• 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 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Allard

Member
PhoenixDark said:
It's not even about the compromise being acceptable. This is another example of an unforced error on the part of a president who is clearly not a leader or capable of being one. Every poll showed this was largely a media creation yet Obama never spoke out on it. Not one word. This administration is simply unable to get ahead of a story, or address one

Obama is the luckiest US politician of all time. He should go down as a disappointing foot note in history whose legislative victories were quickly overturned; a cautious tale of unmet expectations. Instead republicans might just hand him four more years of recovery and a shot at being the democrat Reagan. Wow
Click to expand...

Look I don't think he is the leader I'd "like" him to be in spearheading a movement against congress, but if there is one thing i will never question him on, is that he has been an amazing leader in the position he was actually elected to, the leader of our nations executive branch. This 'compromise' is about a leader actually listening to a sizable portion of the electorate and finding a position that would satisfy their issues without actually harming the underlying issue the law was put in place for, the actual change isn't a compromise imo, its an enhancement. If anything by speaking out and listening to people and coming up with a reasonable change ahead of the media narrative, he is even more of a leader in my eyes because he isn't stubborn just for the sake of being stubborn.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
planar1280 said:
Just heard on CPAC by a twitter user



Holy Shit
Click to expand...

12:03 p.m. ET - Coulter said Obama will be difficult to beat in 2010 because he's an incumbent, Americans like him personally and the "non-Fox media is gaga about him." However, he would probably make a nice next door neighbor unless you're Chinese and then "he'd be constantly borrowing stuff," she said
Click to expand...
Why can't conservatives crack a joke without being dickholes? They are simply horrible comedians. Dennis Miller, Jeff Dunham, and any other conservative who tries his or her hand at being funny.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Skiptastic said:
Congress apparently has too much time on its hands.
Click to expand...
It's the Mississippi state legislature, and it's a troll joke law, like the life begin at ejaculation thing.

And yeah, I do enjoy the lulz as much as the next guy (unless that guy is eznark) but this shit need to stop.

RustyNails said:
Why can't conservatives crack a joke without being dickholes? They are simply horrible comedians. Dennis Miller, Jeff Dunham, and any other conservative who tries his or her hand at being funny.
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with being a dickhole comedian.
Some of the greatest comedians in history were dickholes.
 
P

Puddles

Banned
Wow, I seriously can't believe Obama gave up again.

This contraceptives crap was such a complete non-issue. I was hoping he would just tell the religious right to fucking deal with it.
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
RustyNails said:
Why can't conservatives crack a joke without being dickholes? They are simply horrible comedians. Dennis Miller, Jeff Dunham, and any other conservative who tries his or her hand at being funny.
Click to expand...

This is factually true and there is a vaguely scientific reason:

Comedy works best when satirizing the strong and the "evil". It is less meaningful and less funny, to satirize the weak or the good.

Warmongering moralizing corporatism, is neither weak nor "good." Defending them with comedy is inherently weak.

Of course, racist, sexist etc humor work well for republicans. Problem is that those things are becoming less funny (comedy evolves frequently) as society progresses (in the US at least).
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Puddles said:
Wow, I seriously can't believe Obama gave up again.

This contraceptives crap was such a complete non-issue. I was hoping he would just tell the religious right to fucking deal with it.
Click to expand...

It makes almost no difference to the practical heart of the matter and is some cynical, but clever electioneering.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
ToxicAdam said:
But, you are right, the far left are just as eager to control people and dictate how they should live. Also, shouting them down and attempting to squelch their free speech if they disagree. It's equally disturbing.
Click to expand...

Ha. As does the far right, the moderate right, the center, and the moderate left. Congratulations, TA, you've described society. Every rule affects somebody, even rules against homicide. Don't control me, bro!
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
Puddles said:
Wow, I seriously can't believe Obama gave up again.

This contraceptives crap was such a complete non-issue. I was hoping he would just tell the religious right to fucking deal with it.
Click to expand...

Gave up? The end result is the same w/o alienating Liberal Catholics. This is even better than the original plan. It lets women know of the benefits of HCR and it exposes the Catholic Right as GOP shills if they complain about this
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Amid a backlash from many Catholics and proponents of religious liberty, President Barack Obama announced Friday that his administration will not require religious institutions like hospitals and universities to provide free contraception to their employees in their health insurance.

Speaking to reporters at the White House Friday, Obama offered a compromise that would allow women to obtain free contraception but would require them to obtain it directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control because of religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
Silly appeasement to primitive superstition, IMHO. But it once again shows that Obama is a reasonable pragmatic adult in the room that makes concessions and gets things done.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
empty vessel said:
Ha. As does the far right, the moderate right, the center, and the moderate left. Congratulations, TA, you've described society. Every rule affects somebody, even rules against homicide. Don't control me, bro!
Click to expand...

No, I think you know what I meant. There are radicals on the left that want to control every aspect of humanity under the arbitrary guise that it's 'better for society as a whole'. Above and beyond what's acceptable to the average person (ie moderates).

Thankfully, those kind of people have less and less of a voice than they once did in this country.

--- // ---

A new American Research Group poll in Tennessee finds Rick Santorum leading the Republican presidential field with 34%, followed by Mitt Romney at 27%, Newt Gingrich at 16%, and Ron Paul at 13%.
Click to expand...
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
ToxicAdam said:
No, I think you know what I meant. There are radicals on the left that want to control every aspect of humanity under the arbitrary guise that it's 'better for society as a whole'. Above and beyond what's acceptable to the average person.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Not any more than are on the radical right, moderate right, center, and moderate left. Everybody is doing the exact same thing, as far as I can tell. We just have different opinions.
 
