Octopus Overlords

Defiant wrote:While his campaign limps on life support, Gingrich has made good use of social media, having a huge following on twitter and hanged in a G+ hangout.

For an old guy, I'm impressed with how well he's using technology/social media.

Holman wrote:Bachmann is up, Up, UP!



Do any of you know any Bachmann people? Do they have basic literacy?

Fitzy wrote:I disagree with the people who keep electing her. But, demonizing groups of people has never helped any situation that I have seen.

Fireball1244 wrote: The *first* thing the Republicans did when they took completely power in 2001 was to cancel PAYGO, the second thing they did was slash taxes for the highest-income Americans (while leaving unchanged or lowering only slightly the taxes of most Americans),

The Bad Shepherd wrote:Coming next election, I will finally be able to vote. This, uh, Bachmann character...not voting for her. But is she any more horrible than the other extremists? I don't see what makes her so special. She's crazy and should be nowhere near the White House, but that could be said about several Republican candidates.

Not defending her. Just asking - why make a big deal out of her specifically?

The Bad Shepherd wrote:Coming next election, I will finally be able to vote.

Defiant wrote:why make a big deal out of her specifically?

Kraken wrote:

Defiant wrote:why make a big deal out of her specifically?

Defiant wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Defiant wrote:why make a big deal out of her specifically?

Just to point out, that was Bad Shepherd.

Kraken wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Defiant wrote:why make a big deal out of her specifically?

Just to point out, that was Bad Shepherd.

Sorry, quote FAIL

Evangelicals joined with libertarians last year to issue the "Mount Vernon Statement" demanding a recommitment "to the ideas of the American Founding." The year before that, the Faith & Freedom Network & Foundation published a "Saving of America Manifesto" and evangelicals connected with Catholics and Orthodox Christians to publish the "Manhattan Declaration" defending "the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience." In 2008, disgruntled megachurch pastors lamented the over-politicization of faith in an "Evangelical Manifesto." Don't confuse that document with the other "Evangelical Manifesto" published in 1996 by the National Association of Evangelicals, or the 1990 "Call to Biblical Fidelity" or the bestselling Christian Manifesto published by Christian Right guru Francis Schaeffer in 1981.

Texian wrote: Religious beliefs can easily be faked and lied about in order to win votes. It is infinitely more difficult to fake and lie about one's intellectual qualities and capability of dealing with the gigantic problems facing our nation and the world.

Just my cents on why I detest all the religious woo woo stuff being bandied about in politics.

Machiavelli wrote:Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.

And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to faith, friendship, humanity, and religion. Therefore it is necessary for him to have a mind ready to turn itself accordingly as the winds and variations of fortune force it, yet, as I have said above, not to diverge from the good if he can avoid doing so, but, if compelled, then to know how to set about it.

For this reason a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five qualities, that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result.

The religious stuff is certainly dominating the early campaign news but I don't see how any of it is relevant in determining who is fit run the country.

YellowKing wrote:

As a fiscal conservative, it's really, really frustrating to see the media and the Republican party itself place so much emphasis on the social side. Roe v Wade is not going to get overturned because a Republican takes the White House. Of course, it's great fodder for Democrats. It's easy to attack Republicans on polarizing social/religious issues. Why the Republican party continues to want to die by that sword really irritates me.

YellowKing wrote: As a fiscal conservative, it's really, really frustrating to see the media and the Republican party itself place so much emphasis on the social side. Roe v Wade is not going to get overturned because a Republican takes the White House. Of course, it's great fodder for Democrats. It's easy to attack Republicans on polarizing social/religious issues. Why the Republican party continues to want to die by that sword really irritates me.

YellowKing wrote:

The religious stuff is certainly dominating the early campaign news but I don't see how any of it is relevant in determining who is fit run the country.

Most of the policies where religion would come into play - mostly the social policy side - are issues that the majority of Americans place really low on the totem pole. If you take a poll on most important issues you're going to get jobs, economy, healthcare, foreign policy, etc. You're not going to see abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, etc.

As a fiscal conservative, it's really, really frustrating to see the media and the Republican party itself place so much emphasis on the social side. Roe v Wade is not going to get overturned because a Republican takes the White House. Of course, it's great fodder for Democrats. It's easy to attack Republicans on polarizing social/religious issues. Why the Republican party continues to want to die by that sword really irritates me.

YellowKing wrote:

The religious stuff is certainly dominating the early campaign news but I don't see how any of it is relevant in determining who is fit run the country.

Most of the policies where religion would come into play - mostly the social policy side - are issues that the majority of Americans place really low on the totem pole. If you take a poll on most important issues you're going to get jobs, economy, healthcare, foreign policy, etc. You're not going to see abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, etc.

As a fiscal conservative, it's really, really frustrating to see the media and the Republican party itself place so much emphasis on the social side. Roe v Wade is not going to get overturned because a Republican takes the White House. Of course, it's great fodder for Democrats. It's easy to attack Republicans on polarizing social/religious issues. Why the Republican party continues to want to die by that sword really irritates me.

Texian wrote:The religious stuff is certainly dominating the early campaign news but I don't see how any of it is relevant in determining who is fit run the country. A president needs to be functional is so many other areas of leadership other than moral: Economics savvy; Coalition building; National security and domestic issue awareness; Futurist outlook (planning for what we do now and how it's impact well into the future). Frankly, religion is the very least of the qualities we should be considering in a president.

Religious beliefs can easily be faked and lied about in order to win votes. It is infinitely more difficult to fake and lie about one's intellectual qualities and capability of dealing with the gigantic problems facing our nation and the world.

Just my cents on why I detest all the religious woo woo stuff being bandied about in politics.

The courts have essentially already ruled multiple times in favor of the harvesting and discarding of pre-birth American citizens, so with that much court precedent that scenario is a moot point.

msduncan wrote: They certainly can't make a successful argument for higher taxes, more spending, government expansion, etc.

A large majority of Americans believe tax hikes should accompany spending cuts to slash the federal deficit.

Sixty-four percent of respondents said that deficit-cutting should comprise a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, while only 31 percent thought spending cuts should do the trick on their own.

There is little chance for ANY of the social bogyman scenarios taking place. The courts have essentially already ruled multiple times in favor of the harvesting and discarding of pre-birth American citizens, so with that much court precedent that scenario is a moot point.

msduncan wrote:

YellowKing wrote:

The religious stuff is certainly dominating the early campaign news but I don't see how any of it is relevant in determining who is fit run the country.

Most of the policies where religion would come into play - mostly the social policy side - are issues that the majority of Americans place really low on the totem pole. If you take a poll on most important issues you're going to get jobs, economy, healthcare, foreign policy, etc. You're not going to see abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, etc.

As a fiscal conservative, it's really, really frustrating to see the media and the Republican party itself place so much emphasis on the social side. Roe v Wade is not going to get overturned because a Republican takes the White House. Of course, it's great fodder for Democrats. It's easy to attack Republicans on polarizing social/religious issues. Why the Republican party continues to want to die by that sword really irritates me.

Agree, but very quietly the Democrats are doing a good job maneuvering them into a position to have to talk about these issues rather than things like the budget, taxes, foreign policy, etc.

It's the only thing that the Democrats can throw against the armor and make a dent. They certainly can't make a successful argument for higher taxes, more spending, government expansion, etc. Therefore they have to hit the Republicans on the soft underbelly -- the social issues.

There is little chance for ANY of the social bogyman scenarios taking place. The courts have essentially already ruled multiple times in favor of the harvesting and discarding of pre-birth American citizens, so with that much court precedent that scenario is a moot point.

Exodor wrote:

msduncan wrote: They certainly can't make a successful argument for higher taxes, more spending, government expansion, etc.

Well...

A large majority of Americans believe tax hikes should accompany spending cuts to slash the federal deficit.

Sixty-four percent of respondents said that deficit-cutting should comprise a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, while only 31 percent thought spending cuts should do the trick on their own.

They're not doing a very good job of making the argument but it's pretty clear that the public would be receptive.

There is little chance for ANY of the social bogyman scenarios taking place. The courts have essentially already ruled multiple times in favor of the harvesting and discarding of pre-birth American citizens, so with that much court precedent that scenario is a moot point.

Yeah, I can't imagine a world where gay couples don't have access to the same rights as straight couples or where gay service members have to hide who they are for fear of being kicked out of the service.

SpaceLord wrote:

msduncan wrote:

YellowKing wrote:

The religious stuff is certainly dominating the early campaign news but I don't see how any of it is relevant in determining who is fit run the country.

Most of the policies where religion would come into play - mostly the social policy side - are issues that the majority of Americans place really low on the totem pole. If you take a poll on most important issues you're going to get jobs, economy, healthcare, foreign policy, etc. You're not going to see abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, etc.

As a fiscal conservative, it's really, really frustrating to see the media and the Republican party itself place so much emphasis on the social side. Roe v Wade is not going to get overturned because a Republican takes the White House. Of course, it's great fodder for Democrats. It's easy to attack Republicans on polarizing social/religious issues. Why the Republican party continues to want to die by that sword really irritates me.

Agree, but very quietly the Democrats are doing a good job maneuvering them into a position to have to talk about these issues rather than things like the budget, taxes, foreign policy, etc.

It's the only thing that the Democrats can throw against the armor and make a dent. They certainly can't make a successful argument for higher taxes, more spending, government expansion, etc. Therefore they have to hit the Republicans on the soft underbelly -- the social issues.

There is little chance for ANY of the social bogyman scenarios taking place. The courts have essentially already ruled multiple times in favor of the harvesting and discarding of pre-birth American citizens, so with that much court precedent that scenario is a moot point.

Do you really think the GOP does a better job on the deficit? Where did this deficit increase come from? Do you realize that the government has grown during every administration, regardless of party affiliation? Do they do a better job on foreign policy? Really? I'm probably arguing against a wall here, but I couldn't let it go.

msduncan wrote:I know that the current administration in the White House is the latest to grow the deficit. Time to throw them out.

GreenGoo wrote:

msduncan wrote:I know that the current administration in the White House is the latest to grow the deficit. Time to throw them out.

Unless your plan is to go rudderless into the future, who do you plan on replacing them with?

It's too bad Clinton isn't available. He's got a proven track record for this kind of thing.

msduncan wrote: I know that the current administration in the White House is the latest to grow the deficit. Time to throw them out.

msduncan wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

msduncan wrote:I know that the current administration in the White House is the latest to grow the deficit. Time to throw them out.

Unless your plan is to go rudderless into the future, who do you plan on replacing them with?

It's too bad Clinton isn't available. He's got a proven track record for this kind of thing.

This makes me laugh. Clinton did nothing other than sign bills passed to him by the newly elected Republican Congress.

Fireball1244 (D) wrote:The balanced budgets of the 1990s were the direct result of two pieces of legislation -- (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D)

(D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) Republican (D) (D) (D) (D). (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D)

(D) (D) the Republican Congress and Republican President (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D)

YellowKing wrote:As a fiscal conservative, it's really, really frustrating to see the media and the Republican party itself place so much emphasis on the social side. Roe v Wade is not going to get overturned because a Republican takes the White House. Of course, it's great fodder for Democrats. It's easy to attack Republicans on polarizing social/religious issues. Why the Republican party continues to want to die by that sword really irritates me.

Defiant wrote:Well, not only do we have a muslim president, but the frontrunner republican is not a christian either