2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[mr_pikachu]

There's been enough talk about candidates and such as of late that I figured it was about time we had a thread devoted to the election. So, which candidates are you supporting? Who has the best chance to win, and who's committing political suicide as we speak? For that matter, will our eventual president improve on the previous four years or make matters worse for our country?

Ladies and gentlemen, you may fire when ready.

[Roy Karrde]

I will be supporting Rick Perry, I believe he has the best chance of winning via the economic message he brings. Having been Governor of a state that brings in 40%+ of the entire employment growth of the nation helps. Right now Bachmann is in a slow burn of political suicide as well as allowing the story get ahead of her. Right now I can only see a new President as a improvement of the country. The last 3 years have been nightmarish.

[Gavin Luper]

I like Obama and I think he will still manage to get in for a second term.

[Heald]

Screw them all. Elect someone who realises America needs to stop shitting all over the rest of the world and gets your own house in order first.

[Katie]

perry can go eat a big bag of dicks. please donate your own money to me because my mansion burned down and I need to build a new mansion, poor poor me a bloo bloo :'(

[Roy Karrde]

perry can go eat a big bag of dicks. please donate your own money to me because my mansion burned down and I need to build a new mansion, poor poor me a bloo bloo :'(

Yeah the Gov's mansion did burn down, it was arson (suspects are link to a Anarchist terrorist group ), and the Governor's need a mansion to work out of, especially Texas which hosts foreign dignitaries all the time. If the White House were to burn down ( again ) we would expect the tax payers to fund a place for the President to work out of.

Edit: Also to note not any house will do also, it has to meet the specifications of the Texas Rangers as they protect the Governor.

[Gavin Luper]

Saw some stuff about Rick Perry on the news. Not so much impressed. Another Texan "social conservative"? Ugh.

[Roy Karrde]

Saw some stuff about Rick Perry on the news. Not so much impressed. Another Texan "social conservative"? Ugh.

Yeah except he absolutely hates George W Bush. Is not a "Compassionate Conservative" like Bush was, and is willing to allow states to have their own marriage laws if there is no Congressional action on Gay Marriage. And then there is his own relationship with the Muslim community. So no I wouldn't call him just "Another Social Conservative"

And then there is that whole thing about Texas creating nearly half the jobs in the entire nation...

[Blademaster]

I vote that we disband our Presidential system and replace it with a Grand Council of accountants so we can get this fucking multi-bajillion dollar deficit under control.

[Deadwood_Zen]

Or at replace every politician in office now with someone who has some common sense and will vote based off what needs to be done instead of what will get them elected another term?

[Becky]

I vote that we disband our Presidential system and replace it with a Grand Council of accountants so we can get this fucking multi-bajillion dollar deficit under control.

I love this response, Blade!

I don't have a preference for a candidate yet. It'll probably be a few more months before I figure out who I'm going to support.

Gavin, out of curiosity, what's your rationale for Obama?

[Gavin Luper]

I love this response, Blade!

I don't have a preference for a candidate yet. It'll probably be a few more months before I figure out who I'm going to support.

Gavin, out of curiosity, what's your rationale for Obama?

Mostly from a slightly selfish, social rights point-of-view, because he is likely the only one who would ever go for legislating for gay marriage and repealing DOMA, and to be honest, quite aside from being good for Americans, it would be a very big pressure on the Australian government to follow suit. He hasn't backed same-sex marriage but he's making noises on it, and I think if he gets in for a second term he will come around and legislate for it.

Also, I believe him as an orator. He's extremely eloquent, intelligent and skilled with his speech, and I think that is something seriously lacking in politics, so I really respect that. As a figure, I think he comes across as an amazing leader, too - he has a strong presence.

Now, as for whether he has the financial credentials to help America out of the mess it's in, I have absolutely no idea, and I'd even be inclined to say no at this stage. But hell, who knows? Desperation can make some amazing things happen, and I bet he's desperate as hell to get in for that second term.

[Roy Karrde]

Mostly from a slightly selfish, social rights point-of-view, because he is likely the only one who would ever go for legislating for gay marriage and repealing DOMA, and to be honest, quite aside from being good for Americans, it would be a very big pressure on the Australian government to follow suit. He hasn't backed same-sex marriage but he's making noises on it, and I think if he gets in for a second term he will come around and legislate for it.

He would need Congress to do something like that, something he will not have. Especially with the pretty much lame duck status he already has.


Also, I believe him as an orator. He's extremely eloquent, intelligent and skilled with his speech, and I think that is something seriously lacking in politics, so I really respect that. As a figure, I think he comes across as an amazing leader, too - he has a strong presence.

Yeah but with a approval rating at 40%, no one is following him, or listening to him.

[Heald]

Obama made the mistake of thinking the Republicans would give a shit about what he wanted to do. He should have fucked compromise and just got on with the job at hand. Regardless of his actual policies he seems to have completely hamstrung by his ridiculous belief that he needed the GOP's approval to get shit done. If this is to be his only term it will be defined by his sheer inaction and lack of the reform he touted.

[shazza]

Obama was elected based on idealistic hope that he will rectify all the wrong doings of the Bush Administration. The 2008 was a black and white election (no pun intended) in that if Bush is the man of “wrong”, then concurrently Obama is the man of “right” – and he capitalised on this consensus and promised change. To an extent he has made change for the better, and indeed far better than Bush, however his gift of charm and eloquence is now becoming his own blight: as the dire reality of the economic catastrophe is being truly realised – such a disaster is going to take years of rectification, quite beyond the Obama Administration (reegardless if it is one or two terms). People are realising that, once again, idealism is not the reality, so they are inevitably turning on him – specifically in the wake of the recent debt ceiling fiasco, confirming that idealism =/= reality.

To capitalise on people’s hopes is too big of enormous task to back up with, and will only result in a downhill slide for the incumbent. Further elections should not delude the voters and accept the reality of the situation. This, however, poses a problem that if both the Republicans and Democrats admit the sheer problem they have dug themselves in, then voters will lose faith in either major party. Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

God Bless America!

[Gavin Luper]

Yeah but with a approval rating at 40%, no one is following him, or listening to him.

Most of the recent polls seem to put him somewhere between 42-44%, which is not as bad as his low of 40%. And a year is a long time to recover from an approval rating of 42-44%, which is hardly disastrous - many other presidents have had much lower approval ratings at one point or another and still got in for a second term. So if he can use his skills to his advantage over the next year, I think he has a shot, especially if he can put forward some good policies and deliver some kind of rousing speeches, which I think he's capable of.

As for his gay rights stance, I'm not saying that legalising gay marriage would get through the parliamentary system necessarily; rather, I'm saying if he made it his position, it would serve as a beacon to other countries.

And I still like him immensely for getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell at last.

[Dark Sage]

Yeah but with a approval rating at 40%, no one is following him, or listening to him.

Roy, that claim is self-defeating. Apparently, at least 40% of people are listening to him.



Right now Bachmann is in a slow burn of political suicide as well as allowing the story get ahead of her.

And yet, she won the Iowa straw poll. That shows what a mess the GOP is in right now.

As for Perry, he's a bigot. I would never in a million years vote for him. His desire to push for a Constitutional Amendment that will outlaw gay marriage will guaruntee that he'll lose.

If you want my honest opinion, I think that if the GOP was smart, they would go with Romney. However, I do not think that the GOP is smart. I hear nothing but lunacy from any of them. Obama is the only politician who makes sense when I listen to him these days.

[Roy Karrde]

Edit: I originally said Obama has a 40% approval rating, as of today Gallup is reporting that his approval rating is at 39%. No President since Truman has won re election by having a rating this low this late into the Presidency.


Most of the recent polls seem to put him somewhere between 42-44%, which is not as bad as his low of 40%. And a year is a long time to recover from an approval rating of 42-44%, which is hardly disastrous - many other presidents have had much lower approval ratings at one point or another and still got in for a second term. So if he can use his skills to his advantage over the next year, I think he has a shot, especially if he can put forward some good policies and deliver some kind of rousing speeches, which I think he's capable of.

This week's Gallup poll had him at 40% and that was right after the crash and downgrade. Now could he raise it? Sure, but usually anything under 50% is defeating. As for giving policies, it is his policies which has driven him from a rating in the seventies, to defying political gravity at 40% ( In reality he should be in the thirties as that is his economic approval rating ).


As for his gay rights stance, I'm not saying that legalising gay marriage would get through the parliamentary system necessarily; rather, I'm saying if he made it his position, it would serve as a beacon to other countries.

There is no reason to do so, his position was quite clear in 2008, he is against Gay Marriage but for States passing it. Unless he gets a challenge from the left that has a chance of beating him, he wont change it.


Roy, that claim is self-defeating. Apparently, at least 40% of people are listening to him.

Yeah.. that basically means that those in the Democratic party are listening to him, for the rest of the country, including the crucial independents, nothing.


And yet, she won the Iowa straw poll. That shows what a mess the GOP is in right now.

No it shows what a mess the Iowa straw poll is. It was a poll in which two of the front runners right now ( Romney and Perry ) did not participate in. Leading to Bachmann and a squad of B Teamers. It is also a poll in which you have to purchase tickets to participate in, for candidates with alot of cash on hand, they can buy the tickets for their supporters and bus them in ( Bachmann bought 6,000 tickets ). For those who either do not have a fanatical following ( See Ron Paul ). Or do not have enough cash on hand to buy thousands of tickets and bus thousands of people in ( See everyone but Bachmann ) they are screwed.


As for Perry, he's a bigot. I would never in a million years vote for him. His desire to push for a Constitutional Amendment that will outlaw gay marriage will guaruntee that he'll lose.

He said he would be fine with a constitutional amendment, a view that was to playcate the social conservatives. It is also something that has no chance of happening. Because of that we should look at what he said before that ie: To allow states to have their own marriage laws. A centrist view I believe was also supported by Barack Obama in 2008

[Bear]

imo Rick Perry has the best name for a President. Just sayin'

Also unless Obama does something drastic his reputation is gonna be far too shot to get re-elected.

[Blademaster]

A discussion of topics concerning the future of the national polity? On our board of miscellanea?

Y5JxIrn4OVs

[Gavin Luper]

Edit: I originally said Obama has a 40% approval rating, as of today Gallup is reporting that his approval rating is at 39%. No President since Truman has won re election by having a rating this low this late into the Presidency. This week's Gallup poll had him at 40% and that was right after the crash and downgrade. Now could he raise it? Sure, but usually anything under 50% is defeating. As for giving policies, it is his policies which has driven him from a rating in the seventies, to defying political gravity at 40% ( In reality he should be in the thirties as that is his economic approval rating ).

Maybe I'm more used to our domestic politics here, but that doesn't sound unrecoverable at all. It only takes a majority to win - that's 50%. Given that polls within a few days of the one I posted to the one you posted varied from 44% to 39% ... it's clear that it wouldn't take long for that rating to turn around enough to win 51%. I'm not saying it will happen and it may not, but I'm saying that for you to say it can't is a bit silly.


There is no reason to do so, his position was quite clear in 2008, he is against Gay Marriage but for States passing it. Unless he gets a challenge from the left that has a chance of beating him, he wont change it.

I think if you read between the lines on basically every speech/remark he's made about gay marriage over the past 12 months, it's pretty clear that he's privately in support of it, but unwilling to say that publicly for fear of the political losses that may occur. Even his public position has moved from being against gay marriage to repeatedly stating "my position on the issue is evolving" and refusing to defend DOMA. I think it's obvious where his personal beliefs are on this issue, and if he gets in for his second term, I think he'll come out in support of it because he doesn't have the pressure of a re-election to worry about.

And based on what DS is saying, plus what I've been hearing in the news, I don't like the sound of Perry at all. Now, preferable to Bachmann, I'm sure, but still ... ugh.

[Roy Karrde]

Maybe I'm more used to our domestic politics here, but that doesn't sound unrecoverable at all. It only takes a majority to win - that's 50%. Given that polls within a few days of the one I posted to the one you posted varied from 44% to 39% ... it's clear that it wouldn't take long for that rating to turn around enough to win 51%. I'm not saying it will happen and it may not, but I'm saying that for you to say it can't is a bit silly.

When you get down to the level of 39% the chance of recovering is very hard. It means you have alienated the other side, alienated independents, and are now alienating your own side. The last incumbent to reach this level this late into the term and not be voted out of office was Truman. That pretty much shows you the history now facing Obama.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, do you know what the approval rating of the GOP-controlled House is? 14%. At least it was the last time I checked. Call me crazy, but I'd say that Obama is doing a great deal better than the GOP right now.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, do you know what the approval rating of the GOP-controlled House is? 14%. At least it was the last time I checked. Call me crazy, but I'd say that Obama is doing a great deal better than the GOP right now.

Yeah umm no. Right now you only have two House members running for the Presidency out of 8. Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann. Neither of them has any real chance of winning. And even if they did, favorability of the ruling body of a House of Congress does not directly correlate with the favorability of a member. If it did then we would have President McCain right now.

Now Obama can run a Truman strategy, meaning that a unfavorable President tries to run against a even more unfavorable Congress instead of his own failed record. But that strategy is one that will lose him the Presidency for two reasons.

A: His most likely challenger will be a Governor or Ex Governor with no ties to the current Congress, and will be running on a record of job creation or business experience.

B: Truman won because of the farm vote and foreign policy, not his campaign against Congress. Neither of which Obama can campaign on successfully this time.

[mr_pikachu]

Yeah, it's looking increasingly likely that we're going to see radical shifts in both Congress and the presidency next election. Right now, the smart money is on most incumbents getting trounced, which is also part of why Obama probably won't face one of the candidates who looks especially weak in approval ratings. Then again, he could always try to make it a party vs. party game by blaming the Republican-controlled House, although a broad sweep like that is likely to lose against the direct attacks that his opponent is likely to lodge.

Granted, we're still 15 months away, and anything can happen during that time, but we're looking at some pretty historic numbers right now in terms of low approval ratings. I think Obama's also lost the element of the unknown -- a promise of change in 2008 worked wonders, but now that the public has seen that not all of his campaign promises were accomplished, the dream of "change" doesn't look so magical. Instead it feels a little more like overblown rhetoric. In any case, it's hard to get the same trick to work twice, so Obama will have to pull out something creative this time if he needs an epic turnaround when crunch time approaches.

With that said, I don't completely buy Roy's claim that the Republican nominee will be a governor or ex-governor. I, for one, support Herman Cain, Pokémaniac (http://www.pokemasters.net/forums/showthread.php?t=22850).

Argue with that.

[Dark Sage]

Herman Cain? The pizza company owner?

And to think, we thought "peanut farmer" was a stretch. And Carter at least was a governor.

[Roy Karrde]

Herman Cain? The pizza company owner?

And to think, we thought "peanut farmer" was a stretch. And Carter at least was a governor.

Hey it could work, in a year where people are incredibly turned off by politicians, they may actually want some one with no political experience.

[mr_pikachu]

So, what do you guys think about the growing rift among right-wingers? I'm talking, of course, about the so-called tea party. Romney's outright said he doesn't care about the tea party and is skipping a Labor Day presidential candidate forum hosted by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, a tea party "kingmaker," even as Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, and Perry all accepted (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/22/four-gop-candidates-sign-up-for-demint-presidential-forum/) their invitations. What do you think that will do to the candidates' respective chances, as well as the odds of the eventual Republican nominee unseating the incumbent Obama?

I'm starting to wonder if the fragmentation will derail any chance that the right has of garnering enough support on election day, even as Obama's poll numbers flounder. My thought, at least, is that a moderate candidate will struggle to gain grassroots support, while a far-right candidate will alienate undecided voters... hrm.

[Dark Sage]

If Romney is rejecting the Tea Party, he may well be the only smart Republican in the bunch. But I've said many times, Romney is their best bet right now if they knew what was good for them (and I don't think they do).

[mr_pikachu]

So. I called Cain almost two months ago, when he was polling in the single digits among GOP candidates. Now he sits firmly in the top two for all recent polls (http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html). He's trailing only Romney in the Reuters, Bloomberg, and Gallup polls of voting-age adults, he's tied with Romney in Rasmussen's poll of likely voters, and he's winning among Public Policy Polling's and NBC News' registered voters.

Hey, if you can sell pizza, you can sell a message, too. It also doesn't hurt that Romney's been hammering Perry on illegal immigration, knocking him to deep third and fourth places in the above polls. Outside of the Gallup poll, in which Perry trails Romney by 5%, he's trailing by double digits in every poll since October 3, and a whopping 20% behind Romney and Cain in the Rasmussen poll. Even Gingrich -- Gingrich! -- is beating him in that poll.

[Gavin Luper]

When will they actually nominate their presidential candidate?

[mr_pikachu]

Well, the caucuses/primary elections for each party go state-by-state (in addition to the U.S. territories), and not all of them have yet been scheduled, so there's no set date for everything. It will start in December or January, though, and generally a fair number of candidates drop out of the race after the first few primaries once it becomes clear that they have no chance and would just be wasting their money if they continued. I imagine we'll be down to two or three halfway-legitimate candidates by the end of February, when a lot of the bellwether states will have already voted. The Republican candidate should be decided by the end of June at the absolute latest.

For a more comprehensive guide, Wikipedia is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_prim aries,_2012#Calendar).

[Gavin Luper]

Thank you, sir. So, a long way to go yet before we know.

[Jeff]

I'm surprised the primaries are starting that early. I remember thinking that the '08 primaries were early, and they were actually in 2008.

[mr_pikachu]

Gavin: Yes, although with primaries starting in around two months, anyone who doesn't get in the game very soon is going to be one of those early drops. At the rate things are going now, it will be a Romney-Cain battle halfway through February. I've seen radical swings in political races, but not when the momentum is against you -- with Perry's momentum carrying him downward and everyone else in a very deep hole against the two current front-runners, something has to happen in a hurry to prevent that two-man race from coming to pass.

If we hit December with the numbers looking anything like this, it'll take a miracle for Perry or anyone else to even survive against Romney and Cain. So, while there's some time to wait before the actual polls arrive, we can predict a lot before it becomes official.



Jeff: Well, Florida angered a lot of the other states by setting a primary date of January 31, violating party rules by trying to be first. Since then, the other states have been one-upping each another to have the earliest primary, so that's why the schedule is so ridiculous this year.

[Dark Sage]

Unfortunately, Brian, Cain's 9-9-9 plan will hurt him once everyone figures it out. When you look at it, it's downright ludicrous.

Edit: By the way, just so you know...

Romney and Perry have raised $30 million combined for their campaigns so far. Cain has raised less than $3 million, and has spent half of it.

Obama has raised more than $70 million.

If contributions are a sign of support, I think that Obama's chances are looking better.

[mr_pikachu]

How, exactly, is a flat tax ludicrous? Because it doesn't punish people for being successful and gives businesses the opportunity to hire more employees, thus ensuring that more people are able to find jobs rather than relying on welfare benefits for years on end? It sounds reasonable enough to me.

As for fundraising, I'd be shocked if Obama had raised less than any of the GOP candidates. He's the only Democratic candidate, while Republican money is divided across a slew of candidates. Once the GOP has its nominee, those numbers should even out a bit (even if they never become totally equal -- Obama has a head start on fundraising given the otherwise empty Democratic field, after all).

[Dark Sage]

Brian, 9-9-9 increases income tax and sales tax for both the middle class and the poor. It even taxes things that are not taxed now. It's another example of class warfare where the rich will spit on the lower class if it ever becomes a reality (which it won't).

[Dark Sage]

Sorry to double post, but let me put it in better terms.

My bi-weekly paycheck is, before taxes, about $500. If I were to pay a federal income tax of 9% before other other taxes, that would add up to $45, giving me a $455 before state and other taxes were taken out.

Now, compare this to a CEO who makes a six-figure income of $500 grand, also bi-weekly. If he also paid the same rate, his take-home before any other taxes were deducted would be $445,000.

Starting to see my point? When put into perspective, paying taxes would be far more of a burden for me than it would be for him. Giving everyone the same tax rate is definately a bad idea.

[mr_pikachu]

To a certain extent, you're right. I'm not going to deny that this would significantly shift tax brackets -- more precisely, it would pretty much erase the definition of a tax bracket altogether, based on the information available. To say anything else would be a bald-faced lie... it's a flat tax, after all.

In my view, though, the bigger issue is that we have an absolutely catastrophic unemployment rate. It should come as no surprise that close to half the population doesn't pay taxes when the unemployment rate is as high as it's been since the great depression, bordering on 10% of job seekers.

For those who still don't have jobs after a potential flat income tax goes into effect, well, they'll be paying 9% of $0 in income taxes. A 9% federal sales tax would, indeed, be a notable increase, as most economic commentators believe that would be levied in addition to local and state sales taxes; however, it's possible that some goods or services would be exempt (the current sales tax system, after all, features loads of exemptions, and those details haven't been completely documented considering that most analysts thought Cain was irrelevant a few weeks ago), and a small increase in sales taxes would be negligible if and only if worker revenue also increases -- see my argument to that effect in the next paragraph. Finally, while the 9% corporate tax is, on the surface, a massive reduction from the current figure of 40%, that doesn't take into account all the exceptions and credits that corporations get today. Right now, I believe the average business pays closer to 27%, with some drawing more benefit from all those credits than others.

With that said, lower income brackets will indeed pay a bit more than they do now, while higher income brackets will pay considerably less. But, in my opinion, this is counterbalanced by three factors. First, with the decline in the corporate tax, entrepreneurs will be freer to start businesses without the fear of getting hammered with roughly 27% in taxes (or up to 40%, depending on how well they're able to game the exemption system) from the outset. Second, businesses as a whole will have much more freedom to expand their activities and hire more employees, thus allowing those in lower income groups better odds of earning better jobs (since more jobs will presumably be available across a range of income levels, leaving more openings higher on the income ladder as well as lower), and giving the opportunity for those struggling in unemployment to find a job themselves. Third, with more people across all income levels earning wages, individuals and families will be more apt to start their own businesses (see part 1) or just to spend more on non-necessities, generating more corporate revenue that will allow them to expand and to create more jobs (part 2). In other words, the idea is to boost the economy as a whole, which ultimately benefits the spectrum of the populace.

With that said, I'm sure you're already familiar with these theories, DS, and I'm certain you probably have a rebuttal queued and ready. I don't mean to patronize you with my above comments, especially since you bring up valid points, too. We could go back and forth challenging each other with theoretical arguments that have never been tested against one another in full, and that would be fine. But that's not what I'm seeking here. My point isn't necessarily to prove that a flat tax is better -- I personally think so, but limited testing in this sort of economic system makes proof either way rather difficult -- but merely to claim that it is at least a legitimate proposal, not a ludicrous sham, as I believe you suggested.


EDIT: Corrected an error relating to the 9% federal sales tax.