P

Puddles

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
No, I think you know what I meant. There are radicals on the left that want to control every aspect of humanity under the arbitrary guise that it's 'better for society as a whole'. Above and beyond what's acceptable to the average person.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with these people. Modern day American communists?
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
empty vessel said:
I don't think so. Not any more than are on the radical right, moderate right, center, and moderate left. Everybody is doing the exact same thing, as far as I can tell. We just have different opinions.
Click to expand...


You are being fundamentally dishonest if you don't think the far left don't yearn for more regulations, more laws, more controls over industry, more controls over how people live their every day lives (from their diets, to how they manage their own property, to the type of vehicles they can drive, to other choices that can effect their own health) and on and on than a centrist person.
 
P

Puddles

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
You are being fundamentally dishonest if you don't think the far left don't yearn for more regulations, more laws, more controls over industry, more controls over how people live their every day lives (from their diets, to how they manage their own property, to the type of vehicles they can drive, to other choices that can effect their own health) and on and on than a centrist person.
Click to expand...

Most of the far left would also eliminate drug laws, prostitution laws, gambling laws, etc, so it would end up a wash.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
ToxicAdam said:
You are being fundamentally dishonest if you don't think the far left don't yearn for more regulations, more laws, more controls over industry, more controls over how people live their every day lives (from their diets, to how they manage their own property, to the type of vehicles they can drive, to other choices that can effect their own health) and on and on than a centrist person.
Click to expand...

No, you just are failing to recognize that fewer (government) regulations, less (government) laws, and less (government) controls over industry is also a form of control. This isn't a fight about control per se. There is ample control being exercised even in a wholly laissez faire capitalist system. It is, instead, about who has the power to control.

I am not more free or less controlled merely because there are fewer government laws or regulations. That is nonsense.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Just wanted to drop in and introduce you all to a rather interesting look at some behind-the-scenes of the debt ceiling debacle.
In June, the negotiators reached a provisional agreement with Republicans on more than $1 trillion in cuts, and the Obama contingent had begun to believe a much larger deal was in sight. Such a deal, they assumed, would involve Democrats agreeing to modest Medicare cuts in exchange for eliminating a few narrow tax breaks, like those benefiting oil companies and corporate jet owners. “Biden and Sperling and Lew were pretty enthusiastic about where this is going,” recalls one White House official familiar with the negotiations.

But Obama was skeptical. When his negotiators briefed him on the possible bargain, he turned to Nancy Ann DeParle, the health care expert who was his deputy chief of staff, and asked how much the proposed Medicare cuts would cost the average senior. DeParle said it would mean an increase of a few hundred dollars each year. The president then asked his negotiators what someone in his income bracket would have to fork over in tax increases as a result of the deal they were working on. “The answer was nothing,” said a White House official at the meeting. “Unless you own a corporate jet or you’re an oil company, you’re not going to have to pay anything more.” Obama frowned. “How can I ask seniors to pay $500 more and I don’t have to pay a nickel? I can’t do that.” The president instructed his negotiators to return to the bargaining table and insist on more sacrifice from the wealthy.

The problem was that Obama’s team had actually presented an optimistic view of what was possible—what it had assumed would be the best-case scenario. The negotiators hadn’t actually broached the idea of tax hikes with Cantor and Kyl in any detail, and the two Republicans certainly hadn’t said they would be open to them. Not even meager hikes, not even in return for a longstanding conservative goal like scaling back Medicare. In fact, Cantor and Kyl had waved off Democratic efforts to pin them down on the tax question.
Click to expand...

More here.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
ToxicAdam said:
You are being fundamentally dishonest if you don't think the far left don't yearn for more regulations, more laws, more controls over industry, more controls over how people live their every day lives (from their diets, to how they manage their own property, to the type of vehicles they can drive, to other choices that can effect their own health) and on and on than a centrist person.
Click to expand...

I really don't know if you can say that. Clearly the extremes on both ends would enact all sorts of rules & regulations. At the nadir of the recent government, the right was passing legislation on Terry Schiavo, flag burning, anti-gay stuff, endless anti-abortion stuff, etc. I think the 'less regulation' bit on the right is just more bullshit that they talk about when not in office but don't do when they actually get power.

Just like their 'fiscal conservative' bullshit . . . they talk about it nonstop when not in power . . . but when they got total power in 2000 to 2008, the deficits absolutely exploded from 0 at the start to $1 Trillion when Bush left office.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Patrick Klepek said:
I'm trying to figure out how the contraception change is a cave. Isn't everyone happy, except the bishops, who never would be?

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/obama-birth-control-rule-change-why-its-not-cave
Click to expand...

That is my view. It's a balloon squeeze, and the end result is women will still have their contraceptives covered through their insurance plans. It simply allowed the hospitals and such to register their objections. It also made them and their supporters look like complete idiots, of course.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
GhaleonEB said:
That is my view. It's a balloon squeeze, and the end result is women will still have their contraceptives covered through their insurance plans. It simply allowed the hospitals and such to register their objections. It also made them and their supporters look like complete idiots, of course.
Click to expand...

made who look like idiots?
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
empty vessel said:
No, you just are failing to recognize that fewer (government) regulations, less (government) laws, and less (government) controls over industry is also a form of control. This isn't a fight about control per se. There is ample control being exercised even in a wholly laissez faire capitalist system. It is, instead, about who has the power to control.
Click to expand...

There's a key quantity being repeated here. You are speaking about a libertarian viewpoint. Which is another fringe element to our political spectrum.

Your assertion was that the far left (and the far right, for that matter) wants the same amount (and type) of control over people that centrists do. Not true.

I am not more free or less controlled merely because there are fewer government laws or regulations. That is nonsense.
Click to expand...

It seems like you are shadowboxing with an imaginary libertarian. You must miss JayDubya.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom