• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mardak said:
And why can't this be handled by the states? Why should I have my income taken away from me by the federal government to bail out large corporations and give preference to the military corporations that want more wars so they can keep making bombs?
This can't be handled by states because states don't have interest in developing structures that benefit the country as a whole, rather than just the states'. If you recall, we did not have interstate system for 150 years, until FDR took a big 'ol map of USA and connected 8 big cities with a blue sharpie pen. I don't understand why you went off on the bombs tangent. So because the federal government gives contracts to defense contractors suddenly means that all the other things they do (like keeping our country resemble a country, and not Somalia) are meaningless? If you want to rail against defense spending, welcome to the club. We got a pretty big chorus here. If you want to rail against bailouts, again, it's a legitimate issue but one that doesn't warrant the complete shrinkage of federal government to just printing money and raising army.
And how is having them controlled by the federal government better? The big corporations only need to convince the members of congress to get preferential treatment. And similarly corporations only need to infiltrate the one federal FDA to make sure regulations benefit them more than other companies.

Tyson Foods produces a lot of meat for the whole world and their employees have made it in to the FDA. And Tyson Foods prevents retailers like Costco from doing its own safety tests because they say the FDA has done enough testing.

Why does there need to be just one federal agency instead of multiple where consumers can decide if they trust one or the other. Or similarly if they trust retailers like Costco to do their own testing.
And how do retailer specific health standards work? How do people decide wal-mart's codes are better than costco's? After 10 people die from food poisoning, or after 200? What's the drawback of having a unified health standards for ALL retailers? Again, the infiltration of special interest groups and lobbyists in our system is the single most important problem facing the government. But instead of treating the disease, you want to destroy the patient.
 
This is either very silly or an amazing coincidence, but Herman Cain may be a fan of Pokemon. The evidence:

In Thursday night's Republican primary debate in Iowa, Cain quoted "a poet" as having once said, "Life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it's never easy when there's so much on the line" (3:31 below). These are lyrics from "The Power of One," a song written for Pokemon: The Movie 2000 by "poet" Donna Summer.

Cain quotes the line on what appears to be his official website (attributing it to the 2000 Olympics closing song, which it's not), at his official campaign announcement in May, and at the Republican Leadership Conference in June.
 

KtSlime

Member
ChoklitReign said:
This is either very silly or an amazing coincidence, but Herman Cain may be a fan of Pokemon. The evidence:

Cain believes in the Theory of Evolution - confirmed.
lol.gif
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
JohnTinker said:
I'm probably voting for the guy but man this speech blows
good to know that his oratory failures aren't enough to put you off his brilliant denial of evolution, separation of church and state and illogical economic policy.
 
OuterWorldVoice said:
good to know that his oratory failures aren't enough to put you off his brilliant denial of evolution, separation of church and state and illogical economic policy.
But can I have a beer with him?
 

leroidys

Member
Mardak said:
"Because you can" and "because you're forced or because you're forcing other people" are not the same thing.

Churches and shelters funded by those who want to help previously took care of those in need. But there are even regulations that restricting these entities from helping out because the federal government assumes it knows how to do better. Each state can decide if they want to provide some aid to those in its states or even people in other states.

You do realize that the church was able to do these things because it was incredibly rich and collected many mandatory taxes, right? Why on earth would you prefer that the church do something, which you have no control over, than elected officials do something, who you vote into office?

Do you really believe that we would take better care of our people if we simply didn't have taxes? I really don't see the logic. My mother works supporting battered women that have fled their abusers, and the money has completely dried up in the past decade, as incomes of the top earners have exploded. If a tax free society would take better care of social issues, we should be seeing these effects increase as taxes decrease, right? It has not been the case.



Mardak said:
The US is a very generous country. Just look at all the donations to the American Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations. People from across the nation and local churches can help out more directly than funneling some money through the income tax. And states, counties, cities can decide how they want to take care of people.

Citation needed?

Certainly you realize that a driving force for the US people's charity is that it is written into the tax code, right?
 
Mardak said:
Churches and shelters funded by those who want to help previously took care of those in need. But there are even regulations that restricting these entities from helping out because the federal government assumes it knows how to do better. Each state can decide if they want to provide some aid to those in its states or even people in other states.
What regulations? As far as I know, churches and non profits can do whatever they want with the money they collect. Churches don't even have to file a tax return to show what their expenses are. Are you talking about when a private church gets public money from the government, and then denies help to say a gay family? Of course there are regulations for that.

Look, we tried this with the Articles of Confederation. It sucked. The federalists won OK. They are the ones that gave us the interstate commerce clause which deals with roads that you are obsessing with. Hell before roads it was used for railroads and canals before that. Also, you have to learn to accept that not all government is perfect. Other individuals have different wants and that shows up sooner or later. One man's waste is another's benefit.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
aswedc said:
Cain seems like a plausible VP pick. Makes as much sense as Biden.

So let me see if I have this right...

Cain, a self proclaimed DC neophyte and career executive in the the beverage and food services industry, makes as much sense for a VP pick as Biden, a consummate DC insider and policy wonk with a bunch of foreign policy experience?

