Octopus Overlords

msduncan wrote:So, who is picking up liberal/Democrat talking points and spitting them out here in a blind attack job on Bachmann versus looking at the facts and seeing that Romney isn't as moderate as you are making him out to be?

Or is the real issue that Romney is a robot that could easily be defeated by your favored candidate, and thus you push him and launch personal assaults on Bachmann?

If Bachmann is the "Queen of Fringe", is Romney the "King"?

msd, quit it. Bachmann and Perry are (IMHO) not qualified to be President of the United States in the 21st century by the virtue of one fact - they both (publicly) value religion over science and will actively deny established science in order to make their base (and themselves?) feel better about a misguided belief that evolution is incompatible with the bible. That should have gone out decades ago (I'd say at least since WW2 was ended with science).

I don't want anyone like this anywhere near the Presidency - it indicates a closed-mindedness bordering on obsession that is flat out unhealthy for our country. Should someone who is so closed-minded about science really have the power of gods at their fingertips? Should they be setting educational standards? Science priorities? NASA funding?

The answer for me is unequivocally no. I believe it should be the same for you.

msduncan wrote:Pawlenty out.

Perry in.


And it's clear who you guys see as a real threat. The hatchet job has already begun on Michele Bachmann. Interesting because on OnTheIssues.org she is NOT the most conservative candidate. She's got two or three of the candidates flanking her well to the right, and she leans more libertarian than populist.

Another conclusion one could draw is that people dislike Bachman because of Bachman herself, not because they have an automatic fear/loathing/distrust of anything "conservative."

This nation is still dominated by the Christian faith. These politicians are not stating or doing anything that is out of the main stream in most American homes. They are not going to turn this country into a theocracy. They are not going to take your rights away. They are not going to put a cross up in the White House lawn.

Reagan was religious.
Kennedy was religious.
Carter was religious.
Obama is religious.

George W. Bush was far more religious than either of these candidates and the issues that most people had against him had nothing to do with religion.

This religion scare tactic is a red herring whipped up by the left who can NOT attack these people on their economic, military, or government philosophy stances. They have to take the only contentious argument that they can against them, which is their religion.

If they put economic, government, or military philosophy against theirs -- they would be thrown out of the building. So they attack where they can. Simple as that.

msduncan wrote:This religion scare tactic is a red herring

That's false. An example that hits close to home, stem cell research could prove very promising for a genetic disease which affects my wife and potentially my daughter. I only wish that this sort of experimentation would've been active without government interference going back at least a decade.

Crazy anti-science policy decisions made in the name of religion is not a red herring.

YellowKing wrote:

My boss just drove his own van out to drop off some equipment at the DC. About a 5 hour drive there and back. Saved the government THIRTY FUCKING THOUSAND dollars in shipping charges.

I saved my company $300,000 this year by giving them a more accurate count of our Office installations and suggesting we move to a new licensing standard. But I wouldn't call my company as a role model for cost savings. We still have major, major areas for improvement.

Until this latest debt ceiling fiasco, I certainly have heard of no serious attempts by politicians to save money. The facts don't back up the idea that they're spending less money. If the government truly is saving money right and left and spending less, then by all means bravo. Let's see the numbers and the results. Then we can talk about hiking taxes.

Really? Not even in the 90's when, after the cold war the military budget was slashed and we actually were running surpluses and paying down the debt?

I understand your point about wanting efficiency and cost-effectiveness, but I'll ask you what the primary role of government is, and I'll give you a hint, it's not to be efficient.

Government is about governing effectively, and in our system, it's about a struggle to non-violently wield the power of the most powerful country on the face of the planet amongst competing interests. Part of keeping us out of bloody power transitions is money and the the bottom line is that sometimes inefficient spending is necessary to ensure that.