[mattbcl]

There's a debating term applicable to this particular situation - it's called "ten words". At the heart of this concept, the candidate offers a simple solution to a complex problem. When first heard, the solution gives people pause because they wonder why nobody considered it earlier. It has a way of shaping national discussion, so it's not necessarily a bad practice - it gets people talking. My problem with it is that the U.S. is a country way too big and way too complex for these "ten-word answers". We need the ten words that follow that answer, and the ten after that. Those words, unfortunately, get lost in the shadow of the first ten words.

Which is probably why the discussion, as played out in the posts above this one, is the one everybody should be having. I approve of this debate. It's something we ought to be talking about.

[Dark Sage]

"If you don't have a job, blame yourself!"

Spoken by Cain, just days ago. It showed how much he sympathized with everyone who can't find work.

Do we want the man who said that to be in charge of solving the unemployment problem?

[mr_pikachu]

Yes, I've quoted that line elsewhere, myself. I think it was an incredibly poor word choice that can and will come back to haunt Cain as this election goes forward. While it was a response to an extreme situation -- the Occupy Wall Street protests that have disrupted traffic and businesses, resulting in injured police officers and dozens of arrests (painting a scary picture regardless of the ideals being espoused) -- the quote, when taken out of context (and even, to a certain extent, when left in context) makes Cain look incredibly unsympathetic. I guarantee he will be attacked repeatedly for that line, and it might cost him the nomination or the eventual election.

With that in mind, I don't think that a quote borne from frustration detracts from the merits of the 9-9-9 policy itself. If the solution works, then it works regardless of what its creator said in the meantime. The only question there, as far as I'm concerned, is whether that quote will prevent him from having the chance to put the policy into action.

[Gavin Luper]

America should make voting compulsory so they don't need to flush quite so many millions down the dunny trying to get people interested in their campaign.

Also, while the core ideals and general rebellion of Occupy Wall St are both things I can get on board with, there is a real sense of entitlement and self-victimisation going on there that I despise.

The photos of people whining about "I'm in $20k of student loans debt. Once I go on and do my masters in this degree that I know won't get me a job, there will be another $15k of debt I'll be in and unable to pay." Um, okay, common sense would say don't do your masters if you don't think you can pay for it, and maybe get a job instead before you pursue further studies. But no, instead, it's blame the government and demand handouts.

For the record, I'm a student myself and barely breaking even each week. But it's entirely my choice to take up my studies and I'll work extra if I need to (just got a second job). I realise the job market is abysmal in the U.S. right now but that means people should be even more concerned with putting plans in place to make the best of their situation and manage their money well.

Also, there is a lot of misandry going on. Apparently they had this whole "step up, stand back" thing happening at some of the rallies where "white males" (whoever that covers) were barred from speaking first because the movement ought to help traditionally marginalized groups - women, homos, etc. - and thus men, and especially "straight white men" have been told they ought to step back and suck it up, basically, because their problems aren't as important.

I fail to see how a straight man who's unemployed and in a truckload of debt has less of a right to be heard than a woman or a homosexual man in the exact same situation. They're all in the same boat here, they should be unifying not dividing themselves.

[Jeff]

Yeah, discrimination is discrimination, no matter who it's against.

This whole "movement" is just full of ridiculousness. I saw one video where whenever someone was speaking, every time they said something, the entire crowd would repeat what they said. The idea was that that way, nobody would be "more important" than anyone else. In practice though, it looked like a kindergarten class where the teacher makes her students repeat everything to make sure they're listening. Not only was it annoying, but it almost seemed like a mind control thing.

I wish I could find the video, I saw it in one of the political news threads at Bulbagarden, and they've all been moved to a private forum. I can't even remember what the video's called.

[Dark Sage]

I live in NYC, and I personally think that the whole Occupy Wall Street protests are the most unorganized mess I have ever seen. The "movement" lacks leaders of any sort, and it's clear that most of these protesters do not have any idea about the nature of the cause they are protesting. It isn't at all like the more famous protests in this nation's history, which were far more organized.

Having said that, I still believe that Cain's remark was uncalled for. I don't care how much of a "self-made man" he is. You can't ask the unemployed to blame themselves in this economy.

[Heald]

"Let's fire everyone who works in the financial sector!"

Yeah that's a great idea you blackfoot mongs :rolleyes:

[Asilynne]

Even though when unexplained it does sound a bit horrible, I know what he is trying to say when he says "Blame yourself". While I'm not saying you should blame yourself if you can't get the kind of job you want, what he's saying is take your life into your control, rather than point the finger at everyone else for your problems, get motivated and decide "I want the things I want and I will do what I have to to get them".

I've been unemployed for a month twice this year, because of being laid off the first time and the second one because it was quite literally a man's job. Everyone who worked there with me helped me so much and was all for a woman joining, that wasn't the problem, it was that even being a strong woman I still couldn't really handle the every day strenuousness of the work, it was a very physically demanding job. Each time I found myself out of work I applied everywhere, got a lot of interviews but I also was rejected repeatedly. It started to make me almost blame the economy and shout out that its not my fault if no one hires me. But I can't just sit around whinging about the state of the world, I am in control of my own life and if I want a good job I will go out and get it. And so I took some security classes, got some certs under my belt, and continued to apply everywhere. Which resulted in me finally getting a job that pays better than any I have had so far, with health insurance, and one that I actually like as well.

This isn't luck, this is seeing what I don't like about life and being determined enough to do it. If everyone was this motivated and relentless, there would be a lot less unemployment. There ARE jobs out there, you might have to suck it up and put aside your pride to work them (I have also worked at 7/11 once because I needed a job and I refuse to sit around collecting unemployment) but there ARE options. Being 'uneducated' isn't even an excuse because I don't have a degree either, I couldn't afford to go to college.

So yes, that's what I think he means. Its the same value my dad instilled within us kids. You might have to work a shit job, have 3 or 4 roommates in a rental, but there are options out there besides being unemployed. When you really want something you'd be surprised at how inventive you can get, and still make an HONEST living.

(Also I think part of the problem is it pays more to be collecting unemployment than a lot of shit jobs pay for actually working, that doesn't strike me as encouraging people to work.)

[Blademaster]

As much as I'm not a fan of Herman Uncle Ruckus (no relation) Cain, that "Blame yourself if you're unemployed." is something I can get behind. I'm unemployed and I blame myself for it every day (Luckily I have a BOE meeting soon that'll land me a job in the local school system.), and looking at how my parents respond to unemployment, it pretty much DOES equate to it being your fault that you're a jobless bum if you have the resources to get a job.

Of course, this doesn't apply to everybody. If you're a smelly hobo with broken teeth that eats out of the McDonald's dumpster, you have my sympathy because it's not that easy for you to get a job within walking distance of your cardboard box. But the chunk of unemployed people in America who complain about being jobless when they have the resources with which to GET a job of some variety but not the inclination... Well, they can honestly go get right fucked.

[Gavin Luper]

Even though when unexplained it does sound a bit horrible, I know what he is trying to say when he says "Blame yourself". While I'm not saying you should blame yourself if you can't get the kind of job you want, what he's saying is take your life into your control, rather than point the finger at everyone else for your problems, get motivated and decide "I want the things I want and I will do what I have to to get them".

I've been unemployed for a month twice this year, because of being laid off the first time and the second one because it was quite literally a man's job. Everyone who worked there with me helped me so much and was all for a woman joining, that wasn't the problem, it was that even being a strong woman I still couldn't really handle the every day strenuousness of the work, it was a very physically demanding job. Each time I found myself out of work I applied everywhere, got a lot of interviews but I also was rejected repeatedly. It started to make me almost blame the economy and shout out that its not my fault if no one hires me. But I can't just sit around whinging about the state of the world, I am in control of my own life and if I want a good job I will go out and get it. And so I took some security classes, got some certs under my belt, and continued to apply everywhere. Which resulted in me finally getting a job that pays better than any I have had so far, with health insurance, and one that I actually like as well.

This isn't luck, this is seeing what I don't like about life and being determined enough to do it. If everyone was this motivated and relentless, there would be a lot less unemployment. There ARE jobs out there, you might have to suck it up and put aside your pride to work them (I have also worked at 7/11 once because I needed a job and I refuse to sit around collecting unemployment) but there ARE options. Being 'uneducated' isn't even an excuse because I don't have a degree either, I couldn't afford to go to college.

So yes, that's what I think he means. Its the same value my dad instilled within us kids. You might have to work a shit job, have 3 or 4 roommates in a rental, but there are options out there besides being unemployed. When you really want something you'd be surprised at how inventive you can get, and still make an HONEST living.

(Also I think part of the problem is it pays more to be collecting unemployment than a lot of shit jobs pay for actually working, that doesn't strike me as encouraging people to work.)

Wow. Well said, and I agree. I'm from a working/middle class family and that's the same work ethic we had instilled in us.


As much as I'm not a fan of Herman Uncle Ruckus (no relation) Cain, that "Blame yourself if you're unemployed." is something I can get behind. I'm unemployed and I blame myself for it every day (Luckily I have a BOE meeting soon that'll land me a job in the local school system.), and looking at how my parents respond to unemployment, it pretty much DOES equate to it being your fault that you're a jobless bum if you have the resources to get a job.

Of course, this doesn't apply to everybody. If you're a smelly hobo with broken teeth that eats out of the McDonald's dumpster, you have my sympathy because it's not that easy for you to get a job within walking distance of your cardboard box. But the chunk of unemployed people in America who complain about being jobless when they have the resources with which to GET a job of some variety but not the inclination... Well, they can honestly go get right fucked.

I've also noticed/encountered lots of people with degrees who will say "I have a degree, and a Master's, and I can't even find a job!"

And after some questioning, it turns out what they actually mean is, "I have a degree, and a Master's, and I can't find a cushy job in my field. There is no way I am working in retail or hospitality or manual labour because it's hard, thankless work and it's beneath me since I'm educated. Instead I will go on the dole and whine about being unemployed."

[Dark Sage]

I have an MA in Psychology.

Despite this, I'm working as a security guard, something I've done for five years. It's not my ideal job, but I'll take it in this economy.

[Gavin Luper]

I have an MA in Psychology.

I never knew that! That's pretty cool.

[Heald]

The Occupy/99% protest in the UK is a complete mess. It suffers from an identity crisis and that it seems to largely consist of bored young men and women who have enough of their parents' money to go and join other like-minded people instead of, say, looking for a job.

First of all, you have people waving Egypt and Palestine flags. Then you have the Socialist Worker brigade who hold up signs equating capitalism to racism. Some people dressed in Guy Fawkes masks. Then the people sitting there whining about greed and the failure of capitalism whilst sitting there on their £400 iPad. Yes, seriously. People who have taken a serious enough stance to join a protest against greed and excess are tweeting away on their iPads.

The 99% is what annoys me. Last time I checked, in the UK, only 29% voted for the Socialist party, yet this is what these people seem to want: Socialism. Sorry, no one wants Socialism. Look at what Socialism did to Russia, to Vietnam, to Cambodia.

[Dark Sage]

After listening to the GOP debate tonight, I would say that the two winners are Cain... and Mr. Obama.

The GOP is in serious trouble. They're not only opposing Obama, they're opposing each other like hated rivals. They were acting like children at this debate. Cain was the only one who kept his cool throughout it all.

In particular their remarks about immigration, taxes, and Israel will likely alienate Hispanic, Jewish, and middle class voters, groups that Obama is doing his best to cement his hold on.

On another note, I think Huntsman was smart by boycotting this debacle altogether. In fact, he's the one Republican I can stand. (Although some may call him a RINO, so I doubt he'd ever do well this time around.)

[Roy Karrde]

After listening to the GOP debate tonight, I would say that the two winners are Cain... and Mr. Obama.

The GOP is in serious trouble. They're not only opposing Obama, they're opposing each other like hated rivals. They were acting like children at this debate. Cain was the only one who kept his cool throughout it all.

Bickering between rivals really does nothing in the general election as we have seen in 2008. If so we would have President McCain right now as Hillary and Obama had some of the nastiest campaign rhetoric seen in a long time.


In particular their remarks about immigration, taxes, and Israel will likely alienate Hispanic, Jewish, and middle class voters, groups that Obama is doing his best to cement his hold on.

Pandering to the Hispanic vote by ignoring our nation's immigration laws does not win them over as seen in 2008 with McCain. As for the Jewish vote, if they do care about Israel to the point it determines who they vote for, then Obama is in ALOT of trouble. As we saw recently with the Democrats losing Anthony Weiner's seat as Orthodox Jews voted in droves because of the administration's poor position on Israel.

[RedStarWarrior]

Fuck the illegals. Any candidate showing leniency towards them is out in my book.

(I'm part Latino, BTW)

[Asilynne]

Fuck the illegals. Any candidate showing leniency towards them is out in my book.

(I'm part Latino, BTW)

I totally agree and I understand why exactly. I hate how candidates and people in general try and turn the discussions about 'illegals' into a race thing, ITS NOT ABOUT FUCKING RACE ITS ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW. I don't care what race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc you are, if you are breaking the fucking law you should get punished. If you are here illegally, gtfo, because SOME of us want to have our loved ones immigrate here the right way and its because of all the problems with illegals getting in that the 'right way' is so damn hard and expensive.

And giving illegals which are here right now a free ticket to stay is the stupidest damn idea I have ever heard. Here lets everyone hurry up and smuggle into the US so we get a free ticket to stay. Rawr...

[Dark Sage]

Herman Cain has once again proven that he is not qualified to be President, by proving that he has little knowledge of how the government is run.

He told the Christian Broadcasting Network in an interview that he would sign a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion.

He said, and I quote, "I feel that strongly about it. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it. That’s all I can do. I will sign it."

Unfortunately for Cain, he apparently did not know that when a Constitutional Amendment is propsosed, the President never signs it. In fact, he plays almost no role in the process.

We can add this to his other gaffs, like his proposal to put an electrified fence on the US-Mexican border that would kill anyone trying to cross it. He later said this was a joke. I, for one, did not think it was funny.

There are still loonies out there who want proof that Mr. Obama was born in this country, despite the fact that proof exists. At this point, I want proof that Mr. Cain even went to college.

[Asilynne]

You're assuming that college = intellegence...which is not always true. I'm not going to get into your other statements, but yeah lol

[Gavin Luper]

You're assuming that college = intellegence...which is not always true. I'm not going to get into your other statements, but yeah lol

I agree with this - lots of the most intelligent/business-savvy/wealthy/financially successful/powerful people I know didn't go to university. It's not the be all and end all of education in life.

[Dark Sage]

Fine.

What I meant to say was, Cain is too stupid to lead a Cub Scout troop.

And I don't mean that as a joke.

[Magmar]

Dear lord, the elections are 12 months-ish away. My third presidential election to vote in! I'm getting old. :(

The state of affairs in the GOP is terrifying. The recent debate was appalling. I can't believe the things that came out of these assholes' mouths. I don't want any of them running my country. I'm not staunchly against Republicans in general, but these radical folk need to not be the ones to run this country.

And I hate to say it, but I think despite Obama having <50% approval rating... I'm pretty sure some of that >50% who "disapprove" are going to vote him in again anyway because he's so much better than any of these gits who are trying to get into the Oval Office.

Obama has been campaigning on issues of social equity and job growth. These folks are campaigning on taking away women's rights, gay rights, and affordable healthcare--how can someone possibly want any of these things to come to pass?? Obama is my president and I'm loyal to him. I wish the people in congress would listen to their boss.

I am inches away from starting a recall congress movement. I think the occupy movement would love their lives and catch on very quickly. It's constitutional and would help get things done! No more of this "split" bullshit. You douchebags listen to your boss and your constituents. Selfish assholes.

[Roy Karrde]

And I hate to say it, but I think despite Obama having <50% approval rating... I'm pretty sure some of that >50% who "disapprove" are going to vote him in again anyway because he's so much better than any of these gits who are trying to get into the Oval Office.

That is very hard seeing how those who do not think he will be re elected is also over 50% and he has a very distinct chance of even losing his own very liberal state, Illinois.


Obama has been campaigning on issues of social equity and job growth. These folks are campaigning on taking away women's rights, gay rights, and affordable healthcare--how can someone possibly want any of these things to come to pass??

Curious what Affordable Healthcare you are talking about? You mean the Unconstitutional Obama Care? Because that did nothing to make Healthcare "Affordable" in fact it did the opposite.


Obama is my president and I'm loyal to him. I wish the people in congress would listen to their boss.

Umm Obama is not the boss of Congress, they are their own separate branch of the Federal Government.



What I meant to say was, Cain is too stupid to lead a Cub Scout troop.

And I don't mean that as a joke.

RACIST! YOU ARE SAYING HE ISN'T SMART BECAUSE HE IS BLACK

:P

Couldn't help it, seeing how often Liberals throw around the race card when confronted with the fact that Obama is a absolute idiot.

[Magmar]

Congress still needs to be recalled. They aren't doing their jobs. Same as any board of directors or group of managers in a corporation that aren't getting their jobs done, leading to diminished value of the firm for the shareholders. They fail at business 101. :P

[Gavin Luper]

I don't understand American health care. In Australia we have Medicare and it's basically awesome. What's the deal with the U.S.?

[Roy Karrde]

Congress still needs to be recalled. They aren't doing their jobs. Same as any board of directors or group of managers in a corporation that aren't getting their jobs done, leading to diminished value of the firm for the shareholders. They fail at business 101. :P

The problem is that there are incredible constraints put on Congress now. They cannot do what they are so used to do, that being throwing money at the problem. They need to go to business leaders, and work on reforming the tax code and reforming regulations. It's a hard and long process, but its the only choice they have left as throwing money at it won't fix the problem.

[DarkestLight]

o.O So as not to sound like I'm attacking you Roy-I really want to know what you feel is necessary-as a supporter of the Republican Ideal (maybe, or maybe I have your stance wrong-if so, that needs clarification.) in order to have America be a sound nation again-and then answer me this:

Why do you feel in the light of the current three years, any person, despite what party they aligned to-could have done a better job with the US state of affairs than Obama?

I just feel that both parties are bickering too damn much and I'd rather have Obama continue to lead and see if his 10 year plan actually holds some merit, than to cut him down when we've just reached the halfway point.

[Roy Karrde]

o.O So as not to sound like I'm attacking you Roy-I really want to know what you feel is necessary-as a supporter of the Republican Ideal (maybe, or maybe I have your stance wrong-if so, that needs clarification.) in order to have America be a sound nation again-and then answer me this:

Why do you feel in the light of the current three years, any person, despite what party they aligned to-could have done a better job with the US state of affairs than Obama?

I just feel that both parties are bickering too damn much and I'd rather have Obama continue to lead and see if his 10 year plan actually holds some merit, than to cut him down when we've just reached the halfway point.

Actually I believe that some one else could have done a much better job. Consider what Obama's approach has been, leading from behind. He had little to no hand in crafting the Stimulus as such it failed miserably. Programs like Cash for Clunkers and Housing credits was essentially throwing money down the tubes as we now know. But most importantly he and his party tied up Congress for over a year working on a Health Care plan that more than likely will be struck down by the courts as the economy languished. That year wasted was very important and could have been spent working on the economy in eras of taxation and regulations. I could go on and on and on about how much of a failure he has been, and how his class warfare rhetoric does not help but I think you get the idea.

[Mewtwo-D2]

I don't understand American health care. In Australia we have Medicare and it's basically awesome. What's the deal with the U.S.?

The basics: America is supposed to have a competitive healthcare system, where different insurance companies offer different plans, attempting to get you to buy them. There is Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for the poor, both funded by taxpayers. Medicare in specific is supposed to be funded by a sacrosanct trust fund that all workers in this country pay into, with the idea that it will be there to help them when they age into it. That's the theory.

In reality, we do not have a competitive insurance system. Congress has legislated it within an inch of it's life, creating artificial shortages. For example, insurance companies are legislated by what must be on their policy (in many cases, services that the average consumer will not need and does not want, but that drive the price up anyway. Imagine it as if when you bought car insurance, you had to buy a policy on a motorcycle and a fishing boat as well). They are not allowed to cross state lines - I live in Virginia, and even if there is a company in New York that better serves my needs, I am not allowed to buy that insurance if I do not move to New York. Also, we have no caps on malpractice payouts, no requirements that medical malpractice juries contain anyone even remotely knowledgeable about medicine at all, and a system that rewards ambulance chasing. We have free and low-cost clinics, but they do not get enough funding to have good hours, and we get an added burden by the fact that most illegal immigrants and many poor people go to the emergency room for the slightest illness or injury. They do not pay at all, jacking the prices up across the board.

What Obamacare does: Mandates that everyone must buy insurance, or have a job that provides insurance. Those who do not buy insurance can face fines or jail time. Corporations can pay a massive fee and not have to provide insurance for their employees - a massive fee easily swallowed by mega-corporations, especially ones that pay their workers minimum wage. So, basically, minimum wage workers are going to have to buy their own insurance, which Congress has already mandated must be a comprehensive plan (men and post-menopausal women alike must get a policy with maternity benefits, if their state mandates it), which does nothing but jack the price up. Doctors have been forced out of work in droves because of malpractice cases - not doctors that were personally convicted of malpractice, but doctors in the same field (for example, thanks to former Democratic candidate John Edwards, the obstetrician who delivered me was forced out of business. He had an excellent record, and was respected and sought after, but after John Edwards convinced a jury of slack-jaws that not performing C-sections causes cerebral palsy, he could no longer afford his massive malpractice insurance hike. The same with a lot of other gynecologists and obstetricians, creating shortages in women's health care). The answer is apparently for doctors to work for less, but the average med school graduate is at least $10K in debt and makes roughly as much as a waiter in a good restaurant, so there isn't much incentive for new doctors to begin with. These artificially created shortages have already started rationing, with mental health care and women's health care taking the biggest hits.

Obama is doing his damnedest to incite class warfare, but I have no idea why. He received more Wall Street funds than any candidate in history, and despite all his talk about evil corporations, he's given them the very easy choice of paying his administration a lot of money and getting to ignore the laws that he set up himself. It explicitly favors megacorporations, and explicitly penalizes small business. McDonald's can afford to pay the fine and get out of having to pay for insurance for each of it's employees, but Bob's Burgers can not afford the fine, and can not afford to buy expensive comprehensive insurance plans for all of it's employees. So McDonald's keeps on the same as it has before, while Bob's either closes, or has to go down to a skeleton staff, because if Bob doesn't buy insurance for all his workers, he could go to jail.

[Gavin Luper]

The basics: America is supposed to have a competitive healthcare system, where different insurance companies offer different plans, attempting to get you to buy them. There is Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for the poor, both funded by taxpayers. Medicare in specific is supposed to be funded by a sacrosanct trust fund that all workers in this country pay into, with the idea that it will be there to help them when they age into it. That's the theory.

