Quote :

"PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately."

By the way, this is something to be concerned about, if this poll is right. I don't care about the 2000 election. This is right now, and there is no reason to have that high a percentage of people believing a conspiracy theory. Everyone should be alarmed at that, and looking into why that is happening rather than trying to defend it with partisan bickering.

11/20/2009 1:55:28 AM

yeah, right.

next you'll be telling us a cat can push a watermelon out of a lake.

11/20/2009 1:57:56 AM

you've seen the pics

it can happen [old]

11/20/2009 2:04:04 AM

Quote :

"you first mistake is trying to portray normal people as crazies second there are crazies on both sides, but for conservatives the crazier you are the higher you go "

good point. Apparently 52% of GOP voters are crazy.

11/20/2009 9:21:27 AM

^ wasn't that number higher among NC GOP voters?

11/20/2009 9:43:06 AM

The problem is that the GOP has a large number of religious crazies. Those people are screwing over the real conservatives. The religious crazies don't seem to care about fiscal policy, they just want to force as many people to live up to their "moral standards" as possible. Of course, in my view, most Democrats are "crazy" to some degree, as well. They generally have very little regard for economic freedom, which I don't think is a rational position.

11/20/2009 9:59:48 AM

Quote :

"They generally have very little regard for economic freedom, which I don't think is a rational position."

Right, because "economic freedom" solved the Great Depression, the Great Recession, and other similarly large economic calamities. "Economic freedom" is the cause of just as many problems as over-regulation. Let the pendulum swing the other way, and then it'll be time for yet another overreaction.

11/20/2009 10:05:00 AM

Actually, yes, the free market did eventually allow for the Great Depression to end. The actions of the Federal Reserve during the 1920s caused the Great Depression. The policies of Hoover and FDR prolonged it. "Busts" are invariably caused by "booms." Booms are caused by easy credit from the Fed. It's easy to blame the free market and capitalism and demand government intervention, but government intervention almost always makes things worse, especially when it starts to effect monetary policy.

It doesn't make much of a difference what I think, though. People will continue to believe that government is the solution, and the free market is the problem. And things will continue to get worse. The government refuses to allow the market to correct itself, so we dig ourselves deeper into the hole.

11/20/2009 10:20:57 AM

You're forgetting a little thing called WWII.

But the issue isn't one of free market vs. regulation. It's an issue of the excesses of both. Too much of either is a bad thing. It's totally ludicrous to suggest that one doesn't need the other to keep a check. The free market proves over and over that it can't do it on its own.

11/20/2009 10:28:56 AM

What regulation is needed? I agree that some regulation is needed to protect individuals from damages or fraud. That's the purpose of government. I don't think those needed laws and regulations interfere with the free market, though. My point is that lack of regulation is generally not the problem, it's government intervention and monetary policy. Any recession that has happened in the past 100 years or so in the United States has been tied to actions of the Fed.

For instance, some blame the current crisis on "lax lending standards." No one thinks to ask why banks were giving out loans in the way that they were. Normally, in a free market, you wouldn't need regulation, because banks wouldn't be giving out loans to people that clearly couldn't pay them back. Low interest rates created the artificial demand, and government guaranteed loans created the moral hazard.

11/20/2009 10:43:34 AM

The vast majority of democrats/liberals/leftists support economic freedom and the free market. But one man's economic freedom is another man's communism. The British and probably most European countries would say they're capitalist, but by our Republicans' standards, they are in lock-step with Mao.

Having policies that promote progress is not anti-economic freedom.

11/20/2009 10:44:23 AM

Quote :

"Having policies that promote progress is not anti-economic freedom."

It depends on what those policies are. For instance, it seems like a good idea to have government-guaranteed student loans. More people will be able to go to college, which leads to a higher education level. That general agreement has led most people to support government provided student loans. But, then we see college tuitions going up by large amounts every year, even at public universities. Universities know that students will pay whatever they charge, because they're getting a loan anyway. We have bloated universities with a ton of inefficiency as a result. Most people end up leaving college with a bunch of debt, and a lot of times they can't even get a decent job. Not to mention the effect caused by almost everyone going to college "just to go" because you can easily find a loan. BAs are the new high school degree.