Gotcha

:\
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Perry scares the shit out of me. He's a very a slick and refined version of George W Bush. The talking points and policy positions are so similar. Emphasize 'Christian' beliefs, strong military presence around the world, anti-gay, protect the borders, tax cuts up the ass, down with 'frivolous' lawsuits, America is the best thing to ever happen to Earth, etc. I mean shit, he literally said that the United States was the "last great hope of mankind". Holy ****!

Perry shouldn't be in elected office, he should be running a mega church somewhere. That seems to be right up his alley.
 

KtSlime

Member
scorcho said:
wouldn't you wait on a long line to see this?

http://gothamist.com/assets_c/2011/08/081311money-thumb-474xauto-650209.jpg[IMG]

fake edit: IT'S A CORN DOG YOU PERVERT. [url]http://gothamist.com/2011/08/13/michele_bachmann_enjoys_leading_iow.php[/url][/QUOTE]

That may be a corndog, but I am still grossed out. That lady gives me the creeps.
 
Perry could easily beat Obama. Lots of talking points and meaningless drivel today during his speech, but he has a swagger and record to back it up. I can't really see how Obama could even attack him, given his own atrocious jobs record. Perry seems like he'll own Florida and perhaps put Virginia back in the red.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Perry could easily beat Obama. Lots of talking points and meaningless drivel today during his speech, but he has a swagger and record to back it up. I can't really see how Obama could even attack him, given his own atrocious jobs record. Perry seems like he'll own Florida and perhaps put Virginia back in the red.
Weren't you the one who also said Hillary would defeat Obama easily?

This is probably going to be the closest election since Nixon/Kennedy. NO ONE is going to defeat anyone "easily" by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Obama has never been an attacker. He always let's his opponents implode on themselves. He would have never been a US Senator if his primary challengers had not screwed up. The only time I ever saw him go on the offensive was when he was dismissive to Hillary at the New Hampshire debate after Iowa. That blew up in his face. Game plan is probably to stay on message and let either Perry or a bad news story bring down the GOP nominee.

Edit: This could also become a base election like 2004. Not only will the Supreme Court be deciding on Obamacare that summer, but you have all of those unpopular governors in swing states.
 

Clevinger

Member
Karma Kramer said:
I think a third party has to come forward for this election or this country is fucked

A third party comes forward almost every election and doesn't do jack, except hurt the chances of the most likeminded viable candidate. Nader got us Bush.

Start at the congressional level, start with a movement to change campaign finance etc. Then you won't be wasting your votes on a third party.
 

Branduil

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Perry could easily beat Obama. Lots of talking points and meaningless drivel today during his speech, but he has a swagger and record to back it up. I can't really see how Obama could even attack him, given his own atrocious jobs record. Perry seems like he'll own Florida and perhaps put Virginia back in the red.
Not really. Independents aren't likely to vote en masse for another Texas Governor.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Clevinger said:
A third party comes forward almost every election and doesn't do jack, except hurt the chances of the most likeminded viable candidate. Nader got us Bush.

Start at the congressional level, start with a movement to change campaign finance etc. Then you won't be wasting your votes on a third party.

And Perot, Clinton.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Perry could easily beat Obama. Lots of talking points and meaningless drivel today during his speech, but he has a swagger and record to back it up. I can't really see how Obama could even attack him, given his own atrocious jobs record. Perry seems like he'll own Florida and perhaps put Virginia back in the red.
And how do you envision Perry carrying Florida, after Perry being on record saying he wants to dismantle social programs like medicare, SS and medicaid? Obama does not have atrocious job record, give me a break man. After first year of job loss due to banking collapse, the economy has created jobs every month consistently save for a scattered month or two. The unemployment peaked at 10% in October of 2009, and since then it's been on a steady decline. Is it going down fast enough? Not quite. But is it atrocious? No.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Perry could easily beat Obama. Lots of talking points and meaningless drivel today during his speech, but he has a swagger and record to back it up. I can't really see how Obama could even attack him, given his own atrocious jobs record. Perry seems like he'll own Florida and perhaps put Virginia back in the red.

dude, don't go all diablos on us.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Perry is basically George W Bush ver. 2, and sometimes sounds worse. He's even governor of Texas for crisakes. You think the country will really elect that just four years after finally getting rid of the first one? I just don't see it. Dems and fence-sitters may not be too happy with Obama now, but when it comes down to the GE and it's Obama versus this guy, I don't think Obama has too much to worry about.
 

Averon

Member
Of the two GOP candidates that could give Obama a serious run (Romney and Perry), Perry is the easiest of the two to beat. Painting him as Bush 2.0 is just too easy.
 
empty vessel said:
He is worse. He is the real version of what Bush pretended to be.

word.

if he makes it to the general, i can't wait for the 'george w bush's lieutenant governor wants to be president' ads.
 

Branduil

Member
teruterubozu said:
Perry won't even get the GOP nomination so no point in arguing how he'd do against Obama.
Who is going to beat him in the primaries? No one is excited about Romney and other candidates are jokes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom