Support NeoGAF

[TacticalFox88]

I expect this to align as the general election rolls on, but damn, 80% of all PAC donations have gone to pro GOP groups. And 80% of those have been made by just 100 individuals.

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/26/15378...g-the-race-a-billionaires-game?sc=ipad&f=1001

A wasted investment really

 

[XMonkey]

And yet that caucus passes Boehner's agenda, funny huh

What's Boehner's agenda?

 

[Hobbestetrician]

What's Boehner's agenda?

Whatever the opposite of Obama's is.

 

[GhaleonEB]

And yet that caucus passes Boehner's agenda, funny huh

And yet Boehner keeps passing their agenda, you mean.

 

[Jooney]

What's Boehner's agenda?

To have a lazer-like focus on jobs.

 

[Wilsongt]

Whatever the opposite of Obama's is.

Isn't that the general Republican agenda?

 

[SomeDude]

i havn't been keeping up but does ron paul stand a chance for presidency?

 

[Amir0x]

i havn't been keeping up but does ron paul stand a chance for presidency?

LOL

Edit: LMFAO

Edit2: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *wipes tear from eye*

Edit3: *falls over, crying from laughter* HAHAHhahahahahahohohohhahahah

 

[Chumly]

i havn't been keeping up but does ron paul stand a chance for presidency?

lol


Does that answer it for you?

 

[The Technomancer]

i havn't been keeping up but does ron paul stand a chance for presidency?

Totally realistically serious here: not a chance in hell. Completely separate from my personal feelings about the guy the numbers just aren't there. He's at the level where the math is crystal clear.

 

[Clevinger]

A wasted investment really

Not necessarily. Even if Romney loses, it will probably help with downticket races.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

i havn't been keeping up but does ron paul stand a chance for presidency?

 

[Jooney]

i havn't been keeping up but does ron paul stand a chance for presidency?

He has all the delegates so it's not a matter of "if" but "when".

 

[jaxword]

i havn't been keeping up but does ron paul stand a chance for presidency?

Yes, he's gotten the majority of votes from the Democratic AND Republican camps.

 

[leroidys]

Boehner has no control over his caucus.

Boehner's raging caucus is becoming a real problem. Right now its just stiff opposition, but down the road its going to lead to some serious electoral dysfunction.


Also, teabags, penises, etc.

 

[SomeDude]

LOL

Edit: LMFAO

Edit2: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *wipes tear from eye*

Edit3: *falls over, crying from laughter* HAHAHhahahahahahohohohhahahah

i wonder if ron paul has played bioshock?

 

[Jooney]

i wonder if ron paul has played bioshock?

Andrew Ryan is Ron Paul on steroids.

 

[Black Republican]

hahaha god sometimes gaf is so perfect. someone claims it's nothing but a party of racist old white assholes; the very next post is by a guy named 'Black Republican'

it was a joke:-(

 

[empty vessel]

Yeah, no (serious) GOP pols outside of marginalized folks are advocating immediate and drastic cuts. And the idea that his statement contradicts or kills 30 years of republican economics is laughable. The idea has always been to starve the beast (kill it over time slowly) not execute it on inauguration day.

And that is why I'm not a republican.

So the plan is to reduce GDP by 5% over a period of years instead of on day 1? Why does that matter?

But they are. They can't do anything without Boehner signing on, for the most part. And Boehner would certainly not sign on for a massive trillion cut to domestic spending.

The Tea Party gets thrown a few bones in terms of passing things that are irrelevant (ie won't make it to the Senate floor), but when it comes to actually meaningful shit daddy Boehner and the GOP establishment are in the driving seat.

The establishment are always in the driving seat. That's what makes them the establishment. But I think the tea party has been wildly successful in influencing the GOP. That's what this graph reflects:

The tea party is a great success story. The problem is that the movement's substance is insane.

 

[Amir0x]

it was a joke:-(

Oh, I'm sure. It just was too perfect with your name. Life is poetry, or some such cheese

i wonder if ron paul has played bioshock?

if you renamed Bioshock "Legend of the Gold Standard: An Ayn Rand Tale", I bet he'd play it

 

[CHEEZMO™]

if you renamed Bioshock "Legend of the Gold Standard: An Ayn Rand Tale", I bet he'd play it

Sounds like a pretty sweet point-and-click adventure game to me.

 

[The Technomancer]

if you renamed Bioshock "Legend of the Gold Standard: An Ayn Rand Tale", I bet he'd play it

Someone should send the Ron Paul Game Kickstarter guy an email suggesting that name.

 

[fallagin]

if you renamed Bioshock "Legend of the Gold Standard: An Ayn Rand Tale", I bet he'd play it

That reminds me, does anyone have a link to that flash game made by a gaf member that was about ron paul and the gold standard? It was a parody of a thread made by some crazy ron paul lover who wanted to make a game. It had references to earthbound and was extremely awesome.

EDIT: Actually I guess the thread was by emceegamer but the guy who made the patent went onto gaf.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Oh, I'm sure. It just was too perfect with your name. Life is poetry, or some such cheese



if you renamed Bioshock "Legend of the Gold Standard: An Ayn Rand Tale before the Civil Rights era", I bet he'd play it

fixed.

 

[fallagin]

I FOUND IT!

Also here is the thread that references it.

Goddamn is it awesome.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I FOUND IT!

Also here is the thread that references it.

Goddamn is it awesome.

Oh god, was doing great, and then I got taken out by the prostitute! She gave me disease.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

What would Ron Paul do with regard to Syria?

 

[Hobbestetrician]

What would Ron Paul do with regard to Syria?

Ignore it? Let the states decide?

 

[SomeDude]

Is Obama probably the top 5 most liberal presidents we've ever had?

 

[Amir0x]

Is Obama probably the top 5 most liberal presidents we've ever had?

if by top 5 most liberal presidents you mean top 5 most conservative, then maybe it'd be closer to accurate

 

[SomeDude]

if by top 5 most liberal presidents you mean top 5 most conservative, then maybe it'd be closer to accurate

Well he did do something at least about health care. Obama has come out for gay rights, which no us president has ever done.

He also at the very least put in some new regulations regarding wall street, which is more than you can say for any post FDR president.

 

[reilo]

Well he did do something at least about health care. Obama has come out for gay rights, which no us president has ever done.

He also at the very least put in some new regulations regarding wall street, which is more than you can say for any post FDR president.

Alright, which mod logged into SomeDude's account?

 

[Amir0x]

Well he did do something at least about health care. Obama has come out for gay rights, which no us president has ever done.

He also at the very least put in some new regulations regarding wall street, which is more than you can say for any post FDR president.

In the non-insane world, being for gay marriage is perfectly in line with the conservative philosophy - just not the social conservative one. Ideally allowing homosexuals to get married is a matter of individual liberty and smaller government, because the government should not be allowed to have any say in stopping the happiness of consenting adults. The debate keeps getting framed in such a way and hijacked because of of obscene religious nutjobs.

Obama's health care plan as is was the Republican health care plan in many ways for the past twenty thirty years prior to his election; it's not even a particularly liberal plan at all in its current state. If Obama had got the public option it might have been somewhat more liberal, but as it stands now it's just Romneycare and Reagan's dream health care plan repackaged with some slight modifications.

I like a lot of what Obama has done (and hate plenty too), but the only reason he seems liberal is because the MODERN conservative movement is batshit insane, kidnapped by the visibility of the tea party movement and social conservatism and their conscious strategy to take back the White House by simply saying "NO" to whatever he says.

That's why people like Kosmo and others seem so fake - they're not really conservatives, they're just Republicans. They will follow the Republicans off a cliff, whether they stand true to conservative principles or not.

 

[Chumly]

Well he did do something at least about health care. Obama has come out for gay rights, which no us president has ever done.

He also at the very least put in some new regulations regarding wall street, which is more than you can say for any post FDR president.

Obama only "seems" more liberal due to the massive shift to the right of republicans.

 

[SomeDude]

In the non-insane world, being for gay marriage is perfectly in line with the conservative philosophy - just not the social conservative one. Ideally allowing homosexuals to get married is a matter of individual liberty and smaller government, because the government should not be allowed to have any say in stopping the happiness of consenting adults. The debate keeps getting framed in such a way and hijacked because of of obscene religious nutjobs.

Obama's health care plan as is was the Republican health care plan in many ways for the past twenty thirty years prior to his election; it's not even a particularly liberal plan at all in its current state. If Obama had got the public option it might have been somewhat more liberal, but as it stands now it's just Romneycare and Reagan's dream health care plan repackaged with some slight modifications.

I like a lot of what Obama has done (and hate plenty too), but the only reason he seems liberal is because the MODERN conservative movement is batshit insane, kidnapped by the visibility of the tea party movement and social conservatism and their conscious strategy to take back the White House by simply saying "NO" to whatever he says.

That's why people like Kosmo and others seem so fake - they're not really conservatives, they're just Republicans. They will follow the Republicans off a cliff, whether they stand true to conservative principles or not.

Do you agree with the 10th amendent and these certain things should be handled by the state>?

 

[Mike M]

Is Obama probably the top 5 most liberal presidents we've ever had?

Not even close. He's arguably right of Nixon.

 

[Amir0x]

Do you agree with the 10th amendent and these certain things should be handled by the state>?

I agree with the 10th Amendment in general terms, but I also believe that there are two things which should be exceptions. One is health care - I believe the only way a health care system works is if everyone is in the pot, and that requires universal health care. So I would grant the federal government power over the states in this regard. And the second exception is with regards to the enshrining of bigoted/hateful laws in certain states. Any discriminatory law, whether it's approved by the states or not, should be overruled by the federal government. Ideally, though, we'd avoid that by having a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the EQUAL rights of all races and sexual orientations, because as we all know from history, if left to the power of the mob, they frequently will not choose to do the right thing.

And sometimes individual states are just dumb.

Mississippi didn't ratify the thirteenth amendment until fuckin' 1995.

 

[SomeDude]

I agree with the 10th Amendment in general terms, but I also believe that there are two things which should be exceptions. One is health care - I believe the only way a health care system works is if everyone is in the pot, and that requires universal health care. So I would grant the federal government power over the states in this regard. And the second exception is with regards to the enshrining of bigoted/hateful laws in certain states. Any discriminatory law, whether it's approved by the states or not, should be overruled by the federal government. Ideally, though, we'd avoid that by having a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the EQUAL rights of all races and sexual orientations, because as we all know from history, if left to the power of the mob, they frequently will not choose to do the right thing.

And sometimes individual states are just dumb.

Mississippi didn't ratify the thirteenth amendment until fuckin' 1995.

Would you agree with a constitutional amendment that says that we have to pay taxes so every american has a right to college education and healthcare, along with making sure every american is out of the poverty line?


"Mississippi didn't ratify the thirteenth amendment until fuckin' 1995." - ok, but what if certain states population rejects multiculutralism? Should the federal government override this?

 

[Amir0x]

Would you agree with a constitutional amendment that says that we have to pay taxes so every american has a right to college education and healthcare, along with making sure every american is out of the poverty line?

heck no to the "pay taxes to make sure every american is out of the poverty line and has a right to college education." But it's implicit in the idea of universal health care that we'd have to raise taxes for the entire country. Of course, the average American pays something like $7000 a year for health care, and so even if we raised taxes on everyone to pay for it, the amount the average citizen would pay in extra taxes would be less than half that, if other countries with universal health care are anything to go by. AND we'd have a superior health care system to boot in the exchange, so it's a win-win.

"Mississippi didn't ratify the thirteenth amendment until fuckin' 1995." - ok, but what if certain states population rejects multiculutralism? Should the federal government override this?

Yes. The idea of multiculturalism is not even up for debate in reading our constitution. If a state does not approve of the rights of every man from any culture being equal, then they do not have the right to say otherwise. It will be forced upon them.

 

[SomeDude]

heck no to the "pay taxes to make sure every american is out of the poverty line and has a right to college education." But it's implicit in the idea of universal health care that we'd have to raise taxes for the entire country. Of course, the average American pays something like $7000 a year for health care, and so even if we raised taxes on everyone to pay for it, the amount the average citizen would pay in extra taxes would be less than half that, if other countries with universal health care are anything to go by. AND we'd have a superior health care system to boot in the exchange, so it's a win-win.



Yes. The idea of multiculturalism is not even up for debate in reading our constitution. If a state does not approve of the rights of every man from any culture being equal, then they do not have the right to say otherwise. It will be forced upon them.

What about abortion? over 50 precent of americans are pro-life. This is something that should be left up to the states.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Question from a EuroGAFer here.

Why do some people care so much about states rights (or as it often seems, be scared of the federal government)?

Edit: For example ^ why should some things be left to the states to decide?

 

[makingmusic476]

heck no to the "pay taxes to make sure every american is out of the poverty line and has a right to college education." But it's implicit in the idea of universal health care that we'd have to raise taxes for the entire country. Of course, the average American pays something like $7000 a year for health care, and so even if we raised taxes on everyone to pay for it, the amount the average citizen would pay in extra taxes would be less than half that, if other countries with universal health care are anything to go by. AND we'd have a superior health care system to boot in the exchange, so it's a win-win.