The point I'm getting at is that "progressive" policies are often short-sighted. Healthcare is another good example. Social security and medicare, as well. You have to understand the long-term consequences of having these government provided services, though. These programs might be created with good intentions, but it doesn't mean they'll always be a net positive. When the government is the administrator of a service that would normally be provided by a private entity, you suddenly remove elements of greed, fear of loss, and profit motive, which lowers overall efficiency, and results in higher prices.

[Edited on November 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM. Reason : ]

11/20/2009 10:53:54 AM

^ that example is pretty terrible, and doesn't really work.

Our universities are some of the best in the world, not terrible and inefficient. Loans result in debt, which is the correcting force for getting loans. If a person doesn't feel the job they'll get with their new degree will help with the loan, they won't take it. And costs would go up regardless, if people were approaching the capacity of colleges, this is a "natural" part of a free market system. As long as they keep producing a worthwhile product, and there are no barriers to increasing the capacity of colleges, this is an acceptable situation.

Quote :

"The point I'm getting at is that "progressive" policies are often short-sighted. Healthcare is another good example. Social security and medicare, as well. You have to understand the long-term consequences of having these government provided services, though. These programs might be created with good intentions, but it doesn't mean they'll always be a net positive. When the government is the administrator of a service that would normally be provided by a private entity, you suddenly remove elements of greed, fear of loss, and profit motive, which lowers overall efficiency, and results in higher prices."

social security has run its course, but it was very valuable when it was created. The US was coming out of a huge war, and people couldn't save like they needed to, and we were at risk of having huge populations retiring to abject poverty, which is not acceptable. The same goes for medicare. Programs like these need to be maintained and adjusted to remain solvent, not dismantled.

11/20/2009 11:05:53 AM

Quote :

"that example is pretty terrible, and doesn't really work."

I think it does work. It's a good example of a "progressive" policy, and I think my analysis is correct.

Quote :

"Our universities are some of the best in the world, not terrible and inefficient. Loans result in debt, which is the correcting force for getting loans."

A few of our universities are really good. A lot of them are not, and pale in comparison to an education you could receive in Canada or Europe. I don't even want to get into the whole problem where you go to school for 4 years no matter what to get your degree, and you have to take a bunch of useless classes to get your degree. Certifications end up being much more effective.

Student loans have a low, fixed interest rate, meaning that you're almost getting the money for free. The debt itself is not the correcting force, it's the interest you're going to have to pay. If someone offers to let me borrow a billion dollars with 0% interest, I'll take it. Hell, if someone lets me borrow a billion dollars with 1% interest I'll take it. Now imagine if the government was guaranteeing that loan.

Quote :

"If a person doesn't feel the job they'll get with their new degree will help with the loan, they won't take it."

Most people assume they'll get a job with a degree. How many people end up getting a job out of college that didn't even require a degree, or a job that has nothing to do with their field of study?

Quote :

"And costs would go up regardless, if people were approaching the capacity of colleges, this is a "natural" part of a free market system."

Yes, but the key part of your statement is "if people were approaching the capacity of colleges." The price of everything else goes down over time. It's only in areas where the government is subsidizing part of the cost that prices go up. You wouldn't have as many people going to college without government loans, but that isn't a bad thing. Not everyone needs to go to college.

Quote :

"As long as they keep producing a worthwhile product, and there are no barriers to increasing the capacity of colleges, this is an acceptable situation."

I think it can be argued, and would be argued by many people that have attended NCSU, that you don't always get your money's worth.

Quote :

"social security has run its course, but it was very valuable when it was created. The US was coming out of a huge war, and people couldn't save like they needed to, and we were at risk of having huge populations retiring to abject poverty, which is not acceptable. The same goes for medicare. Programs like these need to be maintained and adjusted to remain solvent, not dismantled."

Like I said: short-sighted. Social security and medicare seemed like good ideas, but now we can't pay for them. There are too many old people with expenses and not enough young, working people to pay for it. It can't be sustained. People are going to have to learn to save. It's a basic part of life that can't be neglected. It always has been, but with increasing life expectancies, it's more important than ever. You live below your means while you are of working age so you can provide for yourself at a later time. We're supposed to feel sorry for the people that haven't done that, but they dug their own grave on that one. This generation won't have a choice, because there isn't going to be a safety net in place. Either save for retirement, or prepare to be miserable.

11/20/2009 11:22:43 AM

Quote :

"Either save for retirement, or prepare to be miserable."

That doesn't address the case where a large amount of people have neglected to save. We can't have a first-world society with droves of sick, dying old people lying around.

11/20/2009 11:40:14 AM

We're not always going to have a first world society if people don't save. Savings are what pave the way for a prosperous economy. You're looking at the consequences of people not saving: poverty. Your solution is to force other people to support the people that have not saved. While it may be a noble goal, and it may seem like a solution to you, there are a few problems with this approach. For the people still paying into social security, they have less money in their paycheck, which means less money that they can save or invest. It's money that they will most likely never see again.

It also provides a disincentive to save. When you have a "safety net" that applies to anyone that pays taxes, people are going to behave like there is a safety net. They're not going to save as much. They're going to be less frugal. They're not going to work as hard. When there's no safety net, and every person knows that they will be completely screwed when they can't work anymore and have no savings, you know what's going to happen? People will save money. People will work hard, maybe two jobs at once, because they understand the value of sacrificing now to ensure security later. The people that don't will have to suffer the consequences, as they always have.

I'm not suggesting we cut off the people that have become dependent on government handouts to live. What I am suggesting is that we phase that kind of stuff out. It could be that we have no choice but to cut those people off when we're out of money, and out of ways to finance the debt, but it's hard to say. We need to stop providing incentives for people to live beyond their means. It would be better to do away with the culture of dependency. Of course, I understand this is direct contrast to modern liberal ideology, which seeks to grasp as much power for government as possible. What modern liberals fail to understand is that loss of economic freedom ultimately leads to (and is no different than) loss of other freedoms.

11/20/2009 1:01:28 PM

the unfortunate thing for you is that there is, in fact, ample evidence that 1) not everyone can afford to always save money, especially depending on how many dependents they have and its fucking barbaric to say "well they chose that path, let them find a charity or suffer and learn". 2) often the world's most creative, prosperous, and free democratic societies don't follow your definition of "freedom" and tend to value egalitarianism 3) the ron paul reloveution world sounds pretty awesome sitting behind your computer, but people are not rational robots, the world is too complicated, markets can be irrational, economics is not a science, people are fragile and stupid and not always the enlightened supermen of Reason who can and should all help themselves, and no matter what some austrian aristocrats or sociopaths might have once said to be "absolute truth", as long as people feel a connection to other people, there will be some form of "common good".

If there's a threat to freedom in a place like Denmark or The Netherlands or even the UK or the US today, it's crime, poverty, or the clash of cultures, not the inability to create your own currency.

But if you want to sit around thinking about how the world is screwed up because we have legal tender and conspiratorial international banking elites are controlling everything through the federal reserve and people are only poor because they're lazy or the government makes them poor through some conspiracy in which they want people to depend on them and not be ubermensch, then knock yourself out.

[Edited on November 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ,]

11/20/2009 2:00:23 PM

Quote :

"not everyone can afford to always save money, especially depending on how many dependents they have and its fucking barbaric to say "well they chose that path, let them find a charity or suffer and learn""

How is it barbaric? There are plenty of cheap and effective birth control methods. You can't have a bunch of kids, then whine about how expensive it is and expect a handout. If you bring some people into this world, you should be prepared to take care of them. Aside from disabled/handicapt people, anyone can survive in this country and put away extra money at the same time. It's just a matter of how much you want to work and how little you are willing to spend. People just have come to expect a certain standard of living that isn't reasonable.

Quote :

"often the world's most creative, prosperous, and free democratic societies don't follow your definition of "freedom" and tend to value egalitarianism"

They're prosperous in spite of their intrusive governments, not because of them.

Quote :

"the ron paul reloveution world sounds pretty awesome sitting behind your computer"

Austrian economics is a lot more than Ron Paul.

Quote :

"but people are not rational robots, the world is too complicated, markets can be irrational, economics is not a science, people are fragile and stupid and not always the enlightened supermen of Reason who can and should all help themselves"

No one said they're rational robots. The world being too complicated is why a central planner can't effectively allocate resources. Only the wants and needs of individuals can do that. Markets can't be rational or irrational, rationality refers to animal behavior. Economics is a theoretical science. Modern economics attempts to use econometrics to predict outcomes, but it doesn't always take into account irrational human behavior. And, again, no one said people are smart or would always help themselves. If you reward stupidity, you will have many stupid people. Welcome to the United States.