Now, our form of government does a decent job of balancing that degree of power with living up to its ideals of being of the people, by the people and for the people - maybe too good, because that, too is inefficient. It is much more efficient to be of, by and for only some of the people, but for the most part we strive to ensure that all the people are included in those statements (which can be hideously expensive, which is why rural folks don't get broadband, etc.). Ensuring opportunity for all, when there is an economic incentive to deny that opportunity to some (most?) is problematic.

Let's take a look at some of the most efficient programs in the US - gov't run healthcare and retirement benefits. As (I believe) Zarathud has indicated many times, VA benefits are more efficiently run than any private healthcare program. Medicare is likely the same (fraud and overhead is likely still higher in the private markets). Social security is also probably more efficiently run than any private system would be - though there is also likely some fraud and waste there as well.

Now let's look at the most inefficient program - the military. We spend over 20% of our budget here. We spend more than all the other countries on earth combined. How efficient is that? Do you think we are getting our money's worth? And if so, why? Perhaps because the job of the military isn't to be efficient, it is to get the job done. The same can be said of government.

You say you want wisdom in politicians? Who amongst the R's running would you say is the wisest? I'd say that in 2008 you made the right decision - President Obama (as problematic as his leadership style has been) has shown to me to be a much wiser choice than McCain-Palin was, and I believe may still be in 2012.

The Meal wrote: Crazy anti-science policy decisions made in the name of religion is not a red herring.

Also, if anyone can point me in the direction of quotes from Bush, Obama, Kennedy, Carter or Reagan that are in the same religious spirit from Senator Bachmann:

It isn’t that some gay will get some rights. It’s that everyone else in our state will lose rights. For instance, parents will lose the right to protect and direct the upbringing of their children. Because our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.

...

This is an earthquake issue. This will change our state forever. Because the immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.

msduncan wrote:This nation is still dominated by the Christian faith. These politicians are not stating or doing anything that is out of the main stream in most American homes. They are not going to turn this country into a theocracy. They are not going to take your rights away. They are not going to put a cross up in the White House lawn.

Reagan was religious.
Kennedy was religious.
Carter was religious.
Obama is religious.

George W. Bush was far more religious than either of these candidates and the issues that most people had against him had nothing to do with religion.

This religion scare tactic is a red herring whipped up by the left who can NOT attack these people on their economic, military, or government philosophy stances. They have to take the only contentious argument that they can against them, which is their religion.

If they put economic, government, or military philosophy against theirs -- they would be thrown out of the building. So they attack where they can. Simple as that.

Christian faith is not incompatible with Science (uh, hello vatican). It's only the brand espoused by Bachmann, Perry, et al. that is. Romney is religious, yet doesn't deny evolution and other science.

This is the 21st Century, not the 19th.

Pyperkub wrote: This is the 21st Century, not the 19th.

Funny you should mention that, as some would suggest Bachmann is worried about the Renaissance:

Bachmann "belongs to a generation of Christian conservatives whose views have been shaped by institutions, tracts, and leaders not commonly known to secular Americans, or even to most Christians," writes Ryan Lizza, who spent four days on the campaign trail talking with the candidate and her husband. He chronicles Bachmann's enthusiasm for the extreme evangelical teachings of the late Presbyterian Pastor Francis Schaeffer, commonly regarded as having sparked the 1970s rise of the Christian Right. Schaeffer loved visiting Florence, Italy, where his idea of Renaissance ruin is on full display.

...

Protestant Schaeffer laid considerable blame for humanist developments at the feet of Michelangelo, the Renaissance sculptor (and -- ahem -- devout Catholic). His close-up camera hid David's nudity, lest it offend tender, Bachmannesque sensibilities. The future King David's mortal victory over Goliath's paganism was a worthwhile subject, since it prefigured Christian triumph. But the elder Schaeffer couldn't imagine that Christ's dual nature -- as both deity and human being -- could be embodied by fusing the exquisite sculpture's unearthly perfection with forthright nakedness.

msduncan wrote:This nation is still dominated by the Christian faith.