Yes. The idea of multiculturalism is not even up for debate in reading our constitution. If a state does not approve of the rights of every man from any culture being equal, then they do not have the right to say otherwise. It will be forced upon them.

Eh, I think many of the same arguments that can be made in favor of universal healthcare could be made in favor of publicly funded post-secondary education. We just don't have too many real world examples to back it up.

We'd just have to design publicly funded college education in such a way that it encourages people to go into fields that are more likely to benefit society (more money for STEM, economics, less money for music/art - this coming from a guy with a degree in music) so that people don't just go to school for whatever because it's free.

 

[SomeDude]

Question from a EuroGAFer here.

Why do some people care so much about states rights (or as it often seems, be scared of the federal government)?

Edit: For example ^ why should some things be left to the states to decide?

10th amendment says anything not in the constitution should be left up to the states.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Question from a EuroGAFer here.

Why do some people care so much about states rights (or as it often seems, be scared of the federal government)?

Edit: For example ^ why should some things be left to the states to decide?

IMO states rights is fucking bullshit and the a lot of problems in history can be tied to the outdated idea.

 

[el retorno]

Question from a EuroGAFer here.

Why do some people care so much about states rights (or as it often seems, be scared of the federal government)?

Edit: For example ^ why should some things be left to the states to decide?

We were 13 independent colonies that joined a union.

Also it has to deal with the general idea that the closer the government is to the people the more responsive and effective it is.

Do you support devolution in the UK? A roll back of EU power? Same kind of reasoning.

 

[Amir0x]

Eh, I think many of the same arguments that can be made in favor of universal healthcare could be made in favor of publicly funded post-secondary education. We just don't have too many real world examples to back it up.

I don't think so. Everyone gets sick, so it's only right that everyone pay into a universal pot. Not everyone is good for college or university, nor should that be a goal for every single person. Therefore, it's ridiculous to ask taxpayers to fund the entire college education of the percentage of people who college is good for.

We definitely need to tackle the insane costs of college, don't get me wrong, but taxing everyone to the extent that college would be basically fully subsidized by taxpayers is dumb.

What about abortion? over 50 precent of americans are pro-life. This is something that should be left up to the states.

This is slightly more difficult. I would leave it to the states, but I am definitely pro-choice. In the end, though, we should not be deciding whether or not abortion is OK based on emotions and religion, it should be purely based on our scientific understanding of consciousness and careful study of child development in the womb to determine when they gain essential elements that make someone human. But ultimately, I'm fine with letting states decide for themselves in this case.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Question from a EuroGAFer here.

Why do some people care so much about states rights (or as it often seems, be scared of the federal government)?

Edit: For example ^ why should some things be left to the states to decide?

Because then there can be states that can kick out all the minorities and burn heretics.

 

[el retorno]

Because then there can be states that can kick out all the minorities and burn heretics.

Not always
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

And I'm assuming you like the fact that some states don't have the death penalty, some states have different tax structures, some pay more for education, etc.

 

[SomeDude]

Name 39 more conservative presidents. Go!



Right, crying state's rights just means you don't like what the federal gov't decided. Which most prominently applies to civil rights, etc, but not always.

Californians and south carolinians are different people with different cultures. Liberal policies like rode vs wade should not be forced on conservative christian states. Same for forced alien foreign immigration and gay rights. In my view healthcare should also be a states rights issue. same for what states want seen on tv or listened to in music. There should be states rights because certain states have different local standards, as ron paul and mitt romney have pointed out.

 

[Amir0x]

Your argument is a poor one. Some states having 'different local standards' does not allow them to break the constitution, nor does it allow them to infringe on the inherent individual liberty of those inhabiting said state. You're literally arguing that states should be allowed to determine discriminatory laws because of 'different cultures', even though what that really means is that states should be allowed to disenfranchise huge percentages of their population, even if it's against the constitution.

And judging by the color in your comment, you at least partially feel this way because there are CHRISTIANS in some of these states who would prefer to live a hateful life? What about all the other religions? What about the atheists? Are they forced to shut up if the christian majority decides their religion should dictate the laws in the state? Is separation of church and state now something that is only incidental, and should move aside because of "cultural differences"?

You've not thought this through, it's clear now.