Quote :

"and no matter what some austrian aristocrats or sociopaths might have once said to be "absolute truth", as long as people feel a connection to other people, there will be some form of "common good"."

Uh, Austrian economics (if that's what you mean) hasn't said there wouldn't be common good. People will always do good. You're advocating a coercive government that forces people to be charitable. It's no shock that the many will attempt to steal from the few, in the name of "common good."

Quote :

"But if you want to sit around thinking about how the world is screwed up because we have legal tender and conspiratorial international banking elites are controlling everything through the federal reserve and people are only poor because they're lazy or the government makes them poor through some conspiracy in which they want people to depend on them and not be ubermensch, then knock yourself out."

You obviously aren't familiar with my positions. I haven't spoken of any kind of conspiracy, so it sounds like you're just making stuff up on the fly. If you understood anything about the Federal Reserve, or their history, or what they've been doing recently, you'd probably understand where I was coming from. It wouldn't kill you to get educated.

11/20/2009 2:32:02 PM

^how do you not get tired of trying to defend every micro point? i'm exhausted, just trying to follow along with your logic.

i know you get your jollies to breaking down someone's argument point for point, but this:

Quote :

"They're prosperous in spite of their intrusive governments, not because of them."

and many of your rebuttals of the same vein don't get you any debate points. you're not even backing up what your saying. you don't even offer a theory as to why your opinion has any merit, you just make a sweeping claim and offer it as fact.

you can parade around and trump your intellectual superiority all you want, but the last person arguing is not always the one who wins the argument. there's no shame in being undecided on certain issues. i'm not saying that you're wrong, but the constant bickering just pollutes the debate, and it is super-fuckin-annoying.

11/20/2009 3:40:37 PM

I dont beleive the cat picture is real.

i'm pretty sure it's a photochop.

11/21/2009 12:35:18 AM

red herring.

and I think... strawman.

Look at the pixels.

11/21/2009 8:29:24 AM

Quote :

"Aside from disabled/handicapt people, anyone can survive in this country and put away extra money at the same time. It's just a matter of how much you want to work and how little you are willing to spend. People just have come to expect a certain standard of living that isn't reasonable."

I was with you up till this point. Mean wages across the US have actually fallen when adjusted for inflation since 1970. There has been a lot of research into this which confirms that people aren't loosing ground because they're lazy, but simply because life has gotten more expensive.

Does this mean it is time for a government program? No, not necessarily, but the idea that people can provide the best possible future for their children (the primary biological drive of all human beings) and still have any modicum of savings is arguably false, and I consider myself a proto-Austrian.

Quote :

"but people are not rational robots, the world is too complicated, markets can be irrational, economics is not a science, people are fragile and stupid and not always the enlightened supermen of Reason who can and should all help themselves"

This is actually an exceptionally strong argument against government intervention. If an individual can't keep track of his own wants, needs, and best interests, how do you expect a bureaucrat or one of those dismal scientists in Washington to accurately gauge what is best for him, or the country as a whole?

Quote :

"But if you want to sit around thinking about how the world is screwed up because we have legal tender and conspiratorial international banking elites are controlling everything through the federal reserve"

Fiat money, not legal tender specifically, is the issue here. Either way, no one is arguing that there is an international cabal of the powerful which gets together in a grove of Redwoods in California every year to express their repressed homo sexuality and . . . wait, that does happen.

Anyway, the point here is that, whatever your impression of the gold standard is, it does act as a greater barrier to monetary inflation than fiat currency does. When inflation is practiced deliberately by a central bank, it is effectively a tax on the politically unconnected. Those who receive the money first (in this case the banks) get to spend it at it's present value while those who receive it last (generally the poor) will have felt the effects of this inflation long before any of the cash trickles down to them.

11/21/2009 10:07:40 AM

Quote :

"how do you not get tired of trying to defend every micro point? i'm exhausted, just trying to follow along with your logic."

If I'm going to make an argument, I'm at least going to try to be thorough. Especially when it's a slow day at work and I have nothing better to do. It's not bickering, I'm just trying to make my case and see if anyone can launch some decent objections. I don't think I'm right about everything, but the only way to find out one way or the other is to put ideas out there and have them be criticized.

As far as the statement about intrusive governments, there's really nothing more to say about it. There's no evidence that if European countries got rid of their social programs, they'd be better off. It's just my opinion that if they did, they'd have a more free society, which I think is a positive thing.

Quote :

"I was with you up till this point. Mean wages across the US have actually fallen when adjusted for inflation since 1970. There has been a lot of research into this which confirms that people aren't loosing ground because they're lazy, but simply because life has gotten more expensive. Does this mean it is time for a government program? No, not necessarily, but the idea that people can provide the best possible future for their children (the primary biological drive of all human beings) and still have any modicum of savings is arguably false, and I consider myself a proto-Austrian."

You probably already know the argument I would make, then, which is that government intervention and monetary policy have caused the cost of living to go up. The free market didn't create inflation, but I know who did. If we have a country where the cost of living is so much that a large portion of people have cut costs as much as they can, and still can't save, that's not something that a social program will cure. That's something that only a fundamentally strong economy could cure.

You're right though, not anyone can support a family and still save. In the current economy, even people that previously were making pretty good money haven't been able to save, they've been forced to tap into savings in order to live. Maybe I should say "*any non-handicapt/disabled single person" can survive and still save money. When you bring a family into the mix, a minimum wage job for an unskilled worker probably just isn't going to cut it.

[Edited on November 21, 2009 at 12:38 PM. Reason : *if they can find a job, and there's a pretty good chance they can't these days]

11/21/2009 12:19:56 PM

Quote :

"red herring. and I think... strawman. Look at the pixels."

Are you talking about what I said? I dont get how the cat remark from joe follows from that.

[Edited on November 21, 2009 at 3:46 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2009 3:43:25 PM

He's strawmanning the cat's argument.

The lake is a red herring.

11/21/2009 5:03:10 PM

Quote :

"Fired Up! Missouri points out that the Lafayette County Republican Central Committee is highlighting a new billboard in the state with steps for a "citizens guide to revolution of a corrupt government": It calls for citizens to "starve the beast" and "vote out incumbents" -- and if that doesn't work, "PREPARE FOR WAR." "

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/20/missouri-gop-billboard/







Couple this with the Psalm 109:8 phenomena, and I no longer think the comparisons to rabid anti-Bush protesters are apt.



[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM. Reason : ]

11/22/2009 8:42:33 AM

I find it funny that those billboards have a roughly similar appearance to various internet-crazy sites like the Time Cube... it's as though rabid insanity has some universal design format.

[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 8:47 AM. Reason : .]

11/22/2009 8:46:31 AM

i like how that billboard is protected by the very same amendment it claims to be in jeopardy.


and nothing jazzes up an anti-government sign quite like a soviet hammer and sickle and poorly drawn taliban caricatures.


well played mizzourah, well played

[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM. Reason : REMEMBER FT. HOOD!!!]

11/22/2009 10:36:20 AM

The democrats did the same thing, don’t you know? Everything is equal.

11/22/2009 11:19:24 AM

I guess she released the book a few years too early. At least back then people only questioned the government's policies instead of openly advocating a violent overthrow. Which one of us is treasonous again, Coulter?

11/22/2009 12:35:09 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk

11/23/2009 12:51:41 PM

^ I think Sarah Palin and a lot of her supporters are morons. That being said, this trick could be done with any major political figure.








On another note . . .

ATTN: LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, Your Tie Has Arrived!

11/23/2009 6:37:06 PM

Contrary to what my conservative friends think, I do not have any qualms with voting for a republican next election. As long as pundit idiots like Rush Limbaugh are considered "party leaders", Sarah Palin is actually taken seriously as having potential for 2012, and Dick Cheney's is considered part of the "new republican image"; than I will swallow down my pride/vomit and will vote for Obama in 2012.

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 7:09 PM. Reason : k]

11/23/2009 7:09:27 PM

^ which is exactly what many in the left are banking on. What would be funny though is if Palin ended up winning because everyone votes for her as a joke, like they did for the goofy guy running for prom king.

11/23/2009 7:16:32 PM

That is what they were banking on in 2004 as well and what the GOP was banking on in 2008. We see how that went. People turn out to vote for candidates, not against them.