In reality, we do not have a competitive insurance system. Congress has legislated it within an inch of it's life, creating artificial shortages. For example, insurance companies are legislated by what must be on their policy (in many cases, services that the average consumer will not need and does not want, but that drive the price up anyway. Imagine it as if when you bought car insurance, you had to buy a policy on a motorcycle and a fishing boat as well). They are not allowed to cross state lines - I live in Virginia, and even if there is a company in New York that better serves my needs, I am not allowed to buy that insurance if I do not move to New York. Also, we have no caps on malpractice payouts, no requirements that medical malpractice juries contain anyone even remotely knowledgeable about medicine at all, and a system that rewards ambulance chasing. We have free and low-cost clinics, but they do not get enough funding to have good hours, and we get an added burden by the fact that most illegal immigrants and many poor people go to the emergency room for the slightest illness or injury. They do not pay at all, jacking the prices up across the board.

What Obamacare does: Mandates that everyone must buy insurance, or have a job that provides insurance. Those who do not buy insurance can face fines or jail time. Corporations can pay a massive fee and not have to provide insurance for their employees - a massive fee easily swallowed by mega-corporations, especially ones that pay their workers minimum wage. So, basically, minimum wage workers are going to have to buy their own insurance, which Congress has already mandated must be a comprehensive plan (men and post-menopausal women alike must get a policy with maternity benefits, if their state mandates it), which does nothing but jack the price up. Doctors have been forced out of work in droves because of malpractice cases - not doctors that were personally convicted of malpractice, but doctors in the same field (for example, thanks to former Democratic candidate John Edwards, the obstetrician who delivered me was forced out of business. He had an excellent record, and was respected and sought after, but after John Edwards convinced a jury of slack-jaws that not performing C-sections causes cerebral palsy, he could no longer afford his massive malpractice insurance hike. The same with a lot of other gynecologists and obstetricians, creating shortages in women's health care). The answer is apparently for doctors to work for less, but the average med school graduate is at least $10K in debt and makes roughly as much as a waiter in a good restaurant, so there isn't much incentive for new doctors to begin with. These artificially created shortages have already started rationing, with mental health care and women's health care taking the biggest hits.

Obama is doing his damnedest to incite class warfare, but I have no idea why. He received more Wall Street funds than any candidate in history, and despite all his talk about evil corporations, he's given them the very easy choice of paying his administration a lot of money and getting to ignore the laws that he set up himself. It explicitly favors megacorporations, and explicitly penalizes small business. McDonald's can afford to pay the fine and get out of having to pay for insurance for each of it's employees, but Bob's Burgers can not afford the fine, and can not afford to buy expensive comprehensive insurance plans for all of it's employees. So McDonald's keeps on the same as it has before, while Bob's either closes, or has to go down to a skeleton staff, because if Bob doesn't buy insurance for all his workers, he could go to jail.

Thanks for that summary - that was enormously comprehensive and gives me a bit more insight. It seems like the American health care system has real issues, then.

Australia's Medicare (from Wikipedia, but it's a good description):

"Medicare is Australia's publicly funded universal health care system, operated by the government authority Medicare Australia. Medicare is intended to provide affordable treatment by doctors and in public hospitals for all resident citizens and permanent residents except for those on Norfolk Island. Residents with a Medicare card can receive subsidised treatment from medical practitioners who have been issued a Medicare provider number, and fully subsidised ("free") treatment in public hospitals. Visitors from countries which have reciprocal arrangements with Australia have limited access to Medicare, as detailed below. The Australian Government has signed Reciprocal Health Care Agreements (RHCA) with the governments of the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Norway, Slovenia, Malta, Italy, Republic of Ireland and New Zealand."

So, in Australia, if Dave is a citizen or permanent resident with absolutely no private health insurance, he can go to see a doctor and it will cost him around $70 each visit, and about half of that will be paid back to him by Medicare. And if he has to be hospitalised with an illness, Medicare will cover the full cost and he won't have to pay a cent.

So from what I can understand, in the States, if you don't have private health insurance, you'd be liable to pay in full the costs of visiting a doctor and going to the hospital, is that right? If so ... wow. We clearly have a really good system here, one that I take for granted.

[Dark Sage]

If we can be required by law to buy auto insurance, why not health insurance?

I keep asking that question, and no-one ever gives me a straight answer.

[Jeff]

If you can't afford car insurance or otherwise don't want to pay for it, don't drive a car. Use public transportation instead.

If you can't afford health insurance or don't want to pay for it ... don't live?

[Gavin Luper]

If we can be required by law to buy auto insurance, why not health insurance?

I keep asking that question, and no-one ever gives me a straight answer.

I dunno ... I guess because buying a car is a choice, and one that usually means you have a quid or two. Car ownership isn't universal or inescapable. Despite it's necessity for so many things - going to work, school, etc. - it ultimately is a luxury in that you could live without it.

People's health, on the other hand, is a universal, inescapable issue. I can avoid having car problems by not having a car; I can't avoid having health problems by not having health (yes, I'm aware of how weird that sentence sounds). Whether rich or poor, people's health is a fundamental aspect of life that they cannot opt into or out of. Hence, it deserves to be fundamentally subsidised, in my view.

EDIT: Jeff, your timing is impeccable.

[Dark Sage]

You're breaking my heart.

Ten years ago, I got hit by a car and broke both my legs. The driver had no insurance, and it caused me and my family a whole lot of trouble because of it. My family health insurance, but we still had to pay extra because this idiot had none.

He was breaking the law, and I got a hassle because of it.

I repeat: If we can be required by law to buy auto insurance, why not health insurance? There should be no reason why people who do buy health insurance should have to pay the price because of uninsured people who don't.

Heck, here's an idea for a health plan that I'm sure the GOP would agree to: Make it optional. But if you chose to reject it, and you get sick or injured, you're on your own. That means that even if you crawl into the emergency room bleeding with both your legs broken, if you have no insurance, too bad.

That would solve a whole lot of problems.

[Gavin Luper]

You're breaking my heart.

Ten years ago, I got hit by a car and broke both my legs. The driver had no insurance, and it caused me and my family a whole lot of trouble because of it. My family health insurance, but we still had to pay extra because this idiot had none.

He was breaking the law, and I got a hassle because of it.

I repeat: If we can be required by law to buy auto insurance, why not health insurance? There should be no reason why people who do buy health insurance should have to pay the price because of uninsured people who don't.

Heck, here's an idea for a health plan that I'm sure the GOP would agree to: Make it optional. But if you chose to reject it, and you get sick or injured, you're on your own. That means that even if you crawl into the emergency room bleeding with both your legs broken, if you have no insurance, too bad.

That would solve a whole lot of problems.

Sorry to hear about what happened to you in the past, mate - that sucks.

Both Jeff and I have offered an answer to that question, though. That is, not all people can afford private health insurance, and health is hardly a luxury that can be done without.

As per the Australian Medicare system, we pay a Medicare levy as part of our taxation system that funds this universal health care for all Australians. It's hardly a contentious issue: I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about paying that levy - the benefits of universal health care far outweigh a small tax, IMHO. And if you have Private Health Insurance, there is a minimum rebate of 30% paid back to you by the Government. That is, for each dollar you contribute to your private health insurance premium, the Government will give you back at least 30 cents.

I think this system is pretty fair and I rarely, if ever, hear complaints about it.

[Asilynne]

Sorry to hear about what happened to you in the past, mate - that sucks.

Both Jeff and I have offered an answer to that question, though. That is, not all people can afford private health insurance, and health is hardly a luxury that can be done without.

As per the Australian Medicare system, we pay a Medicare levy as part of our taxation system that funds this universal health care for all Australians. It's hardly a contentious issue: I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about paying that levy - the benefits of universal health care far outweigh a small tax, IMHO. And if you have Private Health Insurance, there is a minimum rebate of 30% paid back to you by the Government. That is, for each dollar you contribute to your private health insurance premium, the Government will give you back at least 30 cents.

I think this system is pretty fair and I rarely, if ever, hear complaints about it.

If America was proposing that, I'd be all for it, but I don't like being told I have to buy something I can't afford, and if I don't I get fined. If I can't afford the insurance how can I afford the fine?

Fortunately my job is going to give me health insurance after my 90 days so I can finally see a doctor after more than 10 years without lol

[Dark Sage]

Let's change the subject.

I discovered something interesting about the key point of Cain's plan: his 9-9-9 plan, which is a flat tax system.

I got this information from my dad, who, as you know, is a retired professor of political science.

Here are the countries that have a flat tax system:

Bosnia-Herzogovina, Bulgaria, Albania, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Guernsey, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Iraq, Jersey, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mauritius, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine.

See a common thread? Most of them are former eastern bloc countries in which communism failed. The flat tax system is the legacy of these failed communist states. The rest of the countries on the list aren't exactly economic powerhouses.

Communist countries had flat tax systems because the communist ideal was that everybody should be comfortable with their place in the economy; since everything was theoretically provided by the government, pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps was frowned upon. You implement a flat tax when you want to keep the poor where they are.

So, Cain wants to increase the size of the federal government by federalizing all tax collection, and also wants to institute a Communist-style tax system.

I'm not sure if that's what he wants... But that's what he'll get if his 9-9-9 plan ever becomes a reality.

[Roy Karrde]

See a common thread? Most of them are former eastern bloc countries in which communism failed. The flat tax system is the legacy of these failed communist states. The rest of the countries on the list aren't exactly economic powerhouses.


Legacy? Here is a quote from Business Weekly


But it has gotten its first real road test in the former Soviet bloc, where at least eight countries, from minuscule Estonia to giant Russia, have enacted flat taxes since the mid-1990s.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952079.htm

Want to know what they were doing in the mid 1990s? They were trying to adopt a capitalist system and work on fixing their ailing economy. A flat tax provided a incentive to help do that. Mind you Russia did not even enact it UNTIL 2001.

[Mewtwo-D2]

If we can be required by law to buy auto insurance, why not health insurance?

I keep asking that question, and no-one ever gives me a straight answer.

Because health insurance is personal, auto insurance is not. Auto insurance is not to pay you in case something breaks - it's in case you hit someone else. Also, the government pays to maintain the roads and licenses people to drive on them. Protection for other drivers can be considered a fee for using the government-built roads. However, forcing people to buy anything is unconstitutional, good point.

Health insurance, on the other hand, has little to do with other people. The government does not own my body, nor does it grant me a license to live. Also, because of government meddling, I can't afford health insurance on my own. So you tell me - if the government can not mandate that I buy insurance for my non-existent boat because I might someday get one, why must I pay for an insurance policy that covers obstetrics, alternative medicine like acupuncture and naturopathy, and prostate exams? Why can't I be allowed to buy only, say, accident coverage and gynecological care?

[Roy Karrde]

Specifically and I could be wrong I think Dark Sage is asking why we are forced to buy Auto Insurance but Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional.

The truth is, is that the Federal Government does not actually force people to buy auto insurance. That is a power reserved to the state, and one state, New Hampshire does not actually force people to buy auto insurance.

Now just as say Massachusetts can have a Health Insurance mandate, states can also not have one. It however is unconstitutional for Congress to force people to buy something be it auto insurance or health care.

And of course just as others have noted if you dont want to buy auto insurance you don't have to buy a car.

[Gavin Luper]

I still maintain that a free, universal, taxpayer-funded health care system like our Medicare would be far, far more beneficial than a compulsory private-health insurance purchasing scheme; the latter just doesn't seem fair to people who can't afford it, as Asi put it.

[Roy Karrde]

I still maintain that a free, universal, taxpayer-funded health care system like our Medicare would be far, far more beneficial than a compulsory private-health insurance purchasing scheme; the latter just doesn't seem fair to people who can't afford it, as Asi put it.

The problem with that is that as we are finding out with our own Medicare which is basically what you described. It creates massive headaches with doctors who have problems getting their money. At that point they either stop accepting Medicare, drop Medicare patients entirely, or leave the field.

[Gavin Luper]

The problem with that is that as we are finding out with our own Medicare which is basically what you described. It creates massive headaches with doctors who have problems getting their money. At that point they either stop accepting Medicare, drop Medicare patients entirely, or leave the field.

I'll be honest and say I'm not well-versed on how the Medicare system works here, but your post doesn't really make sense to me. Can you explain it further? Because here it's for every citizen and permanent resident. You pay upfront for a doctor's visit but Medicare will subsidise half of it back to you, the patient. But the doctor gets all their money upfront. They don't have the option of dropping patients as far as I'm aware (how is that even ethical?). So I'm really confused what your post is all about.

[Roy Karrde]

I'll be honest and say I'm not well-versed on how the Medicare system works here, but your post doesn't really make sense to me. Can you explain it further? Because here it's for every citizen and permanent resident. You pay upfront for a doctor's visit but Medicare will subsidise half of it back to you, the patient. But the doctor gets all their money upfront. They don't have the option of dropping patients as far as I'm aware (how is that even ethical?). So I'm really confused what your post is all about.

Basically doctors have to go through the Government to get their money back from Medicare patients. Because of the red tape and the Government's unwillingness to actually pay it out, and to make sure the doctors are not scamming them. It takes longer and longer for them to actually get paid, and at the same time they are usually getting paid less than Private Insurance. As such doctors are looking at the cost and are having to drop patients or refuse them because of all the problems.

Here is a good article on what is happening.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019.html

[Gavin Luper]

Basically doctors have to go through the Government to get their money back from Medicare patients. Because of the red tape and the Government's unwillingness to actually pay it out, and to make sure the doctors are not scamming them. It takes longer and longer for them to actually get paid, and at the same time they are usually getting paid less than Private Insurance. As such doctors are looking at the cost and are having to drop patients or refuse them because of all the problems.

Here is a good article on what is happening.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019.html

Cool, I understand the American system a little more once again.

What I'm saying is: change your system to the Australian one. What is the problem with the system we use? It means universal health care subsidises people's medical expenses and doctors get their money upfront. Win-win.

I know you take issue with what Obama proposes. But would you take issue with the system we have? It's pretty damn fair and pretty damn workable.

[Dark Sage]

No-one has posted here for a while, but things have changed a bit in the GOP camp. With Cain's campaign now rocked by scandal and Perry falling flat on his face and making a complete fool of himself last night, it seems safe to say that Romney will be the nominee for President.

My prediction: This will be an ugly contest, and will be close in the Electoral College... But people will wise up enough for Obama to win 270.

After all, if anyone that the GOP is offering could have beaten Obama, McCain would have handed him his lungs.

[Heald]

It's sorry to see the GOP is such a fucking dismal state. Obama has had a torrid 4 years for the public's perspective but each of the GOP nominees seems to be falling over each to see who can make the next big gaffe. It doesn't help that the MSM really doesn't want the GOP winning (apart from Fox, but well that's always been the case).

Which is a shame, because frankly Obama has been diabolical. Would McCain/Palin have been better? Probably not. At least Obama had the potential for a good 4 years and he fucking blew it. Romney looks like the safe bet, and I'd love to see him win, but I just can't see that happening.

[kurai]

zUA2rDVrmNg

Relevant to topic at hand.

[Dark Sage]

Would McCain/Palin have been better? Probably not.

I had some respect for McCain, but it went down the tubes when he choose that stupid woman as his running mate. I still stand by my belief that Palin was a tool to gain votes from women who were supporting Hillary. McCain clearly had little faith in the voters' intelligence.

And now, his foolish choice has created a monster. Palin simply doesn't know that her fifteen minutes are up, and the whole Tea Party was spawned becaused of her. It's her fault that clowns like Bachman are driving us crazy.

Obama in 2012. The Sane Choice.

[Heald]

I actually hugely respected McCain when he was a Senator, but the Presidential race led him to drop several of his principles to attract voters and I never felt he would have been a capable leader (unfortunately, good politicians rarely make good leaders). Plus, it's a stressful job and he was old. As much as I dislike Obama, the fact is we could have had President Palin if the vote and McCain's health went the other way, and I don't consider that a good thing.

[Dark Sage]

I actually hugely respected McCain when he was a Senator, but the Presidential race led him to drop several of his principles to attract voters and I never felt he would have been a capable leader (unfortunately, good politicians rarely make good leaders). Plus, it's a stressful job and he was old. As much as I dislike Obama, the fact is we could have had President Palin if the vote and McCain's health went the other way, and I don't consider that a good thing.

Tell me about it.

Every time I see Palin on television, my heart skips a beat at the thought that this complete and utter fool could have been one step away from the Presidency.

[MToolen]

Politics is an issue that I feel interested in from time to time, until the sheer inanity (or insanity; your pick) of it all forces me to step back into the real world. I'm not sure what party really suits my needs best: my profession (teaching), being mostly in unions, would have me lean to Democrats, but my wife's family (military) would almost have her leaning the other way.

I voted for Obama in the previous election. Like other people have noted, I was more scared of a possible Palin presidency than anything. Besides that, being in Illinois, the state was well in his hand anyway. Still, I knew straight in what I was getting into: that the hope and change promised would take much different forms than what any of us could predict.

And yet I feel myself in the same boat for this coming election. I'm not just scared of one person. The Republican candidates are all crazy in their own ways. I don't feel I could trust any of them to be President just yet.

[Roy Karrde]

and the whole Tea Party was spawned becaused of her.

Umm no I believe that was Rick Santelli with his infamous tea party rant.


Obama in 2012. The Sane Choice.

Between Solyndra, and Fast and Furious it is more like "The Criminal Choice"


Every time I see Palin on television, my heart skips a beat at the thought that this complete and utter fool could have been one step away from the Presidency.

As opposed to Biden? Really?... Really? I mean we can disagree about Palin being a good choice from being the vice president, but Biden is no bigger a screw up than Palin.

I don't see what is really the problem now with the field as we get down to two choices. Romney more than likely is going to win, and from the looks of it win the White House as well. But Gingrich is holding his own and has shown himself in the debates to be excellent on the issues and his grasp of history.

[Dark Sage]

If Obama is a criminal for Fast and Furious, then G.W. Bush is a war criminal for use of an interrogation technique that is recognized by the Geneva Convantion as a form of torture, and should be handed over to the Hague for trial.

Edit: By the same notion, Reagan was a traitor for giving weapons to Iran.

[Roy Karrde]

If Obama is a criminal for Fast and Furious, then G.W. Bush is a war criminal for use of an interrogation technique that is recognized by the Geneva Convantion as a form of torture, and should be handed over to the Hague for trial.

Edit: By the same notion, Reagan was a traitor for giving weapons to Iran.

Alright maybe I should be clear, Obama, or some of those in his administration, are criminals by U.S. law. And more than likely some of them will be seen in trial, or extradited to Mexico for trial before all of this settles.

[Dark Sage]

I could get into a discussion on how unlikely that is, but I'd much rather let you Republicabns live with your delusions and support the clowns running for the GOP ticket. It's funny, after all.

[Roy Karrde]

I could get into a discussion on how unlikely that is, but I'd much rather let you Republicabns live with your delusions and support the clowns running for the GOP ticket. It's funny, after all.

Sure delusions, I assume that Mexico's demands for extraditions is part of the Republican delusions?

http://www.examiner.com/political-transcripts-in-national/fast-furious-mexico-says-extradite-u-s-officials-to-face-trial-as-gunrunners

Or the Congressional Probes going on into both Solyndra and Fast and Furious?

Mind you Mexico has more than a case for extraditions, those in the Obama Administration willingly allowed guns to be given to the Mexican Cartels that not only killed a US Citizen, but killed numerous Mexican citizens. You cannot wipe that blood off your hands so easily.

[Dark Sage]

And you actually think that the Justice Department will, indeed agree to extradition?

Uh-huh... yep... Sure... They'll agree to extradite Americans to a country where they'd never get a fair trial... Sure they would...

[Roy Karrde]

And you actually think that the Justice Department will, indeed agree to extradition?

Uh-huh... yep... Sure... They'll agree to extradite Americans to a country where they'd never get a fair trial... Sure they would...

Obama does want the Latino vote, and hearing all about the Obama Administration allowing guns to get into the hands that have killed thousands of Mexican citizens during election season is poison. I am sure the Republicans have the Spanish Language campaign ads already written.

As should be known by now, Obama will do anything to win, even if it means giving U.S. citizens to Mexico for the horrible actions they have committed to keep the Latino's from sitting on their collective butts on election day.

And of course lets not forget, Mexico extradites to the U.S.

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Obama-backs-extradition-of-suspect-in-ICE-agent-1613328.php

[Dark Sage]

The GOP will not get the Latino vote if Theodore Roosevelt comes back from the dead to run on their ticket.

Lincoln, possibly, but with any living Republican, Obama's got their vote pretty much in the bag.

[Roy Karrde]

The GOP will not get the Latino vote if Theodore Roosevelt comes back from the dead to run on their ticket.

Lincoln, possibly, but with any living Republican, Obama's got their vote pretty much in the bag.

Oh the GOP doesn't have to get the vote, they just have to make sure that the Obama Administration's actions are seen as so vial, so disgusting, so against Mexico, that they stay home on election day.

[Dark Sage]

Boy Roy, keep it up, this is fun.

The GOP candidates are making sure that their supports do exactly that.

Cain is caught in a sexual harrassment scandal that he won't admit to.

Kerry couldn't remember part of his own deficit reduction plan.

We find out now that Gingrich took contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; this is the guy who wanted Obama to return the contributions he got from the same people.

If I was a Republican, I'd be ashamed to show my face on Election Day, no matter which of these clowns the Convention chose.

By all means, try to defend your party, Roy. This is FUN.

[Roy Karrde]

Boy Roy, keep it up, this is fun.

The GOP candidates are making sure that their supports do exactly that.

Guess you have surrendered the Mexico topic.


Cain is caught in a sexual harrassment scandal that he won't admit to.

Got any proof?


Kerry couldn't remember part of his own deficit reduction plan.

And rebounded by making a joke out of it in the following days.


We find out now that Gingrich took contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; this is the guy who wanted Obama to return the contributions he got from the same people.

Sure and lets compare Gingrich's contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to Obama working with the rest of the Democrats in the Senate to make sure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not get fixed to prevent the mortgage melt down. If the Democrats want to bring up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they can, but then they have to answer why they haven't reformed it after the crisis, and why they blocked the reform before the crisis.


If I was a Republican, I'd be ashamed to show my face on Election Day, no matter which of these clowns the Convention chose.

By all means, try to defend your party, Roy. This is FUN.

Keep trying, by the way I havn't noticed you mentioning Romney.

[Dark Sage]

I haven't surrendered the Mexican topic.

Since you say that Obama will turn the guilty parties over to the Mexican authorities (which I doubt), are you not implying that Obama himself is innocent of this crime?

[Roy Karrde]

I haven't surrendered the Mexican topic.

Since you say that Obama will turn the guilty parties over to the Mexican authorities (which I doubt), are you not implying that Obama himself is innocent of this crime?

So far we have no idea how far up the corruption went. We know the White House was contacted about Fast and Furious, but the White House needs to allow a transparent investigation of the entire process with who knew what, including the President. That is.. if they have nothing to hide.

[Dark Sage]

That may be the smartest thing you've said yet.

And that needs to be done before the Justice Department can even consider extradition. Even so, if it is determined that anyone in the White House did anything wrong, they will more than likely face American justice, not a court in Mexico.

After all, like you just said when I told you about the scandal involving Cain: "Got any proof" that Obama was involved?

[Roy Karrde]

That may be the smartest thing you've said yet.

And that needs to be done before the Justice Department can even consider extradition. Even so, if it is determined that anyone in the White House did anything wrong, they will more than likely face American justice, not a court in Mexico.

You do realize that the Justice Department is involved in the corruption correct? As it happened under their watch. And of course they can keep the criminals in the U.S. for trial, but not only will that destroy relations with Mexico, but Obama will have to answer why they are not being extradited to Mexico, when Mexico extradites to the U.S.


After all, like you just said when I told you about the scandal involving Cain: "Got any proof" that Obama was involved?

We have emails linking it to the White House, that is far more than anything that has been presented with Cain.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/02/nation/la-na-atf-guns-20110902

[Dark Sage]

You do realize that the Justice Department is involved in the corruption correct? As it happened under their watch.

You know, of course, that the Justice Department is in charge of deciding extradition requests, right? They weigh the case, decide the circumstances, decide whether the accused has been fairly accused, and decides whether the accused will get fair due process if tried in the country requesting the extradition. If they don't think so, then no extradition.

[Roy Karrde]

You know, of course, that the Justice Department is in charge of deciding extradition requests, right? They weigh the case, decide the circumstances, decide whether the accused has been fairly accused, and decides whether the accused will get fair due process if tried in the country requesting the extradition. If they don't think so, then no extradition.

Of course just noting that many if not all the criminals in the investigation more than likely originated from the Justice Department.

[Dark Sage]

By the way, that news story you provided a link to does not seem to indicate a formal extradition request, at least not a proper one. No names of the crimnals sought on the request (if it exists) are given, no statement is quoted by the Mexican ambassador to the United States, and the Department of State (the place where all such requests must first be sent to) is not even mentioned. I tend to think it was nothing more than an angry statement by a Mexican politician.

[Roy Karrde]

By the way, that news story you provided a link to does not seem to indicate a formal extradition request, at least not a proper one. No names of the crimnals sought on the request (if it exists) are given, no statement is quoted by the Mexican ambassador to the United States, and the Department of State (the place where all such requests must first be sent to) is not even mentioned. I tend to think it was nothing more than an angry statement by a Mexican politician.

Actually I was looking for this story from two days ago which is more up to date on the situation.


Mexico's attorney general says she has asked the United States to extradite six people suspected of providing guns to drug cartels.

Marisela Morales tells Congress that three people are being held in Texas and three in California.

She says two U.S. citizens were being held in Mexico on similar charges. She provided no details in Wednesday's statement and did not mention Operation Fast and Furious, in which U.S. officials followed suspected "straw" buyers of guns heading to Mexico instead of immediately arresting them.

She said one of the cases originated in Madera, California. US officials said this month that two men were being held on suspicion of smuggling .22-caliber rifles into Mexico in a case unrelated to drug cartels.

http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-asks-us-extradite-weapons-suspects-195621577.html

[Dark Sage]

Roy, I doubt any of those people are top-ranking members of the Justice Department or the Obama Administration. I mean, the way you were talking, you were suggesting that someone in the government was going to go to jail.

Sure, it's much more possible that some crooked cop would be arrested. But until proof of who was ultimately behind it is found, if any ever is, I don't think anyone in the Justice Department if going to go to prison.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, I doubt any of those people are top-ranking members of the Justice Department or the Obama Administration. I mean, the way you were talking, you were suggesting that someone in the government was going to go to jail.

Sure, it's much more possible that some crooked cop would be arrested. But until proof of who was ultimately behind it is found, if any ever is, I don't think anyone in the Justice Department if going to go to prison.

So far they have gotten the low level agents and straw buyers, those that authorized it, those in the Justice Department and the Obama Administration are currently being investigated by Congress. They are not willingly going to come out and admit wrong doing. Congress will have to drag them kicking and screaming out of either the Justice Department or the White House and force them into the light of day.

[Dark Sage]

And when the GOP has its most disastrous year ever in 2012, Congress will be out of their hands, and no-one will even remember it. You just wait, Roy...

Come next November, this clown car is going off a cliff.

[Roy Karrde]

And when the GOP has its most disastrous year ever in 2012, Congress will be out of their hands, and no-one will even remember it. You just wait, Roy...

Come next November, this clown car is going off a cliff.

Sure mind if I quote you on that? I love to replay that come election time. I mean with the Democrats having to defend far more seats than Republicans in the Senate, to the point many believe the Senate is lost to the Democrats. And with a failure in the White House. It's going to be hard as hell for the Democrats to have a good year.

[Dark Sage]

Yep, you can quote me on that. Can I quote you?

[Roy Karrde]

Yep, you can quote me on that. Can I quote you?

Sure but I am not making any predictions. If you notice my statements are filled with "Looks like" and "Hard as hell" I do not assume something is a sure thing when it comes to elections.

[Dark Sage]

I notice you aren't quoting the poll that puts Obama against the "generic GOP candidate" any more.

Know why? Because he's leading in that poll now.

He's also leading in each poll I've seen where it's him against one of the GOP candidates. Romney, Perry, Cain... All of them.

And while the majority of Americans say he doesn't deserve a second term, the majority also says they would prefer him to any GOP contender.

[Roy Karrde]

I notice you aren't quoting the poll that puts Obama against the "generic GOP candidate" any more.

Know why? Because he's leading in that poll now.

He's also leading in each poll I've seen where it's him against one of the GOP candidates. Romney, Perry, Cain... All of them.

And while the majority of Americans say he doesn't deserve a second term, the majority also says they would prefer him to any GOP contender.

Umm last time I checked both the two latest polls ( Fox News and CNN ) have Obama losing to Romney by 2 and 4. By the way against the Generic Republican, Obama is either within the margin of error ( Rasmussen ) or tied ( Politico ). And mind you the candidate polls are still handicapped as one is in the primaries where the base is split in all different directions, and the other isn't.

[Dark Sage]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

As you can see, Obama comes out higher in six of these popular polls, Romney in four. Obama clearly has done better.

In fact, whoever this "generic GOP candidate" is, you'd better get him on the debate floor. He's doing a lot better than anyone else. Lol.

Edit: One of the polls where Romney is ahead is Fox News. Big surprise there. Lol.

[Roy Karrde]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

As you can see, Obama comes out higher in six of these popular polls, Romney in four. Obama clearly has done better.

Umm yes polls do go up and down, especially when you do not have the field sewn up yet. I'll also remind you that polls right now are very poor in predicting the outcome, however Obama is running against history right now both with Unemployment numbers and his Popularity.



Edit: One of the polls where Romney is ahead is Fox News. Big surprise there. Lol.

Yes and even higher in CNN.

[Dark Sage]

My point was, Roy, that Fox is a practical haven for the GOP. Are you suggesting that CNN favors the Democrats?

Come to think of it, I have no idea if it does. I watch MSNBC. I grew sick of CNN a long time ago. If CNN does favor the Democrats, I'm not about to switch. (Showing favor to either side is not good for a news organization.)

[Roy Karrde]

My point was, Roy, that Fox is a practical haven for the GOP. Are you suggesting that CNN favors the Democrats?

I am saying that these companies outsource to polling organizations, unless they are a known Partisan Pollster like PPP, you cannot claim bias just by the company that hired them. By the way Obama was winning to Romney in the previous two Fox News polls, again its all about the swings of the base during a Primary Election.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, please... There are no Democrats that watch Fox News unless they want the laughs. Even most serious Republicans think folks like Glenn Beck are crazy. The only smart thing that guy ever did was admit that the Birther movement was a sham.

Every time I hear their claim that they are "the only fair and balanced news network" I feel like throwing up. That is false advertising, plain and simple.

It no surprise to me at all that a poll taken by Fox News would fall in Romney's (or any Republican's) favor. It IS, a surprise, however, that Obama would be so close in such a poll.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, please... There are no Democrats that watch Fox News unless they want the laughs. Even most serious Republicans think folks like Glenn Beck are crazy. The only smart thing that guy ever did was admit that the Birther movement was a sham.

Every time I hear their claim that they are "the only fair and balanced news network" I feel like throwing up. That is false advertising, plain and simple.

It no surprise to me at all that a poll taken by Fox News would fall in Romney's (or any Republican's) favor. It IS, a surprise, however, that Obama would be so close in such a poll.

So umm care to explain why the two previous Fox polls have Romney losing to Obama?

[Dark Sage]

I have no idea. My best guess is, Fox was supporting Cain at that point, like a lot of the GOP were. I certainly didn't take part in any poll offered by Fox. Do you think I watch it?

I still stand by the facts, Roy. In ten of those popular polls, Obama wins more than Romney. I answered your original question, btw, when you claimed that Romney was beating Obama in the polls. It would be nice for you to acknowledge that I was right.

[Roy Karrde]

I have no idea. My best guess is, Fox was supporting Cain at that point, like a lot of the GOP were. I certainly didn't take part in any poll offered by Fox. Do you think I watch it?

Again you realize that Fox does not offer the poll, it is Opinion Dynamics. Fox News outsources their polling to that group, just like MSNBC and CNN outsource their polling, and every other network does the same.


I still stand by the facts, Roy. In ten of those popular polls, Obama wins more than Romney. I answered your original question, btw, when you claimed that Romney was beating Obama in the polls. It would be nice for you to acknowledge that I was right.

Sure and I hope polls from over a year out in the mist of the primary battle offer you comfort. I don't know how they would, but then again I am not you.

[Dark Sage]

I'm glad I'm not you, Roy, because you, like everyone who votes Republican, is a dupe.

You think you are a Republican, but only the richest people in this country are true members of the GOP. Everyone else who votes for them is simply fooled by their false promises, such as the campaign promises that they made in 2010 which they have not yet kept. You're fooled by their promises to increase employment while they strike down every bill that would do so. You buy their claim that taxing the rich would cause more unemployment.

I'm glad I'm not you, because folks like you buy all the bull that they put out, despite what common sense shows everyone else.

[Roy Karrde]

You're fooled by their promises to increase employment while they strike down every bill that would do so.

Cutting out the crappy personal attacks. Just wanted to point out that the House Republicans have passed 15 job bills to try and increase employment. Why havn't the Democrats in the Senate voted forward any of the "Forgotten 15"?

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/08/the-%E2%80%9Cforgotten-15%E2%80%9D-gop-jobs-bills/

By the way on the subject of jobs. Obama is delaying shale drilling which is killing up to 200,000 more jobs.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-usda-delays-shale-drilling-200k-jobs

[DarkestLight]

Uhhhhh naive american here to point out something that I feel is a misinterpretation of the facts.
1) alot of people are saying the last 4 years have been shit because of Obama and his mishandling of the administration. Can someone objectivly point out his mishaps? OR at least the major ones?

2) then, can someone explain why the hell are we asamericans are arguing over semantics, instead of fully occupying the places and people that have the money and truly creating this so called new age revolution? Im tired of hearing nrich say to tax them, poo rdemanding money to be equal and all the rageface over debt when we as a nation can put a stupid end to all of it by creating a new focal point of money in ourselves that woul benefit everyone as long as they worked for it. :/ stay at home baby factories need not apply.
3) lastly, I need to understand what makes you folks think Democrats or Republicans will ever get it right? Why these candidates; past their promises and campaigns. What makes you feel they'll get what needs to be done done 8n the set amount of time.

I ask this because we never really never see presidential effect until well after they're gone. I dunno why its just an 8 term one time only gig ._. Gives plans time to fully map out. Prolly would save everyone money....

[Dark Sage]

DarkestLight, the two-term limit tradition was started by Thomas Jefferson. He did not believe that any man should be President for longer than two terms, because he felt that being head of a nation longer would violate the purpose that America was founded on. (They were previously ruled by the King of England, who ruled for life.) Most Presidents after him followed his example, and retired after two terms. FDR only remained in office longer because we were in the middle of World War II, and after that, they decided to make it offical and put a Constitutional Amendment making it law.

(Curiously, although the GOP were the biggest supporters of this Amendment, the first President to actually be affected by it was Eisenhower, who was a Republican. Truman, a Democrat, was in office when it was passed, but due a clause in the Amendment, it did not apply to him because he was elected President before it was passed, and could have run for a third term had he wanted to.)

[Asilynne]

I agree with the no personal attacks common courtesy of debating. It only makes you look bad, anytime you say "ALL people who vote this way are stupid/ignorant/misled/etc etc" you are making a broad generalization that borders on prejudice. You cannot possibly personally know "ALL" people who believe a certain way and therefore you are judging a whole group of people based upon your own opinions. If you say some that would be more accurate because yes there are some on both sides which are stupid and ignorant and only vote the way they do to follow their party blindly, but that goes BOTH WAYS. :)

[Dark Sage]

Well, Asilynne, I said that Obama was beating Romney in the polls, he challenged me to prove it, I successfully did so, but he still would not acknowledge that I was right.

Roy will never admit he is wrong, a trait that I firmly believe the whole GOP has. He was just getting under my skin at that point.

[Roy Karrde]

Well, Asilynne, I said that Obama was beating Romney in the polls, he challenged me to prove it, I successfully did so, but he still would not acknowledge that I was right.

Roy will never admit he is wrong, a trait that I firmly believe the whole GOP has. He was just getting under my skin at that point.

What? Lets look back at what you said.

He's also leading in each poll I've seen where it's him against one of the GOP candidates. Romney, Perry, Cain... All of them.

To which I replied with

Umm last time I checked both the two latest polls ( Fox News and CNN ) have Obama losing to Romney by 2 and 4.

Not only did I not challenge you with that statement ( I was just stating that the two latest polls disprove you ). But you quickly tried to side step your remarks and say that the majority of the polls has Obama beating Romney. While that is true, that is not what you said, you said each poll.

I assume now since you believe that not admitting that a person is wrong is only a GOP trait, you will quickly admit that you are wrong and we will move on.

[Dark Sage]

See what I mean, people? He won't give up, and he always has to have the last word.

[Asilynne]

You are both stubborn and unwilling to believe you are wrong in any kind of way, you just happen to be on opposing sides so it is an unwinnable war lol But neither of you represent what every member of each others party is to a T, so lets just keep the accusations to each other and leave the rest of the world (dem + repub) out of it ;D

[Dark Sage]

Actually, I'm only a Democrat because I think that they are the lesser of the two evils. My personal belief is that political parties should be abolished.

Do you know what George Washington's political party was? Textbooks say he was a Federalist, but in reality, he opposed the whole idea of political parties. He thought that they would create rivalries that would divide the country and tear it apart.

Unfortunately, this was one of his ideas that wasn't popular, even though many of his ideas were. A shame, really... He was right all along...

Edit: Btw, some people think that a third party would solve the problem, but I disagree. If a third party ever became as powerful as the Democrats and the GOP, it would become just as corrupt as they are, we'd have even more problems.

[Asilynne]

Actually, I'm only a Democrat because I think that they are the lesser of the two evils. My personal belief is that political parties should be abolished.

Do you know what George Washington's political party was? Textbooks say he was a Federalist, but in reality, he opposed the whole idea of political parties. He thought that they would create rivalries that would divide the country and tear it apart.

Unfortunately, this was one of his ideas that wasn't popular, even though many of his ideas were. A shame, really... He was right all along...

Edit: Btw, some people think that a third party would solve the problem, but I disagree. If a third party ever became as powerful as the Democrats and the GOP, it would become just as corrupt as they are, we'd have even more problems.

Aside from the democrat thing hehe this is pretty much the way I look at it too. George Washington is my favorite president, simply because he had the opportunity to be made the King of America, the people wanted him to be but he said no we are done with kings, thats what created the problem in the first place. It takes an extremely smart man and great leader to sit there and deny kingship and all the power that comes with it just for the best interest of the people and the country. He could have easily abused his power but he didn't. Its a shame we don't have someone like that anymore...

I really think we shouldn't have parties either, its too easy to 'label' someone that way. Vote for the person and their policies and plans, not for red or blue. And it should be possible for everyday people to run, not just well-to-do's.

[Dark Sage]

Well, another GOP contender (I use the term loosely) made a fool of himself again.

Speaking at Saint Anselm on Tuesday, Rick Perry said to students: "Those of you that will be 21 by November the 12th, I ask for your support and your vote."

Obviously, Perry forget that voting age is actually 18. Maybe he was confusing it with drinking age... I dunno... But he still should have known better.

This man wants to be President... Give me a break...

Edit: He made another mistake too. Election Day will be Novemeber 6th next year.

[Asilynne]

Maybe he wants their support for a keg stand, come on, don't be so quick to judge lol jk

[Roy Karrde]

Well, another GOP contender (I use the term loosely) made a fool of himself again.

Speaking at Saint Anselm on Tuesday, Rick Perry said to students: "Those of you that will be 21 by November the 12th, I ask for your support and your vote."

Obviously, Perry forget that voting age is actually 18. Maybe he was confusing it with drinking age... I dunno... But he still should have known better.

This man wants to be President... Give me a break...

Edit: He made another mistake too. Election Day will be Novemeber 6th next year.

Now you know how Republicans felt after Obama pulled the "57 states" comment.

That man wanted to be President too... Give me a break...

[Dark Sage]

At least Obama can spell "potato".

I think he knows what day Pearl Harbor Day is on too.

You Republicans keep quoting that "57 state" gaffe every time a GOP candidate makes one, even thought they've made over a dozen compared to his one.

[Roy Karrde]

At least Obama can spell "potato".

I think he knows what day Pearl Harbor Day is on too.

You Republicans keep quoting that "57 state" gaffe every time a GOP candidate makes one, even thought they've made over a dozen compared to his one.

Obama also saw "dead soldiers" at a event, and doesn't know how to say Corpsmen.

We can go round and round this all day. Fact is when you are on the campaign trail 24/7 any candidate is going to have gaffs.

[DarkestLight]

::Points to previous post of his, notes in the time span, his queries have not been answered, but rather deflected. Blames Asi,, because women are sinners.:: :/ Politics, always putting down the brudda man! xD

[Roy Karrde]

Uhhhhh naive american here to point out something that I feel is a misinterpretation of the facts.
1) alot of people are saying the last 4 years have been shit because of Obama and his mishandling of the administration. Can someone objectivly point out his mishaps? OR at least the major ones?

I would say anyone would point to his pivot so quickly on Obamacare in early 2009 as a mishap. He believed the economy would get better just by the Stimulus, and it obviously did not. Instead of working on the economy he brought the American Government into a heated year long argument over Health Care reform while the economy was in the tank.

There are many times where he really has failed in a leadership position, that being one of them. There have also been several other mishaps like the Cash for Clunkers program that ended up a abysmal failure.

And of course what originally pissed me off on Obama, is the White House trying to float the idea of the Vets being forced to pay for private insurance for injuries suffered in the war zone when they got back home.


2) then, can someone explain why the hell are we asamericans are arguing over semantics, instead of fully occupying the places and people that have the money and truly creating this so called new age revolution? Im tired of hearing nrich say to tax them, poo rdemanding money to be equal and all the rageface over debt when we as a nation can put a stupid end to all of it by creating a new focal point of money in ourselves that woul benefit everyone as long as they worked for it. :/ stay at home baby factories need not apply.

Because people are either lazy, or do not want it to change, or have better things to do in life.


3) lastly, I need to understand what makes you folks think Democrats or Republicans will ever get it right? Why these candidates; past their promises and campaigns. What makes you feel they'll get what needs to be done done 8n the set amount of time.

Newly elected groups who are just regaining power, do tend to get things done right away, and respect what they campaigned on and what the people want. The Republicans in 1994 and the Democrats in 2006 are good examples of this. It is when they get too comfortable in power that problems begin to happen, like the Republicans in 2004, and Democrats in 2008.

[DarkestLight]

Thank you Roy for giving me clear cut answers. I feel like a mediator now, lol. Sorry for the bad typos too, I was on my phone the day I posted that. Bad bad keyboard.

[Dark Sage]

You know, I'm really getting sick of the term "Obamacare". Every time I see that word used, I want to hit someone.

It's called the Affordable Health Care Act. I don't recall the Democrats giving dumb names to any GOP bills, no matter how much they disagreed with them.

Why don't you ask Gingrich and Romney about the very similar Health Care plans that they once supported, even though both are staunchly opposing this one.

[Heald]

To be fair, the GOP just gave their own bills dumbass names. PATRIOT Act anyone?

[Dark Sage]

You're allowed to give your own bills dumb names. Giving someone else's bill a dumb name is insulting.

[Asilynne]

It's supposedly a free country, anyone can give anything else a dumb name :P

[Roy Karrde]

You know, I'm really getting sick of the term "Obamacare". Every time I see that word used, I want to hit someone.

It's called the Affordable Health Care Act. I don't recall the Democrats giving dumb names to any GOP bills, no matter how much they disagreed with them.

Why don't you ask Gingrich and Romney about the very similar Health Care plans that they once supported, even though both are staunchly opposing this one.

Oh of course there have been stupid names given to both sides. Obamacare comes off the 1994 term of Hillarycare, and it is a easy shorthand way to say it and people know what you are saying. Mind you the bill's name in and of itself is stupid as it does not make Health Care affordable.

Also Romney is the only similar Health Care plan I can recall that actually passed. And there is no argument there because it is a state's issue, and states, not the Federal Government have the power to pass mandates.

Edit: Also just quick note, if Democrats were so proud of the bill and what they passed they should have no problem with people slapping Obama's name on it. Funny that they have such a problem with it.

[Jeff]

It's supposedly a free country, anyone can give anything else a dumb name :P

Just ask Frank Zappa.

[The Blue Avenger]

Edit: Also just quick note, if Democrats were so proud of the bill and what they passed they should have no problem with people slapping Obama's name on it. Funny that they have such a problem with it.

By way of example:

It's perfectly possible to use someone's name in an unflattering way. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98dai6CC5BA&feature=related)

See also: parenthetical swearing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ParentheticalSwearing).

[Dark Sage]

I must be one of the miniscule minorities that did not like that show...

I thought I'd share something with you all... I had an interesting discussion with my employer today... Most people tell you not to discuss politics with colleges, but he had some time to kill.

He told me that he didn't like Obama much, and that if the GOP candidate were better, he'd likely vote Republican in 2012.

Then he told me which Republicans might be better. He said that McCain was, until he did some pretty stupid things that likely cost him the election in 2012. He said Rudy Guliani was. Then he gave some names I didn't recognize.

If I asked if he considered Cain, Romney, Bachmann, Perry, or Gingrich better, he said, not even close. Any of them, and he'd consider Obama far better.

He told me that Obama, despite his faults, probably has nothing to worry about, because the alternative is worse. And frankly, I agree with him.

On another note, he named some members of the GOP whom he thinks should be committed to an asylum. They include Palin and Trump.

[Roy Karrde]

By way of example:

It's perfectly possible to use someone's name in an unflattering way. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98dai6CC5BA&feature=related)

See also: parenthetical swearing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ParentheticalSwearing).

I may be misrepresenting what I was trying to say. I am not saying Obamacare is not unflattering. I am saying that the only reason it is unflattering is because the law is roundly rejected by the American people. If the law was popular, then saying Obamacare for the law would be a political plus for Obama and be welcomed by the Democrats as it would tie his name to a popular law. But the fact is, is that the public hates the law, and as such Obama and the Democrats are trying to distance themselves from it as quickly as possible.

[Dark Sage]

I'd like to state a few facts.

In a recent interview, Michelle Bachmann stated that all (that's right, all) undocumented immigrants should be deported. All of her GOP rivals agreed with this statement.

It would cost about $12 billion to do, which she feels the American taxpayer should pay.

In other news, a recent poll shows that 86% of Hispanics support President Obama. This may be a big factor in states that McCain recently said are "up for grabs", including Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado.

My opinion? The GOP's policies are self-destructive. Not to mention stupid.

My opinion is that Bachmann and her cronies should read what's written on the Statue of Liberty's plaque, and then go home.

[Roy Karrde]

I'd like to state a few facts.

In a recent interview, Michelle Bachmann stated that all (that's right, all) undocumented immigrants should be deported. All of her GOP rivals agreed with this statement.

It would cost about $12 billion to do, which she feels the American taxpayer should pay.

And that would be quite a steal.


In other news, a recent poll shows that 86% of Hispanics support President Obama. This may be a big factor in states that McCain recently said are "up for grabs", including Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado.

This the same McCain who pandered to the "Pro Criminal" crowd of the Hispanic populous for so many years and was unable to lock down any thing other than a small percentage of the Hispanic vote?


My opinion? The GOP's policies are self-destructive. Not to mention stupid.

So following the law of the nation is now self destructive and stupid to you? Last time I check the President's job was to uphold the laws of the land.


My opinion is that Bachmann and her cronies should read what's written on the Statue of Liberty's plaque, and then go home.

My opinion is all those open border nuts should stop discriminating against those who are not lucky enough to just cross a border and get into the United States.

[The Blue Avenger]

Not to interrupt, but I'm surprised nobody mentioned this yet.

Cain's suspended his campaign (http://kotaku.com/5864783/herman-cain-quotes-pokemon-as-he-suspends-his-campaign)... by quoting Pokemon. Looks like he got the quote right this time around.

[Heald]

I'm not really sure what Cain really hopes to achieve with this move, surely his campaign is not really going to recover. He'd be better off pulling out altogether if he has his family in mind.

[Roy Karrde]

I'm not really sure what Cain really hopes to achieve with this move, surely his campaign is not really going to recover. He'd be better off pulling out altogether if he has his family in mind.

From what I am hearing: The “suspension” language is simply a legal formality driven by FEC rules. If he says he’s quitting, certainly legal consequences flow from that; if I’m not mistaken, it would render him ineligible for federal matching funds. “Suspending” carries no such implications. Essentially, he’s saying he’s out without saying it legally.

[Heald]

Ah that I guess that makes more sense. The press intrusion really has been ridiculous for all of the GOP candidates. As much as I despise Palin, it wasn't necessary for such a witch-hunt to occur around her.

[Dark Sage]

And that would be quite a steal.

But on who's part?

You can bet she'll never propose to raise taxes on the rich.

[Roy Karrde]

But on who's part?

You can bet she'll never propose to raise taxes on the rich.

12 billion dollars? That is NOTHING in terms of Government money.

[Dark Sage]

From what I am hearing: The “suspension” language is simply a legal formality driven by FEC rules. If he says he’s quitting, certainly legal consequences flow from that; if I’m not mistaken, it would render him ineligible for federal matching funds. “Suspending” carries no such implications. Essentially, he’s saying he’s out without saying it legally.

Yes, I agree. Cain has quit.

So now, the GOP frontrunner is an admitted adulterer who has been divorced three times. One who was very critical of Bill Clinton's scandals, if I recall. Not as bad as Cain, who wouldn't even admit his faults, but bad enough.

Please all you GOP supporters, keep supporting Gingrich. He would be a dream candidate for us Democrats.

[Katie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=0PAJNntoRgA

I'm not ashamed to admit I'm part of the 76% majority in our country. But since our children are being kicked out of school when someone finds out they pray, and kicked out of america when someone finds out that they celebrate christmas... I really need to get rid of those gays in the military.

I HATE YOU SO MUCH RICK PERRY. you can disable youtube comments all you want. I hope you noticed the likes/dislikes ratio you smug cocksucker. and take off that carhartt, you're as white-collar as they come. so angry, goddamn.

[Heald]

I'm not really so concerned about his worries that Christianity is under attack (I imagine it is largely unfounded and only being perpetuated by a few hysterical articles in tabloids) but his attacks of gays are pretty disgusting. This is the 21st century, can't we move beyond petty, small-minded hatred? The GOP would do well to drop their attacks on gays. The small amount of voters they'd lose would surely be made up tenfold in those who would otherwise vote Republican if not for their toxic brand.

[Dark Sage]

I have several friends who are either gay or bisexual, which is one of the reasons I side with the Democrats.

They say they are "pro-family", when what they really mean is, they're bigots.

Edit: I also find Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres very funny.

[Roy Karrde]

Umm.. the fuck?

How is this a attack on Gays? I mean I came in expecting a ad that was to slam Gays and be this fire brand type attack. In the end the line was: "There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. "

That isn't saying anything but: Why can people be open about their sexuality in the military, but kids cannot be open about their religion in school?

That really doesn't seem to be a attack on gays but a semi valid but rather irrelevant question.

In more... well relevant news. Obama made one of his first campaign speeches, and it was found that he was pretty much lying through his teeth.


Obama’s claim of the “slowest job growth,” in fact, includes the loss of jobs under his administration. The White House provided as evidence a report on a New York Times blog that was based on gross domestic product data through 2010, or the first two years of Obama’s administration.

The White House also cited a Center on American Progress report on job growth through 2007, which showed monthly job growth of 68,000 jobs during the Bush business cycle. But, since the recession ended, job growth has been even more anemic under Obama — just 40,500 jobs a month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. … [I]t seems odd to keep blaming poor job growth on the Bush tax cuts, especially because Obama himself pushed through a nearly $1 trillion stimulus and took other actions that have affected the economy, for better or worse.

...

Finally, Obama blames the Bush tax cuts for “massive deficits.” It is certainly true that the Bush tax cuts helped blow a hole in the budget. But they did not do it all by themselves. Welooked at length at this issue earlier this year, assisted by new Congressional Budget Office data.

The data showed that the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. The Bush tax cuts (along with some Obama tax cuts) were responsible for just 24 percent.

Thus it is simply wrong to blame only the Bush tax cuts for the deficits now faced by the country, especially three years into another presidential term.

Kessler misses another problem, which is the massive increase in budgetary and non-budgetary spending by Democrats after taking control of Congress and the White House. The last fully Republican budget, FY2007, spent $2.77 trillion. Democrats took control of Congress and raised annual spending levels in just three years by over a trillion dollars, while tax receipts declined because of the deep recession. On top of that, Obama pushed through an $800 billion stimulus that supposedly was going to restart job creation, and which failed miserably. Blaming Bush for deficits in 2009, 2010, and 2011 isn’t just wrong, it’s a flat-out lie, and a very self-serving lie at that.

[Heald]

Umm.. the fuck?

How is this a attack on Gays? I mean I came in expecting a ad that was to slam Gays and be this fire brand type attack. In the end the line was: "There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. "

That isn't saying anything but: Why can people be open about their sexuality in the military, but kids cannot be open about their religion in school?

That really doesn't seem to be a attack on gays but a semi valid but rather irrelevant question.
The problem I have with the advert is that he seems to be saying that the former should be banned and the latter should not be banned (although according to sources I've checked out since making my posts, praying in schools and Christmas aren't banned, so it's a non-issue anyway).

If he wasn't saying gays serving in the military was a bad thing, then why didn't he just say 'There's something wrong in this country when kids can't pray in schools and Christmas is banned.' instead of adding the whole thing about gays serving in the military. That would have actually improved the advert by a thousand times. It would have appealed to Americans who feel that their religion is being marginalised, but the whole 'gay rights is wrong' vibe he gives off right from the word go (and the immediate implied definition that being Christian means you must be anti-gay) just alienates people who don't feel strongly one way or another about gay rights but don't see themselves voting for someone who holds an uncomfortable position on the matter.

Sure, he didn't outright say 'gays are wrong' but it was heavily implied and the fact that a lot of people are walking away from the advert not thinking that he's a good Christian but some kind of misinformed crazed homophobe is rather bad.

[Roy Karrde]

The problem I have with the advert is that he seems to be saying that the former should be banned and the latter should not be banned (although according to sources I've checked out since making my posts, praying in schools and Christmas aren't banned, so it's a non-issue anyway).

If he wasn't saying gays serving in the military was a bad thing, then why didn't he just say 'There's something wrong in this country when kids can't pray in schools and Christmas is banned.' instead of adding the whole thing about gays serving in the military. That would have actually improved the advert by a thousand times. It would have appealed to Americans who feel that their religion is being marginalised, but the whole 'gay rights is wrong' vibe he gives off right from the word go (and the immediate implied definition that being Christian means you must be anti-gay) just alienates people who don't feel strongly one way or another about gay rights but don't see themselves voting for someone who holds an uncomfortable position on the matter.

I am not getting that, and it may be reading far too deep into it. But it comes off as "Why one and not the other" sort of thing. Now I have no doubt Perry was against the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell, but this does not seem to be a ad in which he is getting on a soap box about it, or even attacking gays at all. But more like: "Why are people allowed to express their sexuality in the military, but kids are not allowed to express their religion in school".


Sure, he didn't outright say 'gays are wrong' but it was heavily implied and the fact that a lot of people are walking away from the advert not thinking that he's a good Christian but some kind of misinformed crazed homophobe is rather bad.

True but one has to wonder if the people did not already start with those prejudices against Perry to begin with.

[Heald]

Not that I'm saying Perry is a racist or sexist or fat, but the message would be exactly the same if it was phrased as one of the following:

"You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when women can vote but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

or

"You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when a black person doesn't have to give up his seat for a white person but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

or

"You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when you can get over 2000 calories of low grade fried beef plus sides for a dollar ninety-nine but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

Just sayin'. I mean we can have women voting and black people on buses and ridiculously cheap unhealthy eats as well as free worship in schools, aye? Oh, and fags with guns shooting Arabs too. How would Rick Perry react if it was a gay who shot Bin Laden?

It doesn't really matter though. As much as I liked parts of Perry, as this campaign has worn on he is increasingly proven himself as a nitwit who puts his foot in his mouth time and time again. I don't really hold much hope for a guy who can't even remember a list 3 items long. Man, I bet he has a hard time at the shops if he needs to get more than bread and eggs. I have very low expectations for him to be facing Obama next year, which is good, because the GOP needs a much better candidate than this clown if they want to beat Obama.

[Roy Karrde]

Not that I'm saying Perry is a racist or sexist or fat, but the message would be exactly the same if it was phrased as one of the following:

"You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when women can vote but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

or

"You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when a black person doesn't have to give up his seat for a white person but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

or

"You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when you can get over 2000 calories of low grade fried beef plus sides for a dollar ninety-nine but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

True however I do think the phrasing of those are a bit off in compared to one another, as one is talking about open sexuality in a branch of Government in which sexuality should not play a part of life in that branch, while the others are not.


Just sayin'. I mean we can have women voting and black people on buses and ridiculously cheap unhealthy eats as well as free worship in schools, aye? Oh, and fags with guns shooting Arabs too. How would Rick Perry react if it was a gay who shot Bin Laden?

Probably with gratitude? I mean it is a bit of a stretch to say "I don't think people need to be open about about their sexuality in the military" to "I would dislike a soldier's actions just because he was gay".


It doesn't really matter though. As much as I liked parts of Perry, as this campaign has worn on he is increasingly proven himself as a nitwit who puts his foot in his mouth time and time again. I don't really hold much hope for a guy who can't even remember a list 3 items long. Man, I bet he has a hard time at the shops if he needs to get more than bread and eggs. I have very low expectations for him to be facing Obama next year, which is good, because the GOP needs a much better candidate than this clown if they want to beat Obama.

Very true which is why more than likely Romney will be the nominee.

[Dark Sage]

Perry has one thing going for him. He turned down Trumps invitation for the debate that Trump wants to host himself.

But here's the place where the GOP is really in trouble. Gingrich, the front-runner, agreed. Him and Santorum are the only ones who have. Bachmann hasn't replied yet, but everyone expects her to RSVP in the negative too.

I personally wouldn't watch any political debate that Trump hosts if the only competition was a Little Rascals marathon, and I pity the candidate who gets his endorsement.

[mattbcl]

I think Roy brings up a valid point. One does not need to be open about one's sexuality in order to serve in any position, either in the public or private sectors. My grandmother had a delightful phrase regarding this: "I wish homophobes would stop flaming gay people. And I wish gay people would stop flaming, period!" To translate, she had absolutely no issue with anybody choosing how to live their own lives and how to conduct their personal business - she only took offense when they shoved it in the faces of others. I think you would find that a lot of society (including gays) would tend to agree with that position... after all, how do you think they feel when the exaggerated merits of a straight lifestyle are shoved down their throats?

This is the argument, as it should be standing on its own merits: Why is it a person's sexual orientation should be considered to have any measure or impact on his/her ability to perform the functions of a task/job/assignment? Where is the enlightenment that tells an employer (up to and including the armed services) that this subject should matter exactly as much as the applicant's hair color and whether he/she likes to cut a piece of toast across or diagonally?

Logically, it should not.

But that particular argument gets lost in the rhetoric that abounds during election years. If a candidate stands up for gays, he's accused of having no moral standards and he's painted as being unable to say no to his own kids. If the candidate instead says that he does not support homosexuality as a lifestyle, the ramifications are no less dire - he's called a homophobe and a bigot, and he's branded for life as an out-of-touch, intolerant malcontent.

With regards to the Rick Perry ad, I don't necessarily want to think of him being in the latter category, but I do think he's pandering to the people that occupy it. And that's going to turn the rest of the country off. I don't know where in the world he thinks this "war on religion" is happening, besides in the confines of his own mind, but as with anything else, there will be those that stand up and thump their chests and say, "Damn right!" without really thinking it through. This is one of the drawbacks of having a governmental system and a society like that of the U.S.; you're free to think what you like, and you're free to think what someone else tells you to.

Still wouldn't trade it for anything else, though.

[Blademaster]

Christmas > Gays

I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message.

[Dark Sage]

And since when do gays not celebrate Christmas?

Those gay and bisexual friends of mine I mentioned sure do. I just got a Christmas card from one of them today.

[mattbcl]

It's worth noting that The Daily What (http://thedailywh.at/2011/12/08/important-internet-milestone-of-the-day/) reports that ad is now officially the most "disliked" video of YouTube's history, beating out Rebecca Black's "Friday" video within just 2 days of being posted.

[Roy Karrde]

Funny thing is, with those on the left and Perry's own opponents on the right, going after the video so feverishly. They are just giving the video free advertisement. Instead of letting it sink into the either with all the other campaign videos out right now. It gives Perry tons more advertisement, and reaches out to even more voters.

[mattbcl]

Interesting point. Do you suppose he generated the ad to provoke the kind of response he's getting and ramp up his visibility? Any number of people have opined that he's a doddering moron, but I don't agree. He had to know it was going to be controversial, and that he would be reviled by the LGBT, liberal, and moderate communities for lending his voice to that script.

[Asilynne]

Now, I haven't seen the vid yet, but from the one line people keep quoting it seems less like its "OMG HAT GAYZ" and more "We should all be able to embrace who we are publicly without fear of ridicule or harassment". I think its great that more and more people in the LGBT community can feel the freedom of being themselves without having to be afraid of what people think, thats what America is all about. But not all Americans enjoy that freedom anymore. It seems to be popular to bash Christians in any capacity, and I remember in High school having to be afraid to let people know because I was brutally harassed, and even in the Christian club that met after school we weren't safe from taunts and people throwing things at us. This is wrong no matter who you are. We wouldn't tolerate it if it were done to minorities, or jews, or muslims, or gays, so we shouldn't tolerate it when its done to Christians, even if we don't believe in the same things.

We should all stand up for every other American's right to be who they are without fear, regardless if we follow the same path.

[Heald]

Funny thing is, with those on the left and Perry's own opponents on the right, going after the video so feverishly. They are just giving the video free advertisement. Instead of letting it sink into the either with all the other campaign videos out right now. It gives Perry tons more advertisement, and reaches out to even more voters.
I don't really buy this. A video of Perry screaming "FUCKING MEXICANS" into a microphone 50 times with Nyan Cat playing in the background would generate ten times as much publicity as this video but I doubt that would help his campaign.

[shazza]

The parallel between gays serving in the military and kids being incapable to celebrate Christmas was arduously homophobic. Plain and simple. Perry's comparison was insinuating that America has become so backwards that something as absurd as enlisting homosexuals is fine but kids being able to express their freedom is not. He is championing for a return to the 'true' America that has been lost; homosexuals serving in the military is not the 'true' America. You’re blind if you don’t see it.

Perry is fundamentally denouncing expression and freedom in one capacity but advocating another form of expression and freedom.

And it's almost 2012. Wow.

[Roy Karrde]

I don't really buy this. A video of Perry screaming "FUCKING MEXICANS" into a microphone 50 times with Nyan Cat playing in the background would generate ten times as much publicity as this video but I doubt that would help his campaign.

That would constitute more of a meltdown video, like we saw of Howard Dean, this however is more of a campaign message, not a meltdown video, aimed at middle class families, and religious voters. One obviously is a video the campaign wouldnt want to get out, the other isn't. To put it another way, the more attention the left gives this video, the greater the chance the people who are the target audience for this video see it, and embrace it.

In politics the usual rule of thumb for campaign videos is not to give your opponent free advertisement. The left is doing that for Perry, giving him free advertisement. They may disagree with his message, but in the end the campaign video will reach even more voters, many of which it is designed exactly for, than it would have with out the left going ape shit over it. And the Perry campaign does not have to spend a dime.

[mattbcl]

The left is giving it free advertisement the same way Obama flogged McCain's "hundred years" line, the same way McCain flogged Obama's "spread the wealth" line - they don't need to add anything to it, they only need to let it speak for itself. It's self-immolation. My prediction is it will anger far more voters into either staying home or actively voting against him, and those who embrace it will be drowned out.

[Roy Karrde]

The left is giving it free advertisement the same way Obama flogged McCain's "hundred years" line, the same way McCain flogged Obama's "spread the wealth" line - they don't need to add anything to it, they only need to let it speak for itself. It's self-immolation. My prediction is it will anger far more voters into either staying home or actively voting against him, and those who embrace it will be drowned out.

If this were the General Election you would be absolutely right 100%. But this isnt the General Election, this is the Iowa primaries. Meaning that the Liberals and Democrats cannot vote, the Libertarians will vote for Ron Paul, the Moderates and Tea Party supporters will vote for either Gingrich or Romney. And who ever captures the Social Conservative vote will come out pretty strong.

[Katie]

I think Roy brings up a valid point. One does not need to be open about one's sexuality in order to serve in any position, either in the public or private sectors. My grandmother had a delightful phrase regarding this: "I wish homophobes would stop flaming gay people. And I wish gay people would stop flaming, period!" To translate, she had absolutely no issue with anybody choosing how to live their own lives and how to conduct their personal business - she only took offense when they shoved it in the faces of others. I think you would find that a lot of society (including gays) would tend to agree with that position... after all, how do you think they feel when the exaggerated merits of a straight lifestyle are shoved down their throats?

This is the argument, as it should be standing on its own merits: Why is it a person's sexual orientation should be considered to have any measure or impact on his/her ability to perform the functions of a task/job/assignment? Where is the enlightenment that tells an employer (up to and including the armed services) that this subject should matter exactly as much as the applicant's hair color and whether he/she likes to cut a piece of toast across or diagonally?

Logically, it should not.


I think you're missing the entire point of why DADT is so fucking horrific. DADT was a band-aid of surrender, saying "well if no one will vote to NOT kick out gay service members, why don't we just never talk about it?" Under DADT being gay in the military was still disallowed. Regardless, no your orientation doesn't matter in your job. That's the point. If you can get fired from your job for accidentally letting slip "Yes, on Christmas my family likes to drive through the neighborhood to look at Christmas lights. Funny story actually, last year my boyfriend - OOPS DISCHARGED" - there is something seriously wrong. Straight people take for granted how often they can mention their significant others. Why should some people have to hide their personal life when sharing your personal life is the norm for everyone else?

It's like disallowing redheads from serving. If you make all redheads shave their heads, no one knows that they have red hair. But why fucking bother? Hair color doesn't matter, attraction doesn't matter. Period.

[kurai]

The parallel between gays serving in the military and kids being incapable to celebrate Christmas was arduously homophobic. Plain and simple. Perry's comparison was insinuating that America has become so backwards that something as absurd as enlisting homosexuals is fine but kids being able to express their freedom is not. He is championing for a return to the 'true' America that has been lost; homosexuals serving in the military is not the 'true' America. You’re blind if you don’t see it.

Perry is fundamentally denouncing expression and freedom in one capacity but advocating another form of expression and freedom.

And it's almost 2012. Wow.

the absolute best one can get from the given quotation would be 'why gay rights but not christian rights', which pretty clearly defines the subordinate group (at worst, you find 'no gay rights, christian rights')...

seems if you want to argue for total equity through the negation of any special treatment you could phrase it a thousand other ways that don't appear to be deliberately offensive?

the worst part is that the quote is a totally false dichotomy (between freedom and restraint), the actual status quo provides freedom on all fronts:

- nothing stops you from opting in to being in the military as a homosexual
- nothing stops you from opting in to prayer at school/celebrating Christmas
- being gay in the military is not mandatory
- praying at school/celebrating Christmas is not mandatory

he is advocating enforced christian morality to restrain others (that is, praying in school is not the same thing as school prayer), not freedom for christians (which is already present, just not in the exclusive state apparently desired by Perry)

as such, he is committing the worst betrayal of america's finest attribute - individual social liberty

[Dark Sage]

More bad news for Perry.

In an interview, he couldn't remember Justice Sonia Sotomayor's name, and had to be helped by an aide to remember it.

How many gaffes is Perry going to make? As Foghorn Leghorn once said, this guy's about as sharp as a sack of wet leather.

[Gavin Luper]

Funny thing is, with those on the left and Perry's own opponents on the right, going after the video so feverishly. They are just giving the video free advertisement. Instead of letting it sink into the either with all the other campaign videos out right now. It gives Perry tons more advertisement, and reaches out to even more voters.

I call bullshit. It gives him tons more advertisement as an anti-homo fundamentalist who is hated rather than considered for the candidacy. Check the like/dislike ratio on the video, mate. The more people who see it, the more who loathe it.


I think Roy brings up a valid point. One does not need to be open about one's sexuality in order to serve in any position, either in the public or private sectors. My grandmother had a delightful phrase regarding this: "I wish homophobes would stop flaming gay people. And I wish gay people would stop flaming, period!" To translate, she had absolutely no issue with anybody choosing how to live their own lives and how to conduct their personal business - she only took offense when they shoved it in the faces of others. I think you would find that a lot of society (including gays) would tend to agree with that position... after all, how do you think they feel when the exaggerated merits of a straight lifestyle are shoved down their throats?

Being open about one's sexuality doesn't mean dancing on a parade float in the military barracks and trying to fuck all the other dudes in the showers. It means when your comrades are discussing their girlfriends and wives back home and ask you, "So, you got anyone special back home?" you don't have to say, "Uhhh ... no" and lie about yourself. You should be free to say "yes, I have a boyfriend" or "yes, I have a husband and two kids and a dog" or "yeah I've got a few dudes I go around with". No different to a straight soldier saying "I have a girlfriend" or "I have a wife and two kids and a dog" or "I've got a few chicks I go around with". I realise nobody would ever really phrase the latter like that, but I'm just making the point. There's really no difference between any of those, and if the case is that heteros can say that and it's perfectly normal and okay but homos can't because they're gay and shouldn't need to be so open about it, then that would be bigotry.

I think Katie is right, and I don't mean to generalise like this and I know it doesn't apply in all cases, but I think it's easy if you're heterosexual to take for granted how much of a non-event it is if a man is in a social situation or meeting new people and says something like, "Oh, you're from France? So is my girlfriend." Conversely, to say "so is my boyfriend" in that same sentence invites anything from mild surprise and/or a flurry of polite or friendly questions, through to comments of "I wouldn't have picked that" or looks of disapproval and disgust, total awkwardness, people screwing up their faces in you, shaking their heads, refusing to shake your hand or if you're revealed as a homo mid-handshake, dropping your hand in disgust and walking away. (That's assuming relatively polite company, ignoring actual problems like homos being threatened, abused, bullied, bashed, and in many countries, imprisoned, beaten or killed.) Anyway, in most situations it is much easier for heteros to mention their significant other and have conversation continue normally than for homos to do the same thing. The amount of times I've mentioned my boyfriend with new work colleagues or friends of friends only to have them be all "OMG DID YOU JUST COME OUT TO ME" is ridiculous. I'm not coming out of anything; I'm completely open about being homosexual.

Anyway, TL;DR version: DADT's repeal was absolutely important, because it means homos can be themselves and talk about their loved ones and lives back home freely, IN THE SAME WAY THAT (MANY) HETEROS DO WITHOUT EVEN NOTICING.


Now, I haven't seen the vid yet, but from the one line people keep quoting it seems less like its "OMG HAT GAYZ" and more "We should all be able to embrace who we are publicly without fear of ridicule or harassment". I think its great that more and more people in the LGBT community can feel the freedom of being themselves without having to be afraid of what people think, thats what America is all about. But not all Americans enjoy that freedom anymore. It seems to be popular to bash Christians in any capacity, and I remember in High school having to be afraid to let people know because I was brutally harassed, and even in the Christian club that met after school we weren't safe from taunts and people throwing things at us. This is wrong no matter who you are. We wouldn't tolerate it if it were done to minorities, or jews, or muslims, or gays, so we shouldn't tolerate it when its done to Christians, even if we don't believe in the same things.

We should all stand up for every other American's right to be who they are without fear, regardless if we follow the same path.

The Rick Perry video contains very thinly-veiled anti-gay sentiment, period. However, I do agree with you, I don't like the Christian or anything-else bashing, either. There shouldn't be this discrimination, either positive or negative. The opportunities and dignities of the world should be no different whether you are homosexual or a Christian, and of course, it should be pointed out that those two groups are not mutually exclusive; there are loads of homosexual Christians. Freedom encompasses both sexuality and religion, and as long is nobody is being hurt or threatened with either of those, they ought to be protected.


I think you're missing the entire point of why DADT is so fucking horrific. DADT was a band-aid of surrender, saying "well if no one will vote to NOT kick out gay service members, why don't we just never talk about it?" Under DADT being gay in the military was still disallowed. Regardless, no your orientation doesn't matter in your job. That's the point. If you can get fired from your job for accidentally letting slip "Yes, on Christmas my family likes to drive through the neighborhood to look at Christmas lights. Funny story actually, last year my boyfriend - OOPS DISCHARGED" - there is something seriously wrong. Straight people take for granted how often they can mention their significant others. Why should some people have to hide their personal life when sharing your personal life is the norm for everyone else?

It's like disallowing redheads from serving. If you make all redheads shave their heads, no one knows that they have red hair. But why fucking bother? Hair color doesn't matter, attraction doesn't matter. Period.

Well said, thank you.

[Roy Karrde]

I call bullshit. It gives him tons more advertisement as an anti-homo fundamentalist who is hated rather than considered for the candidacy. Check the like/dislike ratio on the video, mate. The more people who see it, the more who loathe it.


Really? The man is going after the Social Conservative vote, in a closed election. Who is going to hate him? The Libertarians? They will vote for Paul. The Liberals and Democrats? They can't vote in the Iowa Caucus, and if he some how makes it to the Convention, this ad will be long gone as there will be more recent things to run at him with. The Tea Party and Centrist Republicans? They are battling over Gingrich and Newt.

In Iowa, the candidate who locks down the Social Conservative vote, will have a very good showing. And that is who the ad is geared toward.


The Rick Perry video contains very thinly-veiled anti-gay sentiment, period.

Not quite. To quote a local radio show host today: It is pointing out a disconnect, look at what we tolerate, we tolerate homosexuality in the military, but we don't tolerate a kid bringing a candy cane to school with a Jesus message attached to it to give to a buddy in the third grade. There is nothing anti gay, thinly veiled or not, about pointing the inconsistency out.

[mattbcl]

I think you're missing the entire point of why DADT is so fucking horrific. DADT was a band-aid of surrender, saying "well if no one will vote to NOT kick out gay service members, why don't we just never talk about it?" Under DADT being gay in the military was still disallowed. Regardless, no your orientation doesn't matter in your job. That's the point. If you can get fired from your job for accidentally letting slip "Yes, on Christmas my family likes to drive through the neighborhood to look at Christmas lights. Funny story actually, last year my boyfriend - OOPS DISCHARGED" - there is something seriously wrong. Straight people take for granted how often they can mention their significant others. Why should some people have to hide their personal life when sharing your personal life is the norm for everyone else?

It's like disallowing redheads from serving. If you make all redheads shave their heads, no one knows that they have red hair. But why fucking bother? Hair color doesn't matter, attraction doesn't matter. Period.

I haven't missed that point at all. I figured it was self-evident. Of course DADT was a terrible practice, and of course it should have been repealed. But I wasn't talking about that, and even if I was, it looks like you just made my point for me all over again, so why are you yelling at me for not getting it? I was pointing more to the flamboyant element that has at varying times made it their business to interrupt your regularly scheduled program, and not at all to those who just want to live their lives in peace and happiness. I'm completely in favor of everyone being able to share what they will about their personal lives, no matter their orientation. No matter your sexuality, you should be able to practice it with joy, wisdom, and discretion, and anything beyond that is none of my business or anyone else's. I despise those that would make anyone fear being "out", or that would try to ostracize and oppress gays/bisexuals simply because that's what they are. Did I say something to imply I was of any position contrary to or ignorant of these views? If so, I apologize, and perhaps it would be appropriate for me to withdraw from this discussion while I only have one foot in my mouth instead of two.

[Gavin Luper]

Really? The man is going after the Social Conservative vote, in a closed election. Who is going to hate him? The Libertarians? They will vote for Paul. The Liberals and Democrats? They can't vote in the Iowa Caucus, and if he some how makes it to the Convention, this ad will be long gone as there will be more recent things to run at him with. The Tea Party and Centrist Republicans? They are battling over Gingrich and Newt.

In Iowa, the candidate who locks down the Social Conservative vote, will have a very good showing. And that is who the ad is geared toward.

I doubt his end game is to win the Iowa Primaries, though. His end game is the presidency, and if he's most famously known as a complete dick who can't remember a list of three things and is a total homophobe, that's (hopefully) not going to get him far with the broader American public. Well, I sure as hell hope not, but the entire country is thankfully not all as closed minded as a bunch of fundamentalists in one state.


Not quite. To quote a local radio show host today: It is pointing out a disconnect, look at what we tolerate, we tolerate homosexuality in the military, but we don't tolerate a kid bringing a candy cane to school with a Jesus message attached to it to give to a buddy in the third grade. There is nothing anti gay, thinly veiled or not, about pointing the inconsistency out.

Stop trying to delude yourself. Perry's made pretty clear remarks; it's obvious he's against gay rights in general and is a staunch fundamentalist Christian which sadly tends to lean toward the "gays are evil" end of the spectrum. His reference to gays in the military was not some benign, off-the-cuff remark and you know it. It was meant to appeal to a generalised anti-gay sentiment among the voters he's attempting to catch the attention of, and he managed to somehow link the tolerance of homosexuality to the diminishment of religious freedom, which is a fallacy. Even if he were suggesting a simple disconnect, it's quite clear by his comment "there is something wrong with this country" that he thinks the tolerated thing (gays in the military) should not be tolerated, and that the alleged 'not tolerated' thing (kids praying in school) SHOULD be tolerated. (There is no reason why both can't be tolerated; he is simply building a false dichotomy which reflects his own desire for less rights for homosexuals and some kind of fundamentalist theocratic America. Shudder.)

I deeply hope this man never gets anywhere near the White House. If he continues to display himself as this mindnumbingly stupid and offensive, hopefully this is assured.

[Roy Karrde]

I doubt his end game is to win the Iowa Primaries, though. His end game is the presidency, and if he's most famously known as a complete dick who can't remember a list of three things and is a total homophobe, that's (hopefully) not going to get him far with the broader American public. Well, I sure as hell hope not, but the entire country is thankfully not all as closed minded as a bunch of fundamentalists in one state.

His goal right now is winning the Iowa Primaries, from there it is on to the next set of primaries. If he does not have a strong showing in Iowa, then more than likely he is out of the race, thus he is blanketing Iowa right now with ads in the hopes of doing well there. His end game may be the Presidency, but with out winning strong in Iowa, he won't have a chance. Plus like I said, if he were to win the nomination, no one will remember this ad.


Stop trying to delude yourself. Perry's made pretty clear remarks; it's obvious he's against gay rights in general and is a staunch fundamentalist Christian which sadly tends to lean toward the "gays are evil" end of the spectrum.

That is a rather extreme take on the message...


His reference to gays in the military was not some benign, off-the-cuff remark and you know it. It was meant to appeal to a generalised anti-gay sentiment among the voters he's attempting to catch the attention of, and he managed to somehow link the tolerance of homosexuality to the diminishment of religious freedom, which is a fallacy. Even if he were suggesting a simple disconnect, it's quite clear by his comment "there is something wrong with this country" that he thinks the tolerated thing (gays in the military) should not be tolerated, and that the alleged 'not tolerated' thing (kids praying in school) SHOULD be tolerated. (There is no reason why both can't be tolerated; he is simply building a false dichotomy which reflects his own desire for less rights for homosexuals and some kind of fundamentalist theocratic America. Shudder.)

Or you know he is pointing out the latest and most widely known advancement in the last few years in social rights, and noting that the President has advanced social rights for one group of people, while not doing it for another, or even some cases regressing the social rights of another.

[Dark Sage]

I agree with Gavin. And I think that Perry's fellow members of the GOP are, as usual, making excuses, rather than own up to the fact that he did something wrong.

[Gavin Luper]

His goal right now is winning the Iowa Primaries, from there it is on to the next set of primaries. If he does not have a strong showing in Iowa, then more than likely he is out of the race, thus he is blanketing Iowa right now with ads in the hopes of doing well there. His end game may be the Presidency, but with out winning strong in Iowa, he won't have a chance. Plus like I said, if he were to win the nomination, no one will remember this ad.

I think he's rapidly making a name for himself as 1) an idiot who makes really stupid gaffes and 2) a fundamentalist and anti-gay bigot. Is that seriously the kind of person you want to support/defend?




That is a rather extreme take on the message...

No, it isn't. This is not the first time Perry's spoken out and made his position of anti-gay bigotry very clear.

Refer to this recent news item, for example:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-07/us-takes-gay-rights-fight-international/3717162

I quote from that article:


But Texas Governor Rick Perry, courting social conservatives as he seeks the Republican presidential nomination to take on Obama in next November's election, accused the president of waging a war on American values.

"This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americans of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong," he said.'

Still going to argue the mention of gays in the "Strong" video was totally coincidental and has nothing to do with a concerted stance of anti-gay bigotry? I call bullshit once again.


Or you know he is pointing out the latest and most widely known advancement in the last few years in social rights, and noting that the President has advanced social rights for one group of people, while not doing it for another, or even some cases regressing the social rights of another.

I certainly advocate equal rights across the board: no discrimination against homos, no discrimination against religions. I don't believe Christianity should be demonised just because of twats like Perry and his ilk. However, while I share any indignation if there is actually any legitimate suppression of freedom of religion going on, I'm yet to be convinced that this has grown into anything resembling a real problem or a widespread issue sanctioned by the law. It certainly isn't, in fact, although every year there do seem to be rumblings.

But far besides all of that, see the above quote, or the video where Perry tells Texan gays that if they don't like not having same-sex marriage, they can go to a different state. He's not just making a point about religious freedom; he's denigrating homosexuals constantly because of 1) his own bigoted beliefs that he clearly loves to demonstrate and 2) he's appealing to assholes who might vote for him. This is crystal clear and you've said yourself he's appealing to social conservatives. Don't try to act like Perry's not an anti-gay bigot here - you're not fooling anyone on this board, and I doubt you're even fooling yourself.


I agree with Gavin. And I think that Perry's fellow members of the GOP are, as usual, making excuses, rather than own up to the fact that he did something wrong.

I concur, and thanks.

[Roy Karrde]

I agree with Gavin. And I think that Perry's fellow members of the GOP are, as usual, making excuses, rather than own up to the fact that he did something wrong.

Oh sure Perry has made mistakes no doubt, and personally if I were running I would never run the ad as I am not a social conservative. But that does not mean one cannot appreciate the political calculus in it.


I think he's rapidly making a name for himself as 1) an idiot who makes really stupid gaffes and 2) a fundamentalist and anti-gay bigot. Is that seriously the kind of person you want to support/defend?

For the evangelicals and fundamentalists in Iowa they will. And right now his team is focused on making a strong showing in Iowa so that they can continue the race.


No, it isn't. This is not the first time Perry's spoken out and made his position of anti-gay bigotry very clear.

Refer to this recent news item, for example:

Still going to argue the mention of gays in the "Strong" video was totally coincidental and has nothing to do with a concerted stance of anti-gay bigotry? I call bullshit once again.

Of course because those remarks have no basis on the ad in question, nor on the utter insanity in taking the simple statement in that ad and stringing it out beyond what it is.


I certainly advocate equal rights across the board: no discrimination against homos, no discrimination against religions. I don't believe Christianity should be demonised just because of twats like Perry and his ilk. However, while I share any indignation if there is actually any legitimate suppression of freedom of religion going on, I'm yet to be convinced that this has grown into anything resembling a real problem or a widespread issue sanctioned by the law. It certainly isn't, in fact, although every year there do seem to be rumblings.

So Obama not reauthorizing the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom while at the same time basing U.S. Foreign Aid dollars on how well countries treat Homosexuality is not putting one over the other, or contributing to the suppression of religious freedom abroad?


But far besides all of that, see the above quote, or the video where Perry tells Texan gays that if they don't like not having same-sex marriage, they can go to a different state. He's not just making a point about religious freedom; he's denigrating homosexuals constantly because of 1) his own bigoted beliefs that he clearly loves to demonstrate and 2) he's appealing to assholes who might vote for him. This is crystal clear and you've said yourself he's appealing to social conservatives. Don't try to act like Perry's not an anti-gay bigot here - you're not fooling anyone on this board, and I doubt you're even fooling yourself.

Again I have no doubt that he is not the biggest Gay supporter, but it is ignorant to take the video and try to peace it together with a quote to try and make the video any thing more than it is.

[kurai]

it is surely the height of ignorance to piece together a meaningful interpretation of a candidate's beliefs from multiple sources over an extended period of time. words and phrases do not gain additional meaning from their juxtaposition in reference to each other.

the news item gavin provides does not include the most relevant quote:

"This administration's war on traditional American values must stop. Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America's interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers' money,"

now we can ponder that this comes from the same person who says, as above, that:

"There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

what is the result of combining such rhetoric?

for Perry, equal rights for homosexuals, domestically and abroad, are 'special rights'

this is abominable and obviously anti-american

[Roy Karrde]

it is surely the height of ignorance to piece together a meaningful interpretation of a candidate's beliefs from multiple sources over an extended period of time. words and phrases do not gain additional meaning from their juxtaposition in reference to each other.

the news item gavin provides does not include the most relevant quote:

"This administration's war on traditional American values must stop. Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America's interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers' money,"

now we can ponder that this comes from the same person who says, as above, that:

"There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

what is the result of combining such rhetoric?

for Perry, equal rights for homosexuals, domestically and abroad, are 'special rights'

this is abominable and obviously anti-american

Is it wrong? Of course, and I completely disapprove of it, but then again I am open to having rights for all sexualities, and not just stop with homosexuals. If we begin to pick and choose who gets rights, it does in a way extend to being special rights.

That being said however, you cannot take one statement, place it against another, and automatically infer the second statement is anti gay.

[kurai]

I think you misunderstand. The 'special rights' remark made by Perry, in the foreign aid example, is the right to not be arrested/tortured/executed by the state, or to be openly discriminated against and assaulted in civil society. This is the aid contingency generated by the new Obama approach which Perry so happily rejects.

This is not "just stop[ping] with homosexuals". It is focusing on a mortal necessity. Living is not a special right. Equality under the law is not special. Perry's remarks thus define homosexuals as inhuman.

I am fairly confident that you can take one instance of vicious anti-gay rhetoric and use this to justify an anti-gay interpretation of a second, slightly more ambiguous statement.

[Dark Sage]

People, there's no point. Roy won't give up. He's the same as any Republican. He will not let anybody but himself have the last word, and won't admit that he's wrong. Just let him have it so we won't have to listen to him anymore.

When all the GOP's faults cause them to suffer a disaster next year, he'll finally shut up.

[kurai]

Judge not, lest ye not be judged.

[Roy Karrde]

I think you misunderstand. The 'special rights' remark made by Perry, in the foreign aid example, is the right to not be arrested/tortured/executed by the state, or to be openly discriminated against and assaulted in civil society. This is the aid contingency generated by the new Obama approach which Perry so happily rejects.

This is not "just stop[ping] with homosexuals". It is focusing on a mortal necessity. Living is not a special right. Equality under the law is not special. Perry's remarks thus define homosexuals as inhuman.

Ahh okay that makes sense thanks for straightening it up.


I am fairly confident that you can take one instance of vicious anti-gay rhetoric and use this to justify an anti-gay interpretation of a second, slightly more ambiguous statement.

Except as you say, it is a interpretation nothing more. It is no where close to being definitive. And can be read in more than one ways.


People, there's no point. Roy won't give up. He's the same as any Republican. He will not let anybody but himself have the last word, and won't admit that he's wrong. Just let him have it so we won't have to listen to him anymore.

Yeah not only have I let you and others have the final word, but I have asked you before on commenting on where YOU were wrong, and you refused. Stop with the personal attacks and actually debate.


When all the GOP's faults cause them to suffer a disaster next year, he'll finally shut up.

And will you shut up if Obama loses next year?

[Dark Sage]

Only if you agree right now to shut up if he wins. Deal?

[Roy Karrde]

Only if you agree right now to shut up if he wins. Deal?

I probably wont but then again I am not the one who claimed the other will quiet down when the other loses.

[kurai]

I'm not following you.

You accept the premise that Perry characterizes human rights in such a negative manner on one occasion, but reject it out of hand on another? What is the benefit to such naivete? If one is able to interpret multiple statements in the same manner, should we dismiss this because it is distasteful? Which set of words must be uttered before Perry's anti-homosexual rights approach is a plank of his political platform?

This is the discourse which Perry himself has provided - these quotes are not out of context, but part of his campaign structure. There is no accidental continuity between his remarks. It is not coincidental - in fact, it is an intentional abuse of the fact that public interpretation will occur - you personally contend that such rhetoric will provide a beneficial outcome in the Iowa primaries.

If we are not to accept the remarks at face-value, Perry is a liar and intends to deceive the populace for his own gain. If we do accept that he believes what he is presenting, he is opposed to the liberty on which America was founded.

In neither case is he a respectable candidate for the office.

[Roy Karrde]

I'm not following you.

You accept the premise that Perry characterizes human rights in such a negative manner on one occasion, but reject it out of hand on another? What is the benefit to such naivete? If one is able to interpret multiple statements in the same manner, should we dismiss this because it is distasteful? Which set of words must be uttered before Perry's anti-homosexual rights approach is a plank of his political platform?

This is the discourse which Perry himself has provided - these quotes are not out of context, but part of his campaign structure. There is no accidental continuity between his remarks. It is not coincidental - in fact, it is an intentional abuse of the fact that public interpretation will occur - you personally contend that such rhetoric will provide a beneficial outcome in the Iowa primaries.

If we are not to accept the remarks at face-value, Perry is a liar and intends to deceive the populace for his own gain. If we do accept that he believes what he is presenting, he is opposed to the liberty on which America was founded.

In neither case is he a respectable candidate for the office.

