotlight shines on them.
It would be funny if it wasn't sad.
Agreed on all counts. Romney's religion remains the elephant in the room.
Romney's religion remains the elephant in the room.
I couldn't care less if Romney's religion is to worship an elephant -- as long as he leaves it in church on Sunday, and shows up to work on Monday morning ready to do his job. Unfortunatelty, that seems to be a minority opinion.
Romney's religion remains the elephant in the room.I couldn't care less if Romney's religion is to worship an elephant -- as long as he leaves it in church on Sunday, and shows up to work on Monday morning ready to do his job. Unfortunatelty, that seems to be a minority opinion.
Right there with you. But if the man weren't a Mormon, he'd already be the presumptive nominee -- a fact which seems to hit a little too close to home for many...
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Republican voters are bigots, the guy is pretty unimpressive from an actual conservative standpoint.
Sure, he can explain it away by the fact that he was governor of Massachusetts, for Christ's sake, and beg for some allowances, but that's the problem. Most of the rest of the country's Republicans hate Massachusetts.
Teamsters Local 25, baby! Go Sox!
Sure, he can explain it away by the fact that he was governor of Massachusetts, for Christ's sake, and beg for some allowances, but that's the problem. Most of the rest of the country's Republicans hate Massachusetts.
Yeah, I was personally thinking that it had more to do with the John Kennedy association, and less to do with the Joseph Smith one.
Sure, he can explain it away by the fact that he was governor of Massachusetts
-see, quotes and everything :)
I don't think explanations work very well with republicans (or at least the ones likely to vote in the primaries). They like black and white, no gray areas, no excuses, no compromises. No one actually GOVERNS like that of course, but you need that image.
"I governed as far to the right as I could" is a viable strategy, but to a republican its like lying about who you really are. And if mit "lied" to Massachusetts then there's no reason he can't be lying now.
Right there with you. But if the man weren't a Mormon, he'd already be the presumptive nominee -- a fact which seems to hit a little too close to home for many...
I don't know about that. I think being a "real*" christian would help, not not nearly as much as being a real conservative. Honestly, his plea to doing something differently than obama is "Its ok if the state government makes you do this , but i would never do it at the federal level" is pathetic. Government is government.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When Barack Obama appeared at Central High in Manchester, NH, my Occupy buddies held up signs that read "Welcome President Bush!"
In many ways, GeorgeBushisBarackObamaisMittRomney and this, I think, is why many rank-and-file Republicans aren't thrilled about him; for this exact reason, it is also why I think he will probably be the Republican's 2012 presidential candidate.
I went to his office and I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position. And his response was – Well they told me in Salt Lake City I could take this position, and in fact I probably had to in order to win in a liberal state like Massachusetts.
I hope that was one of his rare attempts at a joke -- if so, it's actually pretty funny.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about that. I think being a "real*" christian would help, not not nearly as much as being a real conservative. Honestly, his plea to doing something differently than obama is "Its ok if the state government makes you do this , but i would never do it at the federal level" is pathetic. Government is government.
To be fair, only a tiny handful of these politicians are real Christians. Christ was a pacifist who said things like "love thy enemy" and "turn the other cheek". He would not have condoned the current actions of our leaders. We've pretty much become the modern-day version of Ancient Rome. Kind of ironic, I suppose.
I don't know about that. I think being a "real*" christian would help, not not nearly as much as being a real conservative. Honestly, his plea to doing something differently than obama is "Its ok if the state government makes you do this , but i would never do it at the federal level" is pathetic. Government is government.To be fair, only a tiny handful of these politicians are real Christians. Christ was a pacifist who said things like "love thy enemy" and "turn the other cheek". He would not have condoned the current actions of our leaders. We've pretty much become the modern-day version of Ancient Rome. Kind of ironic, I suppose.
Christianity, on the whole, hasn't been made of many christ-like people. Not since Rome and the ceremony of baptism no longer being elective but performed on newborns. That made it so that people identified as Christians not because of any firm belief in pacifism, charity, altruism, etc but because it was the prevailing cultural norm.
And where does one get a Real Christian decoder ring? 'Cause from where I'm sitting, the definition is "the other guy."
Is it over yet?
Never!