This religion scare tactic is a red herring whipped up by the left who can NOT attack these people on their economic, military, or government philosophy stances.

The nation is dominated by religious people, and yet religious scare tactics is the only effective attack against Republicans?

George W. Bush was far more religious than either of these candidates and the issues that most people had against him had nothing to do with religion.

Wait, so religion wasn't an effective attack on a Republican president, other issues were more effective?

Reagan was religious.
Kennedy was religious.
Carter was religious.
Obama is religious.

But three of those presidents were also Democrats who were or are trying to destroy the country. Coincidence? I think not.

The Meal wrote:

msduncan wrote:This religion scare tactic is a red herring

That's false. An example that hits close to home, stem cell research could prove very promising for a genetic disease which affects my wife and potentially my daughter. I only wish that this sort of experimentation would've been active without government interference going back at least a decade.

Crazy anti-science policy decisions made in the name of religion is not a red herring.

Not to mention us gays who are attacked in the name of religion

Not to mention that, religion itself need not be anti-science or anti-gay rights. There are plenty of pro-science pro-gay rights religious people.

msduncan wrote:If they put economic, government, or military philosophy against theirs -- they would be thrown out of the building. So they attack where they can. Simple as that.

Bachmann is unassailable in all other areas? Seriously?

I mean, c'mon, she's a walking bumper sticker with a picture of red meat on it.

Smoove_B wrote:Funny you should mention that, as some would suggest Bachmann is worried about the Renaissance:

Bachmann's enthusiasm for the extreme evangelical teachings of the late Presbyterian Pastor Francis Schaeffer.... Protestant Schaeffer laid considerable blame for humanist developments at the feet of Michelangelo

Good grief. I don't know what's worse-- paranoia about the Italian renaissance or thinking Francis Schaeffer a deep and reliable guide.

This morning Michelle Bachman was trying to claim the mantle of "job creator" by touting the success of her husband's business, a "Christian counseling clinic" specializing in "gay reorientation." I think the economy could do just fine without those jobs....

There's religious, and there's fringe. Going to church and believing in God is entirely different than profiting from gay-hating pseudo-science, something I think is definitely "out of the main stream in most American homes."

msduncan wrote:If Bachmann is the "Queen of Fringe", is Romney the "King"?

That role has been reserved for years by Ron Paul. It's appalling that Ron Paul's crazy ideas have become such a part of the Republican Party's message.

We should note in passing that T'Paw dropped out today after placing 3rd in the straw poll. I don't know much about him except that he didn't have a strong brand.

Kraken wrote:We should note in passing that T'Paw dropped out today after placing 3rd in the straw poll. I don't know much about him except that he didn't have a strong brand.

I think Stewart/Colbert summarized T'Paw's standing pretty well on their Thursday shows talking about the then-upcoming straw poll: "All the republican contenders will be there, as well as Tim Pawlenty."

Zarathud wrote:This morning Michelle Bachman was trying to claim the mantle of "job creator" by touting the success of her husband's business, a "Christian counseling clinic" specializing in "gay reorientation." I think the economy could do just fine without those jobs....

There's religious, and there's fringe. Going to church and believing in God is entirely different than profiting from gay-hating pseudo-science, something I think is definitely "out of the main stream in most American homes."

msduncan wrote:If Bachmann is the "Queen of Fringe", is Romney the "King"?

That role has been reserved for years by Ron Paul. It's appalling that Ron Paul's crazy ideas have become such a part of the Republican Party's message.

Ron Paul is basically a strong libertarian. There used to be a sizable group of them here on these boards. Or at least they were vocal if not sizable.

Zarathud wrote:This morning Michelle Bachman was trying to claim the mantle of "job creator" by touting the success of her husband's business, a "Christian counseling clinic" specializing in "gay reorientation." I think the economy could do just fine without those jobs....

Wow, what a spectacularly bad idea by the Bachmann campaign.

First, she's said previously that she didn't want questions about her family to be campaign fodder. That restriction is out the window if she's going to make her husband's business a campaign talking point. This "business" opens up all sorts of unpleasant conversations about gay rights and her extreme views. It may play well in the primary but it would be poison in a general election.

Second, does she really want to claim the job creator mantle by talking about a business that receives federal funds while simultaneously bashing federal spending?

While Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the "welfare rolls," the mental health clinic run by her husband has been collecting annual Medicaid payments totaling over $137,000 for the treatment of patients since 2005, according to new figures obtained by NBC News.

Exodor wrote: Second, does she really want to claim the job creator mantle by talking about a business that receives federal funds while simultaneously bashing federal spending?

Not to mention she admitted yesterday on Meet the Press that she fought for stimulus funds to go to her district. Her justification:

"I voted against the stimulus and I was very public against the stimulus. After the stimulus was passed and the money was there, why should my constituents or anyone else be disadvantaged?"

So is she tacitly conceding here that federal money can, gasp, improve people's lives? Socialist.

Many politicians claim to be fiscal conservatives. Very few(none of the leading GOP candidates) actually are fiscally conservative.

Captain Caveman wrote:

Exodor wrote: Second, does she really want to claim the job creator mantle by talking about a business that receives federal funds while simultaneously bashing federal spending?

Not to mention she admitted yesterday on Meet the Press that she fought for stimulus funds to go to her district. Her justification:

"I voted against the stimulus and I was very public against the stimulus. After the stimulus was passed and the money was there, why should my constituents or anyone else be disadvantaged?"

So is she tacitly conceding here that federal money can, gasp, improve people's lives? Socialist.

I believe this relates to something about noses and spiting one's face.

Even if you are against spending the money you still have a responsibility to work within the framework given. That money was allocated and her job is to get what she can for her district. That is a separate issue from thinking it shouldn't be spent.

Captain Caveman wrote:

Exodor wrote: Second, does she really want to claim the job creator mantle by talking about a business that receives federal funds while simultaneously bashing federal spending?

Not to mention she admitted yesterday on Meet the Press that she fought for stimulus funds to go to her district. Her justification:

"I voted against the stimulus and I was very public against the stimulus. After the stimulus was passed and the money was there, why should my constituents or anyone else be disadvantaged?"

So is she tacitly conceding here that federal money can, gasp, improve people's lives? Socialist.

I didn't see the interview, but just going off what you posted here, I think you are being unfair.

She's saying she was against spending the money. Well, she was overruled - the money will be spent. So now there is this big pile that they are divvying up - why should she not try to get some? The money will be spent whether she does or not.

From the Communists at the Daily Kos, ...THE REAL RICK PERRY

It stands to reason that a swaggering Texan would know that it is a good idea to look a gift horse in the mouth. Rick Perry rejected $555 million in unemployment insurance from the federal government, only to accept $14 billion in other federal stimulus dollars (directed at his friends and donors in business... the "job creators").

It seems that the closeted secessionist didn't mind the Federal Government stuffing his cronies' pockets... hypocrisy being the least of his shortcomings.

The truth of the matter is that Texas actually lost 352,500 non-farm jobs since 2008 according to seasonally adjusted data over the past three years... and they lost 61,600 additional since March 2011 alone according to the Texas Workforce Commission.

The fact that is all apparently common knowledge and there's still a movement to make him President is...scary.

stessier wrote:She's saying she was against spending the money. Well, she was overruled - the money will be spent. So now there is this big pile that they are divvying up - why should she not try to get some? The money will be spent whether she does or not.

I think she's wise to do so. But to then spout in the same breath that the "stimulus failed", didn't help the economy, didn't create any jobs, etc., while at the same time pursuing federal money for her own district because, at some level, she realizes that stimulus money would help its economy, create jobs etc., is a bit too much. Why else would her constituents be "disadvantaged" without the money unless stimulus funds could provide some benefit?