I am willing to accept that he has made anti homosexual remarks before, but I am not going to automatically accept that every time he compares Gays, the Gay Movement, or Gay Rights to absolutely anything, he is doing it in a negative context. In this case it is one of creating a simple comparison of the advancement of rights of one group and not the other. There is nothing inherently negative of that, and one could argue the only reason that DADT was even used was because it was the most recent social rights advancement that one could pick from. If say Perry had used any different thing else as a comparison, would you and others automatically snap at it being negative, or just one making a comparison of the President's Priorities or lack there of when it comes to members of faith?

[Dark Sage]

Perry's not going to win the nomination anyway. Not only are Gingrich and Romney both ahead of him, he's made so many gaffes, he's starting to look stupid.

I'm not even going to comment on the others. Bachmann's bigotry is even more obvious. She actually wants to reinstate DADT. The rest are jokes.

And if Gingrich is nominated... May God have mercy on us all.

[kurai]

He has not retrieved himself from the most abhorrent position possible - homosexuals should not be considered to have human rights: their right to live is "special". There is no reason to interpret any of his remarks in a dispassionate fashion. He has said these words without apology.

He is not the candidate providing for liberty and the equality of humanity.

[Roy Karrde]

And if Gingrich is nominated... May God have mercy on us all.

And yet Gingrich right now is running a mostly positive campaign much like Obama did in 2008, and would utterly school Obama in the debates. If Gingrich continues the upbeat enthusiastic message, and does not dive deep into the dirt as Obama will have to do in this upcoming election. He has a good chance of winning.


He has not retrieved himself from the most abhorrent position possible - homosexuals should not be considered to have human rights: their right to live is "special". There is no reason to interpret any of his remarks in a dispassionate fashion. He has said these words without apology.

He is not the candidate providing for liberty and the equality of humanity.

And yet that has absolutely nothing to do with the Ad or the fact that it was merely a comparison being made.

[kurai]

Ok. Will you continue to support Rick Perry now that he has publicly denounced homosexuals as unworthy of human rights and equal consideration under the law?

Even if he did not do so in "Strong" (and it can be interpreted this way), he did so elsewhere.

[Roy Karrde]

Ok. Will you continue to support Rick Perry now that he has publicly denounced homosexuals as unworthy of human rights and equal consideration under the law?

Even if he did not do so in "Strong" (and it can be interpreted this way), he did so elsewhere.

I dont currently support Rick Perry, like I said I am not a Social Conservative and hold the same views as he does. I do like what he has done with the economy in Texas and would welcome him in a cabinet post but I do not have the same Social Conservative views.

[kurai]

You "would welcome him in a cabinet post"? What possible economic benefit weighs against the dehumanization of an entire category of people? Is this not the road back to fascist eugenics?

[Roy Karrde]

You "would welcome him in a cabinet post"? What possible economic benefit weighs against the dehumanization of an entire category of people? Is this not the road back to fascist eugenics?

A Cabinet post would focus squarely on providing information to the President on say the domestic economy. A place in which he can suggest reforms and such that have made the Texas economy thrive, while not going anywhere near social issues.

[kurai]

I am fairly sure that I know what a Cabinet post is. A two-part question arises from your following remark:

1) How does one reform economics without approaching 'social issues'? They are inextricably embedded in one another. You can not reform tax policy without reforming spending policy. You can not change the approach to foreign aid without changing the social incentives on which it is based (see Perry's direct remarks as above).

2) A high-level Cabinet post necessarily means an entrance to the line of succession. Even if merely a consultant, should one not meet Presidential standards to also be in Cabinet, especially given the dramatic environment that would be present alongside the necessity of such succession?

[Roy Karrde]

1) How does one reform economics without approaching 'social issues'? They are inextricably embedded in one another. You can not reform tax policy without reforming spending policy. You can not change the approach to foreign aid without changing the social incentives on which it is based (see Perry's direct remarks as above).

Reforming spending by and large would be the focus of Congress. For the President it would mainly be appointments to the NLRB and repeal of overburdening regulations.


2) A high-level Cabinet post necessarily means an entrance to the line of succession. Even if merely a consultant, should one not meet Presidential standards to also be in Cabinet, especially given the dramatic environment that would be present alongside the necessity of such succession?

That is true, but the chance is so fairly remote, that it should not be something to keep the appointment from happening. Or if to satisfy you, he could be appointed to a Czar role, which has no chance of succession.

[kurai]

Reforming spending by and large would be the focus of Congress. For the President it would mainly be appointments to the NLRB and repeal of overburdening regulations.

-

That is true, but the chance is so fairly remote, that it should not be something to keep the appointment from happening. Or if to satisfy you, he could be appointed to a Czar role, which has no chance of succession.

You forget that the executive's foremost role in reform is as the unifying stage on which the direction of policy is set (the voice of the nation; the bully pulpit). You also set aside the notion that economics and social intention are inseparable - choices will have to be made, social values have an input on these choices. Rick Perry's social values are repugnant, but you seek to include them in the policy process.

-

Rick Perry is not qualified to participate as a Czar-level economic adviser - he has no relevant academic credentials? If combined with his social approach (as above), I do not see value to his inclusion in the governing process.

[Roy Karrde]

You forget that the executive's foremost role in reform is as the unifying stage on which the direction of policy is set. You also set aside the notion that economics and social intention are inseparable - choices will have to be made, social values have an input on these choices. Rick Perry's social values are repugnant, but you seek to include them in the policy process.

His social values toward Gays is wrong, does that mean all of his social values are wrong? No of course not. But to think that Perry would have any guiding role in social issues in a cabnet position is inane. The reforms that we need right now, mainly in terms of regulations to create job opportunities have very little to no social impact what so ever. Not to mention his position would be to advise, not to set actual policy.


Rick Perry is not qualified to participate as a Czar-level economic adviser - he has no relevant academic credentials? If combined with his social approach (as above), I do not see value in his inclusion to the governing process.

There is no need for him to have any academic credentials for the Czar position, only to be able to inform the President on a specific policy. The growth of the Texas economy in and of itself is more than relevant for that.

[kurai]

His social values toward Gays is wrong, does that mean all of his social values are wrong? No of course not. But to think that Perry would have any guiding role in social issues in a cabnet position is inane. The reforms that we need right now, mainly in terms of regulations to create job opportunities have very little to no social impact what so ever. Not to mention his position would be to advise, not to set actual policy.

-

There is no need for him to have any academic credentials for the Czar position, only to be able to inform the President on a specific policy. The growth of the Texas economy in and of itself is more than relevant for that.

You can not conduct economic policy which has no social impact - this claim does not even make sense.

As an advisor, Rick Perry would contend that foreign aid should not be contingent on LGBT treatment in a given country's legal system (he has said so publicly!). This is the kind of advice he would provide to an economic end which relies on a social values basis. As for his other values, the specifics are uncertain, but they do not need to be otherwise: one instance of repugnancy ought to be enough for disqualification.

-

Sorry, can you point to any current Czar which has been appointed towards economic oversight based purely on political credentials? They all have advanced degrees in economics or law. What would be the point of appointing Rick Perry rather than the qualified economic advisors which he personally used?

[Roy Karrde]

You can not conduct economic policy which has no social impact - this claim does not even make sense.

As an advisor, Rick Perry would contend that foreign aid should not be contingent on LGBT treatment in a given country's legal system (he has said so publicly!). This is the kind of advice he would provide to an economic end which relies on a social values basis. As for his other values, the specifics are uncertain, but they do not need to be otherwise: one instance of repugnancy ought to be enough for disqualification.

And why would a President place him in a Czar or Cabinet position to handle foreign aid? His experience is on domestic economic issues. Hell the Secretary of Labor would be a fitting position.


Sorry, can you point to any current Czar which has been appointed towards economic oversight based purely on political credentials? They all have advanced degrees in economics or law. What would be the point of appointing Rick Perry rather than the qualified economic advisors which he personally used?

You mean such as say the Bank Bailout Czar and TARP Czar who previously had a role in the Treasury Department and graduated from college with a degree in "aeronautical engineering". I wonder what does Aeronautical engineering have to do with TARP or Bank Bailouts? Nothing, he had prior experience at the treasury and before that Goldman Sacks. The appointment, like many was purely based on political experience.

Or there is the next person who took over the role of Bank Bailout Czar and TARP czar, who held the previous position as CEO of Fannie Mae, Chairman, President, and CEO of TIAA-CREF, and various positions at Merrill Lynch.

[kurai]

And why would a President place him in a Czar or Cabinet position to handle foreign aid? His experience is on domestic economic issues. Hell the Secretary of Labor would be a fitting position.

-

You mean such as say the Bank Bailout Czar and TARP Czar who previously had a role in the Treasury Department and graduated from college with a degree in "aeronautical engineering". I wonder what does Aeronautical engineering have to do with TARP or Bank Bailouts? Nothing, he had prior experience at the treasury and before that Goldman Sacks. The appointment, like many was purely based on political experience.

Or there is the next person who took over the role of Bank Bailout Czar and TARP czar, who held the previous position as CEO of Fannie Mae, Chairman, President, and CEO of TIAA-CREF, and various positions at Merrill Lynch.

The Secretary of Labor would return him to the line of succession. Foreign aid is connected to domestic economic issues - it is all out of the same federal budget. What exact role do you propose for Perry? What is the current analogue to this position?

-

I think you can do better than this. Neel Kashkari earned an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 2002. Combine this with financial sector and treasury experience - how is this a solely political appointment?

As for Herbert M. Allison, he "earned a B.A. in philosophy from Yale University. Following four years as an officer in the U.S. Navy, including one year in Vietnam, he received an M.B.A. from Stanford University." Then we see decades of financial sector and policy consultation experience.

This is a wide berth from a B.S. in animal science and experience in the political executive. You seek to appoint an executive as an advisor instead of putting an advisor in that role, despite the anti-American rhetoric which should disqualify them altogether.

[Roy Karrde]

The Secretary of Labor would return him to the line of succession. Foreign aid is connected to domestic economic issues - it is all out of the same federal budget. What exact role do you propose for Perry? What is the current analogue to this position?

My current suggestion would be either Secretary of Labor or Secretary of Commerce, as his experience again in Texas fits that position.


I think you can do better than this. Neel Kashkari earned an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 2002. Combine this with financial sector and treasury experience - how is this a political appointment?

Other than the fact that he was placed in the position for his experience? Not for his MBA?


As for Herbert M. Allison, he "earned a B.A. in philosophy from Yale University. Following four years as an officer in the U.S. Navy, including one year in Vietnam, he received an M.B.A. from Stanford University." Then we see decades of financial sector and policy consultation experience.

And Perry has over a decade of experience running one of the largest states in the country.


This is a wide berth from a B.S. in animal science and experience in the political executive.

A political executive running one of the largest economies of the nation and making up for a sizeable amount of this nation's economic growth.


You seek to appoint an executive as an advisor instead of putting an advisor in that role, despite the anti-American rhetoric which should disqualify them altogether.

So having anti American rhetoric disqualifies a person as a adviser? Goodie this should be fun, should we begin going down the list of some of the advisers that Obama has appointed? By the way I consider some one who has ran a state as well as Perry as being a adviser in that role.

[kurai]

I will reiterate that "you seek to appoint an executive as an advisor instead of putting an advisor in that role, despite the anti-American rhetoric which should disqualify them altogether."

Yes, he ran things in Texas. He is not going to run things in the proposed situation - why not pick from the pool of his advisors? He did not form economic policy himself (you can tell this by the fact that he is not qualified to have done so), and thus all you have provided is evidence that he can select good advisors for himself. Use those; Perry is not personally fit on any level.

Since you have placed Perry back into a high position in the presidential line of succession, I would suggest reapproaching my two-part question (http://www.pokemasters.net/forums/showpost.php?p=536780&postcount=214). Why is an intolerant man fit for the highest executive?

[Roy Karrde]

I will reiterate that "you seek to appoint an executive as an advisor instead of putting an advisor in that role, despite the anti-American rhetoric which should disqualify them altogether."

And I will reiterate "So having anti American rhetoric disqualifies a person as a adviser? Goodie this should be fun, should we begin going down the list of some of the advisers that Obama has appointed? By the way I consider some one who has ran a state as well as Perry as being a adviser in that role."


Yes, he ran things in Texas. He is not going to run things in the proposed situation - why not pick from the pool of his advisors? He did not form economic policy himself (you can tell this by the fact that he is not qualified to have done so), and thus all you have provided is evidence that he can select good advisors for himself. Use those; Perry is not personally fit on any level.

Perry has the needed experience of what went well in Texas, and how that can translate to a national level. Mind you Governors serving as Advisers and Positions for the President is not unheard of, just ask Janet Napolitano.


Since you have placed Perry back into a high position in the presidential line of succession, I would suggest reapproaching my two-part question (http://www.pokemasters.net/forums/showpost.php?p=536780&postcount=214). Why is an intolerant man fit for the highest executive?

Because as I said before, the chance of actually becoming President ranks so low, that it should not disqualify him to the role. If we are to suddenly become concerned as to intolerant people holding areas of high position on the off chance that they are to become President. Then we should take steps to ensure that Nancy Pelosi never becomes Speaker of the House shouldnt we?

[kurai]

Janet Napolitano studied at one of the top schools for economics in the world. She has an advanced law degree. She also has experience in the political executive. Rick Perry is not equivalent. An executive is not an advisor - that does not even make sense, their role is to select from the advice given. The relative merits of experience in that selection process are up for debate, but not relevant to the discussion at hand (and certainly not in favor of Perry).

-

The chance of succession is rather inconsequential to the principle of the matter. The legitimacy of the whole process relies on vigilance in selecting one's representatives - this can not be avoided.

Certainly, you can feel free to point out anyone in the public sphere who sees fit to discard the human rights of a group of people at a whim. Why wouldn't you? I will criticize them, in turn.

If this applies to Nancy Pelosi (or any politician, political advisor, public commentator...), it is worth criticizing. Feel free to list and document the instances which I have overlooked.

[Roy Karrde]

Janet Napolitano studied at one of the top schools for economics in the world. She has an advanced law degree. She also has experience in the political executive. Rick Perry is not equivalent. An executive is not an advisor - that does not even make sense, their role is to select from the advice given. The relative merits of experience in that selection process are up for debate, but not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Which was the reason why she was selected, a popular border governor who had supported Obama. Do you honestly believe she was selected because of her law degree? One that would be relatively useless running Homeland Security, or because she studied at a economic school? No of course not that would be stupid. Her experience was because she was a Governor.


The chance of succession is rather inconsequential to the principle of the matter. The legitimacy of the whole process relies on vigilance in selecting one's representatives - this can not be avoided.

The legitimacy relies on the ability of the Cabinet holder to provide the best possible advice to the President. They are not a set of people who are supposed to sit around waiting for the people ahead of them to die.


Certainly, you can feel free to point out anyone in the public sphere who sees fit to discard the human rights of a group of people at a whim. Why wouldn't you? I will criticize them, in turn.

If this applies to Nancy Pelosi (or any politician, political advisor, public commentator...), it is worth criticizing. Feel free to list and document the instances which I have overlooked.

OHHH So it is only human rights that matters to you. Nothing else could be considered Anti American? Say support of Socialist or Communist policies? Or the belief that 9/11 was a inside job?

[kurai]

The best possible advice is not going to be provided by someone with merely political experience in hearing the advice of others (plus experience in animal science). You point out various other advisors for their having been selected based on political incentive, but neglect to acknowledge that they have experience beyond this. Rick Perry's successes in executive oversight can be appreciated, but he unavoidably lacks this secondary set of qualifications.

It is incoherent to suggest that an advanced understanding of law or economics would not help in the federal executive - you are trying to argue that a law degree is of no use to someone heading the Department of Homeland Security. It is not a qualification by itself, but it is a step towards being able to provide the best possible advice when combined with other aspects of one's experience.

-

Were we not talking about one candidate's denial of human rights this entire time? Is the foundation and soul of America not the self-evident truth of inalienable rights? Rick Perry feels that the right to life is alien from a homosexual person.

If you have other examples tantamount to such a pure opposition of American values, I will agree that they are also not qualified for its highest office.

[Roy Karrde]

The best possible advice is not going to be provided by someone with merely political experience in hearing the advice of others (plus experience in animal science). You point out various other advisors for their having been selected based on political incentive, but neglect to acknowledge that they have experience beyond this. Rick Perry's successes in executive oversight can be appreciated, but he unavoidably lacks this secondary set of qualifications.

You seem to believe that what ever advice he heard, what ever judgement he made in those situations did not help shape his future decisions, his own economic policy in the future, or that he did not retain it in any sort of way or fashion. Or that the plans he enacted were not based on his own political beliefs or experience in the past before he was Governor.


It is incoherent to suggest that an advanced understanding of law or economics would not help in the federal executive - you are trying to argue that a law degree is of no use to someone heading the Department of Homeland Security. It is not a qualification by itself, but it is a step towards being able to provide the best possible advice when combined with other aspects of one's experience.

Except she is going to have lawyers on hand that would be able to tell her what is and is not possible underneath the law. A Department head as she is, would not have the time or talent to go through and research every single law, case file, and brief on a subject to be able to make a decision. You seem to be unable or unwilling to admit that the reason she was hired was based purely on the fact that she supported Obama and because she was a popular Governor.


Were we not talking about one candidate's denial of human rights this entire time? Is the foundation and soul of America not the self-evident truth of inalienable rights? Rick Perry feels that the right to life is alien from a homosexual person.

There is more to this country, and its heritage beyond human rights. For example believing in psychotic conspiracy theories about the Government attacking its own people goes against the very core of the American Government. It is wrong if not ignorant to suggest that a only a candidate's views on human rights define if they are or are not Anti American.


If you have other examples tantamount to such a pure opposition of American values, I will agree that they are also not qualified for its highest office.

Again I point out those that have supported Socialist if not Communist policies, that would go against American values as well.

[kurai]

If the economic plans he enacted were based on "his own political beliefs or experience in the past", you have conceded your earlier notion that values can be separated from policy.

Certainly, I have said that it can be claimed that Perry is able to act on the advice he has been given - but he is not himself an expert at anything more than acting on advice. None of his experience suggests otherwise: this is good, if you are running for President, but of little consequence if your role is going to be merely advisory. Rick Perry is underqualified compared to present and historical cabinet officials. The point is merely that if he is not the absolute best, his reprehensible comments should disqualify him.

-

Who has suggested that only the denouncement of human rights can be considered anti-American? Consider that it is a sufficient, but not necessary condition for being labeled so. Consequently, other aspects of "American values" are a strawman argument, apparently presented only to distract from the fact that Rick Perry has advocated one such an anti-American directive, and thus has lost moral worth in his candidacy.

[Roy Karrde]

If the economic plans he enacted were based on "his own political beliefs or experience in the past", you have conceded your earlier notion that values can be separated from policy.

Depends on the situation, a person can see the facts and determine that their views are incorrect in this situation when enacting a policy. For example George W Bush during the bailouts. On the other hand past experience can and will shape a person's political beliefs and help define policy in many situations. Perry's past experience as to what will worked in Texas in turn would define the policies and beliefs he gives to the President.


Certainly, I have said that it can be claimed that Perry is able to act on the advice he has been given - but he is not himself an expert at anything more than acting on advice. None of his experience suggests otherwise: this is good, if you are running for President, but of little consequence if your role is going to be merely advisory. Rick Perry is underqualified compared to present and historical cabinet officials. The point is merely that if he is not the absolute best, his reprehensible comments should disqualify him.

Anyone when looking at a Government post would place a high amount of experience on the positions they have held in the past, be it executive or not. A degree you have from some college several decade prior means very little compared to the experience you have racked up. If not the President would be hiring directly out of Harvard's Graduating Class.


Who has suggested that only the denouncement of human rights can be considered anti-American? Consider that it is a sufficient, but not necessary condition for being labeled so. Consequently, other aspects of "American values" are a strawman argument, apparently presented only to distract from the fact that Rick Perry has advocated one such an anti-American directive, and thus has lost moral worth in his candidacy.

When I pointed out that there were others who have engaged in Anti American rhetoric who have taken up a adviser position, your reply consisted of "anyone in the public sphere who sees fit to discard the human rights of a group of people at a whim."

As such I am to infer that you hold the belief that "discarding human rights" is the only qualification for Anti American rhetoric. The fact is that "Anti American Rhetoric" comes in many shapes and forms, and as such if you wish to hold that as a disqualifier for any kind of cabnet position you must accept it in all forms, if not you must concede the point.

[kurai]

Your inference is neither required nor accepted. I will, of course, discuss human rights when the subject at hand is human rights. I have already stated that "if you have other examples tantamount to such a pure opposition of American values, I will agree that they are also not qualified for its highest office". At this point, one should infer that there are other tantamount examples (as that is what was said...). You are arguing against a position solely of your own imagination.

However, I'm not really sure what you're driving at with your attempted invocation of McCarthyism. Is there supposed to be some positive connection between the denouncement of freedom of speech and belief in one area with the persecution of homosexuals (at home and abroad)? Certainly, the denial of human rights takes many forms.

Interestingly, the Senator himself can be used to bring this all full circle:



At last, on April 27, Welch saw an opening. That morning, Ray Jenkins introduced as evidence a photo taken in late November 1953, shortly after David Schine had begun basic training at Fort Dix. McCarthy, Roy Cohn, and Frank Carr had met Secretary Stevens in New York to discuss the ongoing Fort Monmouth investigation. Afterward, Cohn had said he'd like to visit David Schine at nearby Fort Dix, and Stevens quickly arranged the trip. When they arrived, a photograph was taken of the group with Colonel David Bradley, a key office at the base. In the picture, Schine stood between Stevens and Bradley.

Roy Cohn remembered the photo when he was gathering evidence for the hearing. He thought it would indicate that Stevens and Schine had been on good terms, since both men were smiling. Ray Jenkins agreed and asked a subcommittee staff member to obtain a copy of the "picture of Stevens with Schine." The man promptly did so, but then he had the picture altered so that it showed only Stevens and Schine. He said later he thought that was what Jenkins wanted.

During the hearing on April 27, Ray Jenkins displayed the picture to everyone present, unaware that it had been changed. Jenkins went on to allege that Secretary Stevens had specifically asked to have his picture taken alone with Schine. This, Jenkins said, proved there were no ill feelings between Stevens and Schine at the very time the Army claimed Roy Cohn had begun harassing the Army secretary.

It so happened that Joseph Welch, in preparing for the hearings, had seen the original photograph and remembered it. Now he charged that Ray Jenkins had presented as evidence "a doctored or altered photograph ... as if it were honest." He went on to content that, in the original, "Stevens was photographed in a group" and that he was smiling at Col. Bradley, not at Schine.

Welch's revelation created a tremendous stir in the hearing room and in the media. The subcommittee spent long hours trying to find out who had done the doctoring and for what purpose - or purposes. Reporters and columnists remembered how Joe had used an altered photograph to help defeat Senator Millard Tydings, and they speculated that he was behind this attempt to sway public opinion in favor of David Schine.

As for Welch, he had achieved his goal of swinging the spotlight away from Secretary Stevens's inept testimony. He had also beaten McCarthy at his own game. Joe long ago had learned that unproved charges (and doctored photos) had a far greater effect on public opinion than lengthy recitals of the facts later on. Now, before the facts were in, Welch had used the altered photo of Stevens and Schine to cast doubt on the subcommittee's case.

McCarthy protested that he had nothing to do with the doctoring. In this instance he was probably telling the truth, but the American people had already formed their opinion, and most of them did not believe him. Joe wasn't about to give in, however. His frustration and anger rose to the surface when Welch had James Juliana, an aide to Roy Cohn, on the witness stand. Welch was questioning Juliana about the photo, which, before it was altered, had hung on the wall of David Schine's New York office." You did know what hung on Schine's wall when that was handed to you, sir."

"I did not know what hung on Schine's wall," Juliana said.

Welch held up the picture, which had been introduced as evidence. "Did you think this game from a pixie? Where did you think this picture that I hold in my hand came from?"

Joe interrupted the proceedings to say, "Will counsel for my benefit define - I think he might be an expert on that - what a pixie is?"

McCarthy probably thought his question would fluster Welch and shift the gathering's focus away from the photo, but it had the opposite effect. Welch quickly replied, "Yes. I should say, Mr. Senator, that a pixie is close relative to a fairy."

Laughter broke out in the hearing room. Everyone present knew that James Juliana worked for Roy Cohn. They also knew that "fairy" was a slang word for homosexual. They inferred that the Army's counsel was calling Cohn a fairy - and they laughed.

"Shall I proceed, sir?" Welch asked Joe. "Have I enlightened you?"

There was no way McCarthy could top Welch, so he merely repeated himself. "As I said, I think you may be an authority on what a pixie is."


So, you know, discrimination against homosexuals can readily be found to be coordinate with discrimination on the basis of political belief. But they are not the same thing. If you seek to imply that Rick Perry might be more intolerant than is apparent presently, please present it as such.

[Roy Karrde]

Your inference is neither required nor accepted. I will, of course, discuss human rights when the subject at hand is human rights. I have already stated that "if you have other examples tantamount to such a pure opposition of American values, I will agree that they are also not qualified for its highest office". At this point, one should infer that there are other tantamount examples (as that is what was said...). You are arguing against a position solely of your own imagination.

I have offered you several beliefs that would be considered opposing American values, beliefs you have chosen to ignore. The discussion here has gone beyond human rights and directly into what is Anti American rhetoric by your own interjection of it being. As such the scope has broaden to include all Anti American Rhetoric.

Anyway while this has been fun we have gotten far off course, I will let you have the last word.

[kurai]

Behold! The ally of McCarthy and Perry.

We are presented, as McCarthy was eager to do, with the notion that free belief ought to be suppressed as an anti-American threat: for it to be held openly by a socialist or communist would be the height of "special rights". Such freedom is the embodiment of America! You have implicated that such repression is appropriate: of course, this would be the opposite of personal liberty.

In turn, we see that rights in general should not be held by homosexuals, per Governor Perry: such would be a "special" dispensation, personal liberties for those who do not match "traditional American values". Given such a strong correlation between these two approaches, it should be no surprise that McCarthy himself went out of his way to persecute homosexuals in the middle of a Senate session, as provided in the above text. Perry would not object - this is the tradition he inherits, after all.

Indeed, the denouncement of liberty by both parties are prime examples of anti-American values put into practice. No argument has been provided on my part which claims this is the only instance in which one could be anti-American - but this avenue is one which strikes directly at the founding principles.

[Gavin Luper]

Oh sure Perry has made mistakes no doubt, and personally if I were running I would never run the ad as I am not a social conservative. But that does not mean one cannot appreciate the political calculus in it.

Just like that clever political calculus good ol' Adolf Hitler used, right? He thought the rights of Jews were special rights that needed to be redressed. Just like Perry thinks homosexual rights are special rights that need to be redressed. Your mate is in good company, isn't he? Just appealing to the social conservatives, right? Just arguing that a random group of people is less-deserving of human rights than the rest, right? It's totally worth supporting. Look at all that political calculus!

How you cannot denounce Perry for holding such a position is abhorrent. You might like everything else about him and those credentials might be great, but his position on human rights for homosexuals is immoral and completely untenable.


So Obama not reauthorizing the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom while at the same time basing U.S. Foreign Aid dollars on how well countries treat Homosexuality is not putting one over the other, or contributing to the suppression of religious freedom abroad?

"The United States has put the fight against gay and lesbian discrimination at the heart of its foreign policy, but stopped short of warning transgressor nations they could be stripped of US aid."

[Taken from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-07/us-takes-gay-rights-fight-international/3717162]

That's what the news reported ... that the US stopped short of withholding foreign aid on this matter. So where are you pulling your facts from? If something further has taken place, let me know, please, because I'd like to see the US follow the UK's lead on this.


Again I have no doubt that he is not the biggest Gay supporter, but it is ignorant to take the video and try to peace it together with a quote to try and make the video any thing more than it is.

You are being ignorant on this topic. Unless he makes a public reversal and says "actually, I support gay rights now" we can reasonably assume that someone who repeatedly makes public remarks that denounce gay rights clearly holds a position against gay rights. When he makes a future comment on gay rights, it is quite easy to understand the context of that comment, knowing his very clear and very public position on it. This is called reasoning, not ignorance. You yourself have stated he is courting the social conservatives. I don't understand your feeble attempts to deny or defend Perry's bigotry.


Is it wrong? Of course, and I completely disapprove of it, but then again I am open to having rights for all sexualities, and not just stop with homosexuals. If we begin to pick and choose who gets rights, it does in a way extend to being special rights.

That being said however, you cannot take one statement, place it against another, and automatically infer the second statement is anti gay.

Homosexual rights are NOT special rights! There are no special rights. They are all HUMAN rights. The right to not be murdered by your government just for existing is not "special".


I think you misunderstand. The 'special rights' remark made by Perry, in the foreign aid example, is the right to not be arrested/tortured/executed by the state, or to be openly discriminated against and assaulted in civil society. This is the aid contingency generated by the new Obama approach which Perry so happily rejects.

This is not "just stop[ping] with homosexuals". It is focusing on a mortal necessity. Living is not a special right. Equality under the law is not special. Perry's remarks thus define homosexuals as inhuman.

I am fairly confident that you can take one instance of vicious anti-gay rhetoric and use this to justify an anti-gay interpretation of a second, slightly more ambiguous statement.

Well said.

[Roy Karrde]

Just like that clever political calculus good ol' Adolf Hitler used, right? He thought the rights of Jews were special rights that needed to be redressed. Just like Perry thinks homosexual rights are special rights that need to be redressed. Your mate is in good company, isn't he? Just appealing to the social conservatives, right? Just arguing that a random group of people is less-deserving of human rights than the rest, right? It's totally worth supporting. Look at all that political calculus!

How you cannot denounce Perry for holding such a position is abhorrent. You might like everything else about him and those credentials might be great, but his position on human rights for homosexuals is immoral and completely untenable.

Ahh I see Godwin's law rears its ugly head.



"The United States has put the fight against gay and lesbian discrimination at the heart of its foreign policy, but stopped short of warning transgressor nations they could be stripped of US aid."

[Taken from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-07/us-takes-gay-rights-fight-international/3717162]

That's what the news reported ... that the US stopped short of withholding foreign aid on this matter. So where are you pulling your facts from? If something further has taken place, let me know, please, because I'd like to see the US follow the UK's lead on this.

It seems the reports have varied as there are no real concrete details, from what I can gather they are separating foreign aid to give to the embassies to help fight for Gay and Transgender rights. Which is good no doubt, but doesn't stop my originally point of him putting the rights of one over the other.


You are being ignorant on this topic. Unless he makes a public reversal and says "actually, I support gay rights now" we can reasonably assume that someone who repeatedly makes public remarks that denounce gay rights clearly holds a position against gay rights. When he makes a future comment on gay rights, it is quite easy to understand the context of that comment, knowing his very clear and very public position on it. This is called reasoning, not ignorance. You yourself have stated he is courting the social conservatives. I don't understand your feeble attempts to deny or defend Perry's bigotry.

He is courting Social Conservatives in the context that he is making it feel that Christians are under attack in that ad. Now while I have maintained that Perry does not like Gays, that does not automatically mean that every time he links something to Gays it is automatically to be taken in a negative context.


Homosexual rights are NOT special rights! There are no special rights. They are all HUMAN rights. The right to not be murdered by your government just for existing is not "special".

They are special rights when you focus on one class of Sexualities but not others, including making those sexualities illegal.

[ChobiChibi]

How are they special rights? Not really sure how you can argue that, when the basic human right of being able to marry freely is not available to most homosexuals across America. Why? Because the majority of states don't permit it.

Those who are asexual aren't discriminated against, nor bisexual, pansexual, or all those other random -sexuals out there. Nor are heterosexuals. Even if it is just in one area (which I doubt), the right to marry should not be considered a "special right" when the couple is homosexual.

[Roy Karrde]

How are they special rights? Not really sure how you can argue that, when the basic human right of being able to marry freely is not available to most homosexuals across America. Why? Because the majority of states don't permit it.

Those who are asexual aren't discriminated against, nor bisexual, pansexual, or all those other random -sexuals out there. Nor are heterosexuals. Even if it is just in one area (which I doubt), the right to marry should not be considered a "special right" when the couple is homosexual.

Of all the views I have the one that is the most progressive is that I consider a sexuality to be anything or anyone a person is sexually attracted to. In which case, I do consider Gay rights, special rights as long as we do not extend those rights in some form to all sexual attractions.

[kurai]

What a nonsensical turn. The "special rights" are not those which are specifically for homosexuals. They are the general and absolute rights which homosexuals are being excluded from. You can not set aside such human rights as special without dehumanizing the entire target group.

The issue is not a mandate for affirmative action above and beyond the general marker, which you appear to be arguing against. The discussion begins with an action intended to motivate other jurisdictions to provide equality under the law - a diplomatic approach to persuade other states to actually prevent lynch mob attacks on homosexuals, to change their codified policy and end government-sponsored indefinite detention and torture.

You write, in response to "The right to not be murdered by your government just for existing is not "special", that "They are special rights when you focus on one class of Sexualities but not others". This is incoherent. An anti-discrimination project must focus on one group when it is the group being denied rights through the process of discrimination. The diplomatic action is intended to develop equality for LGBT individuals, its hegemonic opposite being... heterosexuality. This is not a group being systematically denied the most basic rights to life and free association on the basis of their sexuality. Consider a conceptual continuum of access to equality under the law: for LGBT individuals, they are working their way up from 0, not seeking something beyond 1.

The issue the entire time has been the extension of the most basic human rights to a group which has been denied them. This is only special if they are not worthy of human rights - if they are not human. Other groups may also be discriminated against: they would also be at zero, but that has no bearing on whether or not their rights are special, just that their rights must be actualized as well. Any instance of a group (or individual) being excluded from full access to equality under the law is a clear injustice. It is far more disgraceful when performed systematically on the basis of unchangeable personal characteristics.

Human rights are for all humans.

[Roy Karrde]

What a nonsensical turn. The "special rights" are not those which are specifically for homosexuals. They are the general and absolute rights which homosexuals are being excluded from. You can not set aside such human rights as special without dehumanizing the entire target group.

The issue is not a mandate for affirmative action above and beyond the general marker, which you appear to be arguing against. The discussion begins with an action intended to motivate other jurisdictions to provide equality under the law - a diplomatic approach to persuade other states to actually prevent lynch mob attacks on homosexuals, to change their codified policy and end government-sponsored indefinite detention and torture.

You write, in response to "The right to not be murdered by your government just for existing is not "special", that "They are special rights when you focus on one class of Sexualities but not others". This is incoherent. An anti-discrimination project must focus on one group when it is the group being denied rights through the process of discrimination. The diplomatic action is intended to develop equality for LGBT individuals, its hegemonic opposite being... heterosexuality. This is not a group being systematically denied the most basic rights to life and free association on the basis of their sexuality. Consider a conceptual continuum of access to equality under the law: for LGBT individuals, they are working their way up from 0, not seeking something beyond 1.

The issue the entire time has been the extension of the most basic human rights to a group which has been denied them. This is only special if they are not worthy of human rights - if they are not human. Other groups may also be discriminated against: they would also be at zero, but that has no bearing on whether or not their rights are special, just that their rights must be actualized as well. Any instance of a group (or individual) being excluded from full access to equality under the law is a clear injustice. It is far more disgraceful when performed systematically on the basis of unchangeable personal characteristics.

Human rights are for all humans.

You seem to be missing my argument, for those who suffer from Beastiality, or Pedophilia, or Zoophilia, any number of sexualities, the rights given to homosexuals are in many ways "Special Rights" as they are not persecuted for just having sexual urges while others are. Mind you for those outside Homosexuals, Transgender, Bisexuals, and Heterosexuals, they are persecuted not for the act, but merely to have a urge. For those on the outside looking in, it is a special right.

[ChobiChibi]

I can't believe you're putting pedophilia (or the others, but this just struck me the most) in the same ballpark as homosexuality. There's a distinct difference: the three that you mentioned are a crime. Those sexual urges are inappropriate by most people's standards, where as homosexuality is generally not. So there may be cases where someone flirts with someone of the same sex and it's not wanted, but that's not committing a crime.

Rape, on the other hand, regardless of sexuality, is a crime.

[kurai]

You seem to be missing my argument, for those who suffer from Beastiality, or Pedophilia, or Zoophilia, any number of sexualities, the rights given to homosexuals are in many ways "Special Rights" as they are not persecuted for just having sexual urges while others are. Mind you for those outside Homosexuals, Transgender, Bisexuals, and Heterosexuals, they are persecuted not for the act, but merely to have a urge. For those on the outside looking in, it is a special right.

You are pushing wildly off-topic. The issue is that remarks were made which classify the promotion of basic human rights as something special. The recognition of basic rights is not a special provision. It is not exceptional when they are provided for any one group. They must be respected for all such groups to attain a just society.

Homosexuals are persecuted for both act and intention (how could they be prosecuted otherwise?). Are you not aware that homosexuality remains punishable by the death penalty in many states? Open discrimination is par for the course in still more. To say that they are not persecuted for their sexuality is uninformed.

Are you attempting to point out that some forms of sexuality would remain criminalized even if LGBT identities and practices were fully accepted? As they are not presently, this is beside the point, and has nothing to do with the event which initiated this discussion. One injustice is being fought against - this is progress. Unfortunately, even if the argument that any injustice disqualifies all other attempts, your examples do not add up: the criminal acts around pedophilia would be sourced in the fact that they violate the human rights of another: the child, unable to consent due to a lack of agency. Bestiality is not even a crime in most jurisdictions - all of this still has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Certainly, it is a concern if other sexualities are persecuted through systematic means beyond the justice system, or if capital punishment is deployed otherwise (this would mean the absence of equality under the law and basic human rights). None of this has anything to do with "special rights", or with the approach that some societies take to LGBT identity at present.

If you contend that the allocation of human rights for any given group is "special", you need to propose an alternative definition of "human right" - your argument appears either naive or monstrous otherwise, denying the basic humanity of some. I suggest you contemplate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml). What does it mean to have "the right to life, liberty and security of person"? What about "the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law"?

[Roy Karrde]

I can't believe you're putting pedophilia (or the others, but this just struck me the most) in the same ballpark as homosexuality. There's a distinct difference: the three that you mentioned are a crime. Those sexual urges are inappropriate by most people's standards, where as homosexuality is generally not. So there may be cases where someone flirts with someone of the same sex and it's not wanted, but that's not committing a crime.

Rape, on the other hand, regardless of sexuality, is a crime.

Most of the things you listed for Pedophilia is the exact same thing people said about Homosexuality in the 1950s. "Crime" "Inappropriate by most people's standards" etc etc.


You are pushing wildly off-topic. The issue is that remarks were made which classify the promotion of basic human rights as something special.

This topic basically went off topic the moment after you agreed the ad wasn't necessarily anti gay. My view is that for those who have sexual urges outside the two or three main groups, they look upon what Homosexuality gets as a "Special Right".

[ChobiChibi]

Yes, but that's the 1950's Roy, not now. Last time I checked it's 2011, where homosexuality is something not to be ashamed of.

I just find this all rich from someone who is apparently supportive of my own sexuality. And the pedophilia comments coming from someone who likes lolita... Just doesn't really sit that well with me.

[kurai]

This topic basically went off topic the moment after you agreed the ad wasn't necessarily anti gay. My view is that for those who have sexual urges outside the two or three main groups, they look upon what Homosexuality gets as a "Special Right".

Is Rick Perry arguing for pedophile justice in his remarks against Obama's diplomatic initiative?

[Roy Karrde]

Yes, but that's the 1950's Roy, not now. Last time I checked it's 2011, where homosexuality is something not to be ashamed of.

I just find this all rich from someone who is apparently supportive of my own sexuality. And the pedophilia comments coming from someone who likes lolita... Just doesn't really sit that well with me.

Hey lets not make any accusations here, I am not saying homosexuality is anything to be ashamed of, I say a person should embrace it. But the comparison can be made, and for people who do suffer from various other sexualities they are treated as if it were the 1950s still.


Is Rick Perry arguing for pedophile justice in his remarks against Obama's diplomatic initiative?

Seeing how my view on Sexuality is incredibly progressive, I doubt so, then again I believe I started out by saying that my view on Sexuality was extremely progressive.

[ChobiChibi]

Well, you're currently saying that I suffer from my sexuality. How is that the case? If it is something, as you said, that I should embrace, in what way does that make me suffer?

Personally, it is not an inconvenience. It has never become an issue with my boyfriend, since those "urges" I apparently have don't ever present a problem.

If anything, you're just making yourself sound more homophobic than you are.

[Roy Karrde]

Well, you're currently saying that I suffer from my sexuality. How is that the case? If it is something, as you said, that I should embrace, in what way does that make me suffer?

Personally, it is not an inconvenience. It has never become an issue with my boyfriend, since those "urges" I apparently have don't ever present a problem.

If anything, you're just making yourself sound more homophobic than you are.

Maybe I am mistyping it, I am not saying Homosexuals suffer ( except for those who sadly remain in the closet out of fear of reprisal, or who are still attacked by bigots ), I am saying those outside of the main three "Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Heterosexuality" suffer, they do not have support groups, they do not have pride parades, the mere mention of their sexuality is enough to ban them from jobs or get them arrested or even killed. That is what I am talking about when I say suffering.

[ChobiChibi]

The things that people "suffer" from aren't sexuality, not in that definition. Pedophilia, bestiality and whatever that last one was are sexual, but can't be defined as sexuality. It is more of an illness, in the loosest of terms, if you were to say that they suffer with these things.

To be honest, if a teacher turned out to have committed a sexual act on a child previously, no matter how long ago, I would certainly be very skeptical of hiring them. Wouldn't you? Would you want your child to be taught by someone who has been arrested/jailed for pedophilia? That's what criminal record checks are for. I've never heard of someone being refused a job for being caught doing the whole bestiality thing.

[Roy Karrde]

The things that people "suffer" from aren't sexuality, not in that definition. Pedophilia, bestiality and whatever that last one was are sexual, but can't be defined as sexuality. It is more of an illness, in the loosest of terms, if you were to say that they suffer with these things.

I say suffer because they have sexual urges that they cannot fix other than chemical means, and little to no support group in society. Its not a illness anymore than homosexuality is a illness or bisexuality is a illness, it is actual sexual urges that are no different than the urges anyone else feels.


To be honest, if a teacher turned out to have committed a sexual act on a child previously, no matter how long ago, I would certainly be very skeptical of hiring them. Wouldn't you? Would you want your child to be taught by someone who has been arrested/jailed for pedophilia? That's what criminal record checks are for. I've never heard of someone being refused a job for being caught doing the whole bestiality thing.

Of course, but if you were told a person had zoophilia would you hire that person at a zoo or a farm even if he had never engaged in the act? Same with pedophilia and what ever else? If they had come out and admitted it, or viewed a site on their computer or what ever it is, should they be hired for that job?

[kurai]

Seeing how my view on Sexuality is incredibly progressive, I doubt so, then again I believe I started out by saying that my view on Sexuality was extremely progressive.

You are actually presenting a viewpoint that is extremely regressive and offensive. This sort of equation is the same argument used to justify the criminalization of homosexuality in the first place - differing from heteronormativity as crime. The other sexualities you mention only remain justified as crime because they necessitate the removal of consent from sexual intercourse. This is why the equation is offensive. LGBT identity and action is not crime as it does not seek to remove consent.

Despite this, some states accept your contention and issue capital punishment for all manner of alternative sexualities without differentiating in this crucial manner. As I provided earlier, some of your examples do not even make sense, where states are typically more harsh on the LGBT than zoophiles...

Regardless, if you doubt that Rick Perry was as "progressive" as the approach you think you are taking, why do you insist on accepting and defending his characterization of human rights for LGBT as "special"? Either you are being intentionally disingenuous, or you have failed to connect your "progressive" interpretation of his remarks with their real world consequences (the remaining explanation is only the viciously heteronormative mandate for 'traditional values').

[Roy Karrde]

You are actually presenting a viewpoint that is extremely regressive and offensive.

Funny I was about to say the same about you.


This sort of equation is the same argument used to justify the criminalization of homosexuality in the first place - differing from heteronormativity as crime. The other sexualities you mention only remain justified as crime because they necessitate the removal of consent from sexual intercourse. This is why the equation is offensive. LGBT identity and action is not crime as it does not seek to remove consent.

You do realize as I have mentioned that those people can be demonized, ostracized, or even imprisoned with out ever actually engaging in sexual intercourse or even having any contact what so ever with another person. That is unless you believe drawn images suddenly should first give consent.


Despite this, some states accept your contention and issue capital punishment for all manner of alternative sexualities without differentiating in this crucial manner. As I provided earlier, some of your examples do not even make sense, where states are typically more harsh on the LGBT than zoophiles...

You seem to have become fairly ignorant of what I am saying, I will repeat it once. I am not saying that other sexualities outside of heterosexuality should be punished. But understood, helped within the manner that does not revolve around actual sexual acts.


Regardless, if you doubt that Rick Perry was as "progressive" as the approach you think you are taking, why do you insist on accepting and defending his characterization of human rights for LGBT as "special"? Either you are being intentionally disingenuous, or you have failed to connect your "progressive" interpretation of his remarks with their real world consequences (the remaining explanation is only the viciously heteronormative mandate for 'traditional values').

I am not accepting his view of it as special, I see it as special in the view of those who have other sexualities and remain on the outside looking in, just as I believe that transsexuals would see it as special if they were not given the same rights or treatment as Gays.