• 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 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Forever

Banned
So that Islamist militia has been completely run out of Benghazi:

A Libyan Islamist militia was swept out of the eastern city of Benghazi in a popular protest against the armed groups that ran into the early hours of Saturday morning, Reuters witnesses said.

At least one person was killed and 20 wounded, a hospital source said, as militias tried to fight the demonstrators from a heavily fortified base. Gunfire could be heard in the area before the fighters were forced out.

Looters carried weapons out of the vacated Ansar al-Sharia military base compound as men clapped and chanted: "Say to Ansar al-Sharia, Benghazi will be your inferno."

Ansar al-Sharia has been linked to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last week in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans died. It denies involvement.

The action against the group appeared to be part of a coordinated sweep of militia headquarters buildings by police, government troops and activists following a mass public demonstration against militia units on Friday.

Chanting "Libya, Libya," hundreds of demonstrators entered, pulling down militia flags and torching a vehicle inside Ansar al-Sharia's headquarters in Benghazi - once the base of forces of former leader Muammar Gaddafi, which tried to put down the first protests that sparked last year's uprising.

The crowd waved swords and even a meat cleaver, crying "No more al Qaeda!" and "The blood we shed for freedom shall not go in vain!"

"After what happened at the American consulate, the people of Benghazi had enough of the extremists," demonstrator Hassan Ahmed said. "They did not give allegiance to the army. So the people broke in and they fled."
Click to expand...
 
I

Incognito

Troll
johnsmith said:
The NY Times pay wall is ridiculously easy to step over.


www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/us/politics/under-pressure-romney-offers-more-tax-data.html?_r=0&gwh=530028FE5E7711B6C56E28E57AD3B6BA

All you have to do is delete the junk after .html in the address bar, hit enter, and you're in.


www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/us/politics/under-pressure-romney-offers-more-tax-data.html
Click to expand...

or just put the link into google search and follow it. this applies to wsj, too. i think FT, also.

also, if you follow a link from twitter its unrestricted.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Also I happened to catch an episode of Hanity tonight.

Is he normally this anti-muslim? I mean it was disgusting, the entire episode was how muslims suck and how Obama is selling us out to them and going to kill all the jews (Israel).

That and he's pissed about "Piss Christ" while at the same time saying Obama is undermining the 1st amendment with the pakistani ads.
 
L

Loudninja

Member
Final “surge” troops leave Afghanistan
The last of the 33,000 “surge” troops ordered into Afghanistan by President Barack Obama more than three years ago have withdrawn from the country, returning the U.S. presence to pre-surge levels.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the surge had accomplished “its objectives of reversing the Taliban momentum on the battlefield and dramatically [increasing] the size and capability of the Afghan national security forces.”

Calling it a “very important milestone,” Panetta said he believed the United States was on track to accomplishing its goals in Afghanistan.

Panetta said the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, “is saying that the force he has put in place is sufficient to accomplish that mission.”

The withdrawal, which leaves 68,000 American forces in the warzone, comes as the security transition to Afghan forces is in trouble, threatened by a spike in so-called “insider attacks” in which Afghan army and police troops, or insurgents dressed in their uniforms, have been attacking and killing U.S. and Nato forces.
Click to expand...
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/21/final_surge_troops_leave_afghanistan/
 
R

ryutaro's mama

Member
GhaleonEB said:
I think Romney might be entering "oh what the hell" mode.
Click to expand...

He should just go full heel at this point.

"I meant what I said, the 47% aren't worth my time. I like being rich and you peons should be honored that I even bothered to run and bless you with my presence. Y'all know who I am. Vote for me if you if you agree with what I stand for and if you don't, then the hell with you."

<drop the mic and walk off>
 
R

ryutaro's mama

Member
Loudninja said:
That does not matter at all,he insulted the whole state and is going there today.
Click to expand...

I spent 90% of my life there.

Like I said, since he isn't going there to a hostile crowd, (and he's hardly staying long) there is no political hit to him doing so.

Mitt doesn't give a shit.

Tamanon said:
I think it's just real bad for him since it just feeds into his notion of wanting to divide the US up into people he cares about and people he doesn't.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Go full heel, Mitt.

You have my support.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Oblivion said:
Good point:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/09/mitt-romney-gops-very-best?
Click to expand...

If Romney loses, this should be mentioned every time a conservative complains about Romney losing because he wasn't a "real conservative." You guys nominated him because he was the best. And he was tbh - none of the other candidates were electable. Maybe Rick Perry but he proved himself to be a complete fool; part of it was due to his back sugery, and he was clearly medicated multiple times during the campaign. It'll be interesting to see him in 2016 (again, if Romney loses). He'll certainly be better prepared and his immigration position might not be as toxic.
 
G

Gray Man

Banned
How do you deal with family members who just won't accept why Mitt Romney is a poor candidate, or person in general? On that same note I have some of those family members that are just hell bent on hating President Obama... they don't think he is an secret muslim or anything like that, but they just seem to twist facts, or just forget certain facts.

Said family members always default back to, "oh yeah? Where are your sources!?" and I always struggle coming up with them on the spot.

PoliGAF, how do I get better in these verbal debates? What are some good websites, or places, I can check on a daily basis to get some relatively unbiased facts about various political policies and bills? For example my Father just loves to rant and rave that Obama is spending a lot of money and the economy isn't improving enough.

So, what is the best way to get better at countering said examples.
 
N

NathanMcMahon

Banned
Gray Man said:
How do you deal with family members who just won't accept why Mitt Romney is a poor candidate, or person in general? On that same note I have some of those family members that are just hell bent on hating President Obama... they don't think he is an secret muslim or anything like that, but they just seem to twist facts, or just forget certain facts.

Said family members always default back to, "oh yeah? Where are your sources!?" and I always struggle coming up with them on the spot.

PoliGAF, how do I get better in these verbal debates? What are some good websites, or places, I can check on a daily basis to get some relatively unbiased facts about various political policies and bills? For example my Father just loves to rant and rave that Obama is spending a lot of money and the economy isn't improving enough.

So, what is the best way to get better at countering said examples.
Click to expand...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...r-free-new-app-settle-it-politifact-argument/
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Gray Man said:
How do you deal with family members who just won't accept why Mitt Romney is a poor candidate, or person in general? On that same note I have some of those family members that are just hell bent on hating President Obama... they don't think he is an secret muslim or anything like that, but they just seem to twist facts, or just forget certain facts.

Said family members always default back to, "oh yeah? Where are your sources!?" and I always struggle coming up with them on the spot.

PoliGAF, how do I get better in these verbal debates? What are some good websites, or places, I can check on a daily basis to get some relatively unbiased facts about various political policies and bills? For example my Father just loves to rant and rave that Obama is spending a lot of money and the economy isn't improving enough.

So, what is the best way to get better at countering said examples.
Click to expand...

iPhone. Google practice. There's no such thing as a verbal debate in this century. Whenever I have a discussion with people mostly I practice stalling while I look stuff up on the spot. Politifact is a great source, Snopes, Wonkblog's not bad. But mostly you just need to know which Google links will pay off the fastest.
 
M

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
Oblivion said:
Good point:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/09/mitt-romney-gops-very-best?
Click to expand...
The GOP's reason for choosing Mitt Romney was always contradictory and confused. They voted for him on the basis of electability, yet in order to make it out of the primaries, he had to conform his views to the very things that made the GOP unelectable on a national level. If they really wanted to present an electable candidate, then they should've let Romney run the campaign that he wanted to run, or else they should've choose someone else.

With that said, Romney really was the best candidate, which says more about the current state of the Republican party than it does Mitt Romney.
 
A

Averon

Member
http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-far...llot-requests-102632378--politics.html?_esi=1

Democrats Far Outnumber GOP in Iowa Ballot Requests
With absentee and early voting set to begin next week in Iowa, a battleground state in the presidential race, Democrats have a 6-1 edge in ballot requests so far, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Democrats requested roughly 100,000 ballots, compared with 16,073 ballots requested by Republicans, the newspaper said. Absentee voting and in-person early voting begins on Sept. 27.

"I see the early vote numbers, and I grimace a little bit," said Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Iowa Republican Party and the editor of a popular blog, told The Journal. "It feels like an Obama state…. The president has been more accessible to voters than [Mitt] Romney and [Paul] Ryan."
Click to expand...
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
pigeon said:
iPhone. Google practice. There's no such thing as a verbal debate in this century. Whenever I have a discussion with people mostly I practice stalling while I look stuff up on the spot. Politifact is a great source, Snopes, Wonkblog's not bad. But mostly you just need to know which Google links will pay off the fastest.
Click to expand...

It also helps to know what they're going to say. People just don't use original "facts" in discussions, and the coordination and discipline of conservative opinion-makers works against them here - you don't have to pay that much attention to that much media in order to have already heard everything you're likely to hear in conversation. You can go in with a pretty big advantage this way, because I've yet to meet a conservative who's broadly familiar with the arguments and facts liberals are likely to use in support of their positions.

Edit: This is true across all sorts of policy areas, and it's an intrinsic part of how conservative media works. They can't give their audience a clear understanding of how health care is handled in various European countries, because that makes it impossible for them to argue that socialized medicine is always terrible. So a liberal who's familiar with what a conservative is likely to say about the UK's NHS, for example, can easily be prepared to point out why the NHS still isn't as terrible as all that (especially for the cost), and also to give quality information about France, with sources already in mind.
 
T

thatbox

Banned
Mgoblue201 said:
The GOP's reason for choosing Mitt Romney was always contradictory and confused. They voted for him on the basis of electability, yet in order to make it out of the primaries, he had to conform his views to the very things that made the GOP unelectable on a national level. If they really wanted to present an electable candidate, then they should've let Romney run the campaign that he wanted to run, or else they should've choose someone else.

With that said, Romney really was the best candidate, which says more about the current state of the Republican party than it does Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...

They had better people, but better people are too smart to run against Obama with the current party demographics and platform behind them. Mitt probably was, too, but didn't see anybody else stepping up and figured he'd give it a shot, what the heck.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Mgoblue201 said:
The GOP's reason for choosing Mitt Romney was always contradictory and confused. They voted for him on the basis of electability, yet in order to make it out of the primaries, he had to conform his views to the very things that made the GOP unelectable on a national level. If they really wanted to present an electable candidate, then they should've let Romney run the campaign that he wanted to run, or else they should've choose someone else.

With that said, Romney really was the best candidate, which says more about the current state of the Republican party than it does Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...

I don't think the GOP believes their views are outside the mainstream or make candidates unelectable. They wanted the best possible candidate to express those views while being attractive to independents - and felt Mitt Romney was the best candidate to do it; they have revised history to argue Reagan did this. Can you imagine Rick Santorum trying to go center-right on any issue nationally, or how Michelle Bachman would play out as the nominee? Romney was certainly their best candidate.

I'd also argue Romney moved himself far right on his own accord to a degree. He didn't have to go far right on immigration, he did so willingly; he did the same thing in 2008 to outflank John McCain. He could have taken the regular GOP immigration stance (secure the border, no amnesty, legal immigration) and been fine.
 
F

Forever

Banned
Interesting article on how the Republican party has fractured under Romney:

What it lacks in demographic diversity, the GOP makes up for in breadth of ideas and agendas. By my count, there are no less than seven ideological precincts within the party. Ronald Reagan and to some extent Bushes One and Two were able to hold those pieces and their antecedents together. Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008 could not. Can Romney? Doubtful.

He has two sub-crowds in his corner thus far: the big business/Wall Street group (the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, bankers who took government money and hate themselves for it, trust fund and hedge fund types) and the bombs-away neocons who want to vaporize Iran (led by the likes of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson). Both groups loathe President Barack Obama, but also seem to genuinely like, or at least vaguely admire, the former Massachusetts governor.

Romney is nowhere with -- or regarded suspiciously by -- the other five. The "compassionate conservative" types such as Gerson, moved by a sense of faith-based social obligation, distrust Romney in his current incarnation. Tea Party "small government" advocates distrust him because of his moderate, even expansionist view of the role of government when he ran Massachusetts. Fundamentalist and many evangelical Protestants, as well as many Catholics, remain wary of Romney because of his Mormon faith, although they rarely say so publicly in so many words.

The xenophobic elements within the party -- the anti-immigration crowd, those who fear the "they" (minorities) of America -- might respond to the resentful Mitt of the secret fundraiser video. But Romney is no firebrand, and he has backed away from the more incendiary implications of his Florida comments.

The last piece of the GOP puzzle is the one that should like Romney the most, yet actually has never had faith him: the money people and elected officials in New York and Washington. They just want a winner, but they simply don't think much of his candidate skills, and they're technocratic types above all. Their house organ is the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which has repeatedly expressed exasperation at how Mitt has run his campaign. While his Boston-based crew has ties to the Washington Republican establishment, they really aren't part of it.
Click to expand...
Cites this Gerson article as evidence of the Compassionate faction going to war with the Libertarian faction.

Yet a Republican ideology pitting the &#8220;makers&#8221; against the &#8220;takers&#8221; offers nothing. No sympathy for our fellow citizens. No insight into our social challenge. No hope of change. This approach involves a relentless reductionism. Human worth is reduced to economic production. Social problems are reduced to personal vices. Politics is reduced to class warfare on behalf of the upper class.

A few libertarians have wanted this fight ever since they read &#8220;Atlas Shrugged&#8221; as pimply adolescents. Given Romney&#8217;s background, record and faith, I don&#8217;t believe that he holds this view. I do believe that Republicans often parrot it, because they lack familiarity with other forms of conservatism that include a conception of the common good.

But there really is no excuse. Republican politicians could turn to Burkean conservatism, with its emphasis on the &#8220;little platoons&#8221; of civil society. They could reflect on the Catholic tradition of subsidiarity, and solidarity with the poor. They could draw inspiration from Tory evangelical social reformers such as William Wilberforce or Lord Shaftesbury. Or they could just read Abraham Lincoln, who stood for &#8220;an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life.&#8221;

Instead they mouth libertarian nonsense, unable to even describe some of the largest challenges of our time.
Click to expand...

The theory is that only a strong Republican candidate can successfully unite all the different factions into one cohesive movement. Either way, them's fighting words. I fully expect Republican civil war when Romney loses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[GI.biz] Cheap money and bad bets: How the games industry turned pandemic success into disaster
2
75
3K
sharp weiner replied
  • Poll
Palworld has, once again, highlighted the on going deficiencies in PC Game Pass and the Xbox app on Windows 11 (Windows Central)
Hardware Platform 2 3
111
13K
Unknown Soldier replied
Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League |OT| Sent to Die
18 19 20 21 22
1K
67K
T-0800 replied
[PC Gamer] How Cyberpunk 2077 clawed its way back from disaster to complete one of the greatest redemption arcs in gaming history
Opinion News 2
99
8K
EDMIX replied
[Verge] Google canceled its next Pixelbook and shut down the team building it
News Business
48
3K
01011001 replied
Top Bottom