Smoove_B wrote:

It seems that the closeted secessionist

Dammit, why does the left do this?

There are many, many rumors about Perry's sexual orientation but why throw this bullshit into an otherwise reasonable article? If you've got some proof (ie. the inevitable Craigslist ad or whatever) then put it out there. If you don't then shut the fuck up and talk about the numerous other reasons why he'd be a terrible president.

It's like when Bachmann's husband was being accused of being a closet case. It just makes the accuser look small and petty.

Stop it. (not you. The OMGWTF media.)

I think he also believes being a secessionist is a choice, and not a matter of genetics.

Exodor wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:

It seems that the closeted secessionist

Goddammit, why does the left do this?

There are many, many rumors about Perry's sexual orientation but why throw this bullshit into an otherwise reasonable article? If you've got some proof (ie. the inevitable Craigslist ad or whatever) then put it out there. If you don't then shut the fuck up and talk about the numerous other reasons why he'd be a terrible president.

Uh, I didn't read the article, but, to me, that sentence suggests that he's secretly a secessionist, not gay.

There are some "Rick Perry is gay" rumors out there, but from what I've heard they're all of the "throw random mud and see what sticks" variety rather than the "I have nude pics from my long weekend with Rick Perry" variety.

Hopefully, the media will treat these as beneath notice. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Defiant wrote:Uh, I didn't read the article, but, to me, that sentence suggests that he's secretly a secessionist, not gay.

Possible except that makes no sense since he's pretty open about discussing secession.

Maybe I took it wrong but I keep seeing the same "he's a closet case!" bullshit about him as I do about Mr. Bachmann.

The truth of the matter is that he did have a secessionist experience while in college, but he chalked it up the experimental phase that all young people go through at one time or another.

Zarathud wrote:This morning Michelle Bachman was trying to claim the mantle of "job creator" by touting the success of her husband's business, a "Christian counseling clinic" specializing in "gay reorientation." I think the economy could do just fine without those jobs....

There's religious, and there's fringe. Going to church and believing in God is entirely different than profiting from gay-hating pseudo-science, something I think is definitely "out of the main stream in most American homes."

msduncan wrote:If Bachmann is the "Queen of Fringe", is Romney the "King"?

That role has been reserved for years by Ron Paul. It's appalling that Ron Paul's crazy ideas have become such a part of the Republican Party's message.

Just out of curiosity -- which of his ideas do you find offensively ridiculous?

Mr. Fed wrote:Just out of curiosity -- which of his ideas do you find offensively ridiculous?

We had this discussion.

http://octopusoverlords.com/forum/viewt ... =6&t=53648" target="_blank

I was fan until then.

Searching made me find this

http://octopusoverlords.com/forum/viewt ... =6&t=62842" target="_blank

Exodor wrote:

Defiant wrote:Uh, I didn't read the article, but, to me, that sentence suggests that he's secretly a secessionist, not gay.

Possible except that makes no sense since he's pretty open about discussing secession.

Aside from that that is from more than two years ago - another lifetime ago politically - that article states that

he's not pushing it.

And even if he were publicly for it 2+ years ago, he wouldn't be publicly open about it now.

As for Bachmann, that people are making comedic jokes about a bubbly anti-gay head of a gay conversion therapy center isn't particularly surprising.

Rick Perry - Time to get America working again...

First of all, you're wearing chaps in your video. Second, "An historic" makes my skin crawl.

How did he go from being a Gore campaign worker to an ultra right-wing conservative? As a non-Texan, I am confused.

Mr. Fed wrote:

Zarathud wrote:This morning Michelle Bachman was trying to claim the mantle of "job creator" by touting the success of her husband's business, a "Christian counseling clinic" specializing in "gay reorientation." I think the economy could do just fine without those jobs....

