Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Awesome Republican Primary Thread
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 295 of 1485 (637990)
10-19-2011 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by hooah212002
10-19-2011 12:29 AM


Just saw Moose's warning.
Yeah I just saw it, too. Start a new thread if you like. I'd like to explore the notion of "corporate personhood", I think it's pretty fuzzy for you (and for pretty much everybody who is on about it.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by hooah212002, posted 10-19-2011 12:29 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 316 of 1485 (639683)
11-02-2011 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Coyote
11-02-2011 10:40 PM


Re: Herman Cain
After stories of real indiscretions deftly handled by a large "bimbo eruptions" team whose main task seems to have been to slander the girls who came forward? But for a democrat, it was acceptable!
Uh, how acceptable was it? Clinton was impeached for that, as you'll recall.
Look, Coyote, I read Frum Forum too, so I know your marching orders are "be sure to deflect criticism from Herman Cain by reminding liberals that Democrat sex scandals always get excused." But here's the problem - Frum (and you) seem to forget that it's never liberal sex scandals that get excused - the aforementioned Clinton impeachment, Edwards currently facing Federal indictment for not using campaign money to pay off his preggo mistress, Elliot Spitzer. It's Republicans who always get away with it - Newt Gingrich's adultery while he was impeaching Clinton for his, David Vitter who confessed to crimes on national TV and yet was never charged, Rush Limbaugh stealing Viagra for a trip to the Dominican Republic (this hemisphere's primary sex tourism destination.)
Guess the democrats are getting a bit nervous about 2012, eh?
You're not thinking it through. Come November 2012, we'd much prefer to have Obama up against not-ready-for-primetime, gaffe-a-minute Herman Cain than Mitt Romney, currently the only Republican adult in the room. Unlike Cain, Romney has actually won elections and has experience as an executive. Romney's ACA-predecessor Massachussets health care system is much more of a liability for him in your primary than in our general, since Obama can hardly hang around his neck what Obama would like to claim as a victory for himself, right?
No, we'd much rather have Cain vs. Obama. Call it the Audacity of Hope vs. the Audacity of a Dope.
Even Cain is saying this is an inside job. Look to your own guys, Coyote. Obama's style is to let his opponents shoot themselves in the face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Coyote, posted 11-02-2011 10:40 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Coyote, posted 11-02-2011 11:23 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 320 of 1485 (639729)
11-03-2011 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Coyote
11-02-2011 11:23 PM


Re: Herman Cain
Clinton was impeached largely for lying under oath.
For lying under oath about sex. With Monica Lewinsky. During an investigation that had nothing to do with sexual misconduct. Remember that Ken Star was supposed to be investigating Whitewater? What was the plausible probitive value of his sexual antics?
I notice you don't even try to defend the Edwards indictment. I'm glad that we're on the same page about conduct that may be personally reprehensible but shouldn't be against the law.
I agree with you--I'll take Obama vs. Cain in 2012 any time.
Is that what you're so afraid of?
I don't understand how you reconcile these two statements. Doesn't matter to you, I guess - politics for you isn't an expression of an ideal or a means to translate policy into law, it's just a big game of "fuck the liberals."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Coyote, posted 11-02-2011 11:23 PM Coyote has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 329 of 1485 (640561)
11-10-2011 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Taq
11-10-2011 12:31 PM


Re: The Republican party is full of fucking buffoons.
If Jefferson Davis were resurrected from the dead, would he be a viable Republican candidate.
I think an undead Jefferson Davis would probably electrify the conservative base with his "brains-brains-brains" tax plan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Taq, posted 11-10-2011 12:31 PM Taq has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 341 of 1485 (640588)
11-10-2011 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Buzsaw
11-10-2011 7:01 PM


Re: The Republican party is full of fucking buffoons.
What form of government do you favor?
A democracy, natch!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Buzsaw, posted 11-10-2011 7:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(3)
Message 365 of 1485 (642973)
12-03-2011 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Taz
12-03-2011 1:14 AM


I also can't see the conservative base voting for Ron Paul, the one republican that I actually like.
What's to like about him? He's a racist pro-life creationist meddler just like the others. Oh, I get it - you were fooled by his "small government" rhetoric. Except that "small government" means exactly the same thing to Ron Paul that it means to all the others - a government just small enough to redistribute money from the poor to the rich and snoop on your bedroom activities.
He's like Pat Buchanan with more money. Great, he wants you to be able to smoke legal pot. Boy, it's too bad that in all this time he's never held some kind of public office where he could pursue that as a policy agenda, right? Oh, wait.
He's a fraud. Somehow he's managed to fool people into thinking he's something besides what he is - a white, male Republican from the South.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Taz, posted 12-03-2011 1:14 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Taz, posted 12-03-2011 4:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 367 of 1485 (643002)
12-03-2011 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by Taz
12-03-2011 4:10 PM


I like him because at least he's honest and upfront about what he's like. Look at all the other candidates. They are either flip floppers or they try to pull the god card.
And here's Ron Paul pulling the God card. Sure, at least he's relatively consistent in his views over time, except in so far you would expect his stated positions to be reflected in his legislating. So he's managed to rise to the standard set by Michelle Bachmann. Like I say, I'm just not seeing the appeal or what separates Ron Paul from the rest. He's just another cookie-cutter white Southern Republican.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Taz, posted 12-03-2011 4:10 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Taz, posted 12-03-2011 6:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 369 of 1485 (643005)
12-03-2011 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Taz
12-03-2011 6:59 PM