11/23/2009 7:18:12 PM

^^^You shouldn't make the mistake of voting/non-voting for anyone simply because of their party affiliation. A libertarian, for instance, can only run as a Republican if they plan to get elected. You don't even know who the Republican candidate for 2012 will be, so it's way too early to say that you'll vote for Obama...especially given the damage he inevitably will have done by then.

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 7:19 PM. Reason : ]

11/23/2009 7:18:45 PM

^^ I feel like the GOP kind-of gave up in 2008.

McCain’s campaign was pretty poorly run (which I attribute to the fact that McCain relied on the RNC for funding since he chose public financing, and to a large extent didn’t have control of his own message and campaign), and the pick of Palin was your proverbial hail-mary.

I really wish McCain could have gotten his shot at presidency. 2000 would have been perfect for him, because he was slightly younger and more spry, but Rove was just too good at his job.

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 7:26 PM. Reason : ]

11/23/2009 7:25:40 PM

Quote :

"You shouldn't make the mistake of voting/non-voting for anyone simply because of their party affiliation"

I never vote by party and thing the "lever" should be pulled with anyone who does it having their right to vote removed.

Last election i voted for a republican governor, house rep, and was until July voting McCain. Palin was merely a straw on the camel's back of stuff he was doing to lose my vote during the campaign season.

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 9:10 PM. Reason : a]

11/23/2009 9:09:09 PM

Quote :

"Last election i voted for a republican governor, house rep, and was until July voting McCain. Palin was merely a straw on the camel's back of stuff he was doing to lose my vote during the campaign season. "

But you voted for Obama? I have never understood this logic. I was going to vote for McCain in the spring and early summer, but with Palin and a few other issues he lost my vote. But I sure as hell didn't vote for Obama. You don't have to vote for a President if both are shitty. People who vote for the "lesser of two evils" make me want to shoot myself.

11/24/2009 1:23:47 AM

^ Go for it you would be doing this world a favor

11/24/2009 7:44:13 AM

Quote :

"FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Authorities are saying a Kentucky census worker found hanging from a tree with "fed" scrawled on his chest committed suicide and staged his death to look like a homicide. A news release from Kentucky State Police said Tuesday that Bill Sparkman died at the same location where his body was found Sept. 12 near a cemetery in a heavily wooded area of southeastern Kentucky. A man who found the body in the Daniel Boone National Forest said the 51-year-old was bound with duct tape, gagged and had an identification badge taped to his neck. Investigators say Sparkman acted alone in manipulating the scene to conceal the suicide. The news release says Sparkman had recently taken out two life insurance policies that would not pay out for suicide."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-24-census-worker-suicide_N.htm

11/24/2009 3:06:05 PM

Why does that belong in this thread?

11/24/2009 3:16:17 PM

because I think it was posted earlier in the thread (or somewhere) as a possible example of a conservative being nuts and killing a census worker. As it turns out, it was just a nuts census worker who committed suicide.

11/24/2009 3:22:56 PM

Gotcha, didn't catch that earlier post. People just assumed it was some racist tea party group that did it.

11/24/2009 3:24:57 PM

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6737570.html
Conservative concedes a 2nd time in NY House race

Quote :

" ALBANY, N.Y. — The Conservative Party candidate has conceded an upstate New York race for a U.S. House of Representatives seat for the second time, saying he doesn't have enough votes. Doug Hoffman said Tuesday that he has no hope of winning. He had withdrawn his first concession to Democratic Rep. Bill Owens last week, saying the race was close enough that absentee ballots could change the outcome. Hoffman had started the race as a long-shot candidate labeled as a spoiler. With support from big-name Republicans including Sarah Palin, Hoffman built enough support to force the Republican Party's candidate out of the race. The rural upstate district had long been represented by Republicans. Owens was sworn in Nov. 6."

I'm starting to like Palin more and more when I hear about things like this.

11/24/2009 5:11:44 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091124/pl_ynews/ynews_pl996
Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates

Quote :

"Ten members of the Republican National Committee are proposing a resolution demanding candidates embrace at least eight of 10 conservative principles if they hope to receive financial support and an official endorsement from the RNC. The "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates," is designed to force candidates to prove that they support "conservative principles" while opposing "Obama's socialist agenda," according to The New York Times' Caucus blog. The proposal highlights the ongoing tug-of-war for the ideological soul of the Republican party, and has been met with skepticism both inside and outside of the party. Some are speculating that the move was inspired by the GOP’s recent loss in New York's 23rd House race, a seat the party had held since the 1800s. That contest saw Dede Scozzafava, a moderate Republican endorsed by the RNC, driven out of the race in favor of Doug Hoffman, a more conservative candidate backed by the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. After Scozzafava dropped out of the race, the RNC endorsed Hoffman, who went on to lose to the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. … "

lol

11/25/2009 12:36:46 AM

How are these people so oblivious to how dumb they look?