There's religious, and there's fringe. Going to church and believing in God is entirely different than profiting from gay-hating pseudo-science, something I think is definitely "out of the main stream in most American homes."

msduncan wrote:If Bachmann is the "Queen of Fringe", is Romney the "King"?

That role has been reserved for years by Ron Paul. It's appalling that Ron Paul's crazy ideas have become such a part of the Republican Party's message.

Just out of curiosity -- which of his ideas do you find offensively ridiculous?

There are a lot of things about Ron Paul to like (I used to go so far left as to almost be libertarian, and my behind-the-Orange-curtain R friend circled around from the other side to meet in the middle on many issues.

My main problem with Ron Paul's ideology is that it ignores the reality of the situation. Starting from scratch, it might work... but transitioning to it is so complex and likely to break so much and have such a high cost on citizens/businesses that are very dependent on the current system that it isn't worth it. Kind of like how the Dvorak keyboard may be more efficient, but we'll never change from QWERTY, because it's too ingrained.

As well that the transition there could easily be corrupted into something else., kind of like how communism (what sounded like a good idea in theory to a lot of people), was quite easily co-opted into oppressive dictatorship.

YellowKing wrote:Until this latest debt ceiling fiasco, I certainly have heard of no serious attempts by politicians to save money.

The budget acts of 1990 and 1993 were both based around the goal of reducing the federal deficit, and they succeeded in ending it by the late 1990s.

YellowKing wrote:I'm not opposed to taxes. I'm opposed to hiking taxes without first making sure the government is as efficient and streamlined as possible. That's the key.

The government has requirements that preclude certain levels of efficiency. While private enterprise is, theoretically, all about efficiency as a way to reach its desired end goal of greater profits, government has a different desired end goal: fairness. And achieving fairness in its treatment of people and situations necessarily introduces degrees of inefficiency.

I'm all for money being spent wisely. But the definition of "wise" when it comes to expense of money by government is different than the definition of "wise" for private expenses, be they corporate or personal.

msduncan wrote:This nation is still dominated by the Christian faith. These politicians are not stating or doing anything that is out of the main stream in most American homes. They are not going to turn this country into a theocracy. They are not going to take your rights away. They are not going to put a cross up in the White House lawn.

They most certainly do seek to take rights away from me.

Holman wrote:There are some "Rick Perry is gay" rumors out there, but from what I've heard they're all of the "throw random mud and see what sticks" variety rather than the "I have nude pics from my long weekend with Rick Perry" variety.

One of my best friends was the publisher of the blog, Burnt Orange Report, that first published and pushed that story. His evidence for it was... rather thin.

Captain Caveman wrote:

stessier wrote:She's saying she was against spending the money. Well, she was overruled - the money will be spent. So now there is this big pile that they are divvying up - why should she not try to get some? The money will be spent whether she does or not.

I think she's wise to do so. But to then spout in the same breath that the "stimulus failed", didn't help the economy, didn't create any jobs, etc., while at the same time pursuing federal money for her own district because, at some level, she realizes that stimulus money would help its economy, create jobs etc., is a bit too much. Why else would her constituents be "disadvantaged" without the money unless stimulus funds could provide some benefit?

The stimulus can fail to achieve its goals and at the same time people can enjoy having money. The two are not mutually exclusive.

For example, she could give me $100 from the big pile. I'm not creating jobs, I'm just going to put it in the bank, so the money failed to achieve it's goals but I enjoy having the $100 in my account.

Not saying she is right or wrong, just that she is not being inconsistent imo.

Fireball1244 wrote:

YellowKing wrote:Until this latest debt ceiling fiasco, I certainly have heard of no serious attempts by politicians to save money.

The budget acts of 1990 and 1993 were both based around the goal of reducing the federal deficit, and they succeeded in ending it by the late 1990s.

Yeah, I'm sure the massive economic boom/bubble (and thus increased government revenues) of the late 1990's had nothing to do with it.