Out of all the candidates Ronny is the only one that doesn't mention god and make sure the world knows he thinks evolution and climate change are hoaxes by scientists.
Except, I guess, for when he's mentioning God and making sure the world knows he thinks evolution and climate change are hoaxes by scientists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Taz, posted 12-03-2011 6:59 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Taz, posted 12-03-2011 11:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 374 of 1485 (643033)
12-04-2011 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Taz
12-03-2011 11:59 PM


Who is your least hated candidate among the republicans?
Jon Huntsman. In contrast to the walking facade that is Ron Paul, I think Jon Huntsman really is a guy who thinks its more important to govern well than to govern from principle. He's Obama-like in that respect. (Not that Huntsman hasn't had his own shameful moments of pandering.) I would say that all of the rest, including Ron Paul, are a bit too plagued by ideology-itis.
Of course, like Ron Paul he'll never win the nomination. The problem with the Republican party is the Republican base.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Taz, posted 12-03-2011 11:59 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Taz, posted 12-04-2011 2:20 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 379 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2011 2:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 379 of 1485 (643382)
12-06-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by crashfrog
12-04-2011 12:17 AM


Who is your least hated candidate among the republicans?
Jon Huntsman.
Of course, two days after I say that, Jon Huntsman basically abdicates any claim to being a reasonable human being:
quote:
Jon Huntsman Flip-Flops On Climate Change
Jon Huntsman used to believe climate change is real. Now he’s not so sure.
In a move that’s sure to endear him to the conservatives who are starting to warm up to the former Utah governor, Huntsman said Tuesday under questioning from TPM that he now believes there’s more debate yet to play out before we can be sure climate change is really happening.
That’s certainly not the way Huntsman sounded waaay back in August, when he famously tweeted:
To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy. That was part of an organized effort by Huntsman to be the sane one when it came to climate science.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/...s-on-climate-change.php
It's a good thing Obama is so awesome, because I wouldn't vote for any of the GOP clowns for dogcatcher, unless I wanted to be sure that my neighborhood was overrun by wild dogs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by crashfrog, posted 12-04-2011 12:17 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by hooah212002, posted 12-06-2011 2:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 406 of 1485 (644080)
12-14-2011 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Buzsaw
12-14-2011 6:08 PM


Re: Good For Perry
GIs will, by and large find two gay men soldiers making love, kissing, etc in the trenches and around the bases repulsive and demoralizing.
The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" did not, in fact, repeal anti-fraternization regulations for soldiers.
You are, as always, an idiot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Buzsaw, posted 12-14-2011 6:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 452 of 1485 (645000)
12-22-2011 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by Coyote
12-21-2011 11:03 PM


Re: Completely misleading story about Newt saying gays should vote for Obama
All Gingrich said was that if the single most important and determinative issue to a gay person was implementing gay marriage, then that person would be disappointed in Newt and probably should vote for Obama.
So, the truth is that Gingrich said that if you care about your own rights, as a gay person, you should vote Obama.
Oh, well!
"Misleading" would be the claim that the reporting on this issue has been misleading. "Misleading" would also be Gingrich's implicit claim that there is any significant number of gay men and women who are thinking to themselves "boy, I'd really like to start a family and these Federal restrictions on my right to marry sure are inconvenient, but what really chaps my ass is a .5% increase in the top marginal tax rate!"
That said, I think this whole story is only significant because Gingrich, perhaps accidentally, said something that was true. In politics that's called a "gaffe."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Coyote, posted 12-21-2011 11:03 PM Coyote has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 464 of 1485 (645587)
12-28-2011 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Taz
12-28-2011 2:56 AM


Re: Freedom from religion?
Why are you even bothering to talk to Jar? You know what's going to happen - one line, maybe one word replies that don't advance the conversation or elaborate on his points or respond to contrary evidence (just as he's currently completely unresponsive to the portion of the First Amendment you bolded); when you try to elaborate on his arguments in order to draw him out ("are you saying that...") he'll complain that you're misrepresenting him without actually explaining what he did mean. Fruitful discussion has always been impossible with Jar. Let him post his inscrutable, Buz-like arguments. Everybody already knows what an idiot he is; there's no need to risk the possibility that, by talking with him, the rest of EvC might not notice that you're not an idiot as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Taz, posted 12-28-2011 2:56 AM Taz has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 568 of 1485 (649031)
01-19-2012 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by Buzsaw
01-19-2012 8:21 PM


Re: Gingrich Will Kick Obama's Butt Go Gingrich!!
Have you ever noticed how quick and effective Newt's responses have been in the debates, particularly the last one?
Have you ever noticed that as soon as someone appears to be polling better than Romney, you're all up on their nuts?
Wasn't it last month you were telling us how we should be afraid - very afraid - of a Cain candidacy? Boy, that guy folded like a card table. Perry's out, too; that's the most brains he's shown in the entire race. (Presumably he only stayed in as long as he did because it's taken him this long to be able to spell "withdraw.") At some point you're going to have to stop blaming the media for your party's failures in governance and candidate selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2012 8:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 604 of 1485 (649546)
01-24-2012 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 603 by Taz
01-24-2012 12:39 AM


Re: Is any of them really electable?
It really doesn't matter which one gets nominated, the Obama campaign will murder these guys.
It's probably 60% certain, but you can't underestimate the power of liberals to be complacent, or the caliber of the DNC's circular firing squad. A lot of idiots over on our side are still talking about a primary challenge to the President - by Hillary Clinton, no less.
Yeah, Firebaggers, that's exactly who we want facing Gingrich. Some people's kids!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by Taz, posted 01-24-2012 12:39 AM Taz has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 605 by Perdition, posted 01-24-2012 10:18 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024