1. WHEREAS REAGAN, WHEREAS REAGAN, WHEREAS JESU--OOPS WE MEAN REAGAN. Jeez.

2. I'm fairly certain Reagan wouldn't have passed this Reagan test. Amnesty, taxes, and the deficit.

11/25/2009 7:38:27 AM

Quote :

"New group tries to convince Cheney to run in 2012"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

I need no further proof that the "leaders" of the GOP are completely out of touch with reality. No matter how bad Obama is how could your average republican joe think Cheney, who was the voice behind a lot of the stupid shit Bush did ( I have had several of my conservative friends speak down on some of thestuff Bush has done lately), be considered a prime candidate to "re-brand" a new republican party as so many GOP pundits say for 2012.

By the way ^^

lets see how bush does

Quote :

"(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill; (2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare; (3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation; (4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check; (5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants; (6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges; (7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat; (8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act; (9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and (10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; "

1.) NO, until obama, bush was busting down the walls of deficit with his big tax cuts for his rich buddies and big spending on his war of Iraqi oil among other things.

2.) N/A Bush decided to just idly sit back and let the current imploding system limp along.

3.) Bush did marginally well in this category that I support. Although I think he was subjectively biased to be overly sympathetic to alliances he had in the Big Oil industry and did not push hard enough to get nuclear energy moving or support a reasonable level of renewable energy deployment.

4.) Not sure about this one.

5.) Although an outspoken "critic" of illegal immigration, I would say this is one topic that if Bush was judged by his actions NOT his words than he would receive a NO in this category.

6.) Well Bush did start these so its an automatic yes; but we should not have been in Iraq in the first place but this is a debate for another topic.

7.) At times I felt Bush was poking a stick at these countries too much and only supported them to research and attempt at getting nukes.

8.) Bush did well with this.

9.) Not sure how the republican plan is protecting "vulnerables" but he did do a good job of upholding the GOP platform in this category. Although discouraging abortion only increases welfare handouts and the population of societal dreads; which all works to counter to the parallel GOP mortal sin of socialist welfare spending.

10.) Bush gets an A+ on this.

[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 12:24 PM. Reason : l]

11/27/2009 12:14:07 PM

i guess this can go here.

Nine years ago, Mike Huckabee commuted the 95 year prison sentence of Maurice Clemmons, who is being sought as a "person of interest" in the Washington coffeehouse cop killer. He's not considered a suspect at this point though. We'll see.

Quote :

"A man with an extensive criminal past — whose 95-year prison sentence was commuted in Arkansas nearly a decade ago — was being sought Sunday as a "person of interest" in a deadly ambush on four police officers who were gunned down inside a coffee shop. Pierce County sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer told reporters that Maurice Clemmons, 37, was one of several people investigators want to talk to and that he could not be called a suspect at this point. In a news release, the sheriff's office said Clemmons has an extensive violent criminal history from Arkansas, including aggravated robbery and theft. Clemmons also recently was arrested and charged in Pierce County in Washington state for third-degree assault on a police officer, and second-degree rape of a child. In 1989, Clemmons, then 17, was convicted in Little Rock for aggravated robbery. He was paroled in 2000 after then-Gov. Mike Huckabee commuted Clemmons' 95-year prison sentence. Huckabee, who was criticized during his run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 for the number of clemencies and commutations he granted, cited Clemmons' age at the time of the sentence."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=9200330

[Edited on November 29, 2009 at 11:15 PM. Reason : /]

11/29/2009 11:15:05 PM

If you read the story, his 95 year jail sentence was issued when he was 17, on charges of theft. 95 years for a black 17-year-old for theft. Without knowing the nitty-gritty details of the man's story, I would say he deserved the commutation.

The article also indicates he stands accused of child-rape and is considered mentally unbalanced. Hindsight is 20-20.

11/30/2009 12:16:37 AM