Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm not, I highlighted the difference between conservative ideology and conservative voters. All those people label themselves as conservatives, it's just that southern and in a broader respect rural conservatism in all practicality is just a selfish white/christian supremacy movement. Always has been.

You highlighted one dissonance with elderly voters. You can do the same with liberals on certain issues.

Its a large part of many but you're also creating a caricature that ignores far to much history and creates this boogyman of stupid idiot conservatives who are really liberal if they just didn't hate black folk and non-christians. Its not that simple and it never has been (i've been know to use this, but its wrong or at least incomplete).

You seem to be implying there isn't a conservative movement just racist christians. That's just not true. These people like it or not, are conservative beyond racial and religious aspects and pointing out they can be shown to support liberal views dismisses reality and the fact politics isn't "choose from this menu".

 

[benjipwns]

the president doesn't write policy.

In the case of the EPA and defaulting, Nixon did. A lot of major things Nixon signed were "bipartisan" or near unanimous. A uniter, not a divider. Even when people turned on him it was a unified anger!

The Rockefeller Republicans were an actual thing and force. Both parties were split among two wings for almost ninety years and their polarization didn't really coalesce until the 1980's.

Progressives are just so much better at governing that conservatives, it's really not even close.

SOOOOOOO much better

One data point and you're jumping for joy?

So when Paul Ryan proposes a plan that dramatically increases the national debt by 5 trillion he's hailed as a fiscal conservative because he cuts funding in programs typically associated with helping poor people and minorities. Same with Reagan. .

I'd call it the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Conservative Politicians struggle with their ideological positions which should be against Medicare, but the conservative base overwhelmingly supports it.

This is because the base is ideologically conservative and politicians are generally weathervanes.

The support of Social Security and Medicare isn't along progressive or socialist lines but instead conservative defense of institution lines. "I paid in" and "they owe me" and "I was promised" and so on.

Conservatism is a centrist politics that constantly shifts in meaning because at its core level it's merely a defense and preservation of tradition and related institutions. As those shift, conservatism changes.

The "small government" and "no taxes" vein of American Conservatism is because of the traditions and institutions it's defending, namely the liberalism of the Founding ideals, mythical, hypocritical or not. Something that as tightly doesn't bind Conservative parties in other countries because the institutions and dominant cultures are different.

 

[Vahagn]

Its a large part of many but you're also creating a caricature that ignores far to much history and creates this boogyman of stupid idiot conservatives who are really liberal if they just didn't hate black folk and non-christians. Its not that simple and it never has been (i've been know to use this, but its wrong or at least incomplete).

You seem to be implying there isn't a conservative movement just racist christians. That's just not true.

I'm implying that small government, state right, free market, low taxes, individual liberty, constitutional literalism conservatives represent a small fraction of the voting block.

The rest don't mind a big deficit or debt as long as it's their spending priorities (war, tax cuts, medicare part D, etc). They don't mind federal legislation that bans gay marriage or abortions or teaching evolution in schools as long as it fits their world view.

They don't mind Medicare and Social Security as long as they collect it and it benefits them. (Remember the outrage from so called small govt conservatives when the govt was shut down for a week? They were calling their reps asking to re-open govt so they can get their checks).

I don't agree with ideological conservatism, but I don't think 90% of conservatives adhere to it. Their voting patterns represent these other principles I outlined.

 

[benjipwns]

I'm implying that small government, state right, free market, low taxes, individual liberty, constitutional literalism conservatives represent a small fraction of the voting block.

The rest don't mind a big deficit or debt as long as it's their spending priorities (war, tax cuts, medicare part D, etc). They don't mind federal legislation that bans gay marriage or abortions or teaching evolution in schools as long as it fits their world view.

They don't mind Medicare and Social Security as long as they collect it and it benefits them. (Remember the outrage from so called small govt conservatives when the govt was shut down for a week? They were calling their reps asking to re-open govt so they can get their checks).

I don't agree with ideological conservatism, but I don't think 90% of conservatives adhere to it. Their voting patterns represent these other principles I outlined.

This holds for the Democratic Party as well.

It's the nature of a two-party system that no interest groups are actually represented well and alone but subsumed in a coalition of "THE OTHER GUYS ARE WORSE WE HAVE TO STOP THEM FIRST" that breeds a nonsensical political culture.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

In the case of the EPA and defaulting, Nixon did. A lot of major things Nixon signed were "bipartisan" or near unanimous. A uniter, not a divider. Even when people turned on him it was a unified anger!

The Rockefeller Republicans were an actual thing and force. Both parties were split among two wings for almost ninety years and their polarization didn't really coalesce until the 1980's.

You're completly missing what that post was about. They weren't liberal, they were reacting to people demanding liberal policy and the constraints of the time. They weren't liberals.

I don't dispute their existence just the fact that were this very liberal wing and RINOs. As I showed they republican party was dominated on issues of real liberal values by conservatives who voted against social solutions to problems.

The support of Social Security and Medicare isn't along progressive or socialist lines but instead conservative defense of institution lines. "I paid in" and "they owe me" and "I was promised" and so on.

Conservatism is a centrist politics that constantly shifts in meaning because at its core level it's merely a defense and preservation of tradition and related institutions. As those shift, conservatism changes.
.

This is a generally good point

The rest don't mind a big deficit or debt as long as it's their spending priorities (war, tax cuts, medicare part D, etc). They don't mind federal legislation that bans gay marriage or abortions or teaching evolution in schools as long as it fits their world view.

They don't mind Medicare and Social Security as long as they collect it and it benefits them. (Remember the outrage from so called small govt conservatives when the govt was shut down for a week? They were calling their reps asking to re-open govt so they can get their checks).

I don't agree with ideological conservatism, but I don't think 90% of conservatives adhere to it. Their voting patterns represent these other principles I outlined.

Your are assigning a lot to what the like and don't like without really getting their input. Your saying because certain things happen they support them because their guys are in power and ignoring constraints enacted by the Constitution.

 

[Vahagn]

In the case of the EPA and defaulting, Nixon did. A lot of major things Nixon signed were "bipartisan" or near unanimous. A uniter, not a divider. Even when people turned on him it was a unified anger!

The Rockefeller Republicans were an actual thing and force. Both parties were split among two wings for almost ninety years and their polarization didn't really coalesce until the 1980's.


One data point and you're jumping for joy?


I'd call it the soft bigotry of low expectations.


This is because the base is ideologically conservative and politicians are generally weathervanes.

The support of Social Security and Medicare isn't along progressive or socialist lines but instead conservative defense of institution lines. "I paid in" and "they owe me" and "I was promised" and so on.

Conservatism is a centrist politics that constantly shifts in meaning because at its core level it's merely a defense and preservation of tradition and related institutions. As those shift, conservatism changes.

The "small government" and "no taxes" vein of American Conservatism is because of the traditions and institutions it's defending, namely the liberalism of the Founding ideals, mythical, hypocritical or not. Something that as tightly doesn't bind Conservative parties in other countries because the institutions and dominant cultures are different.

The average person gets much more from Medicare then they pay in. If they didn't, it wouldn't be unsustainable. Medicare is a hand out, it's a hand out we made and it's ABSOLUTELY a liberal idea.

If you get 300K and you paid in 50K, you're still taking more from the govt than if you take 30K for welfare and pay in nothing. Although welfare recipients do pay in because many of them do work for decades before or after collecting welfare and pay plenty of taxes.


"I paid in" is delusional at best, it's self serving. Poor white conservatives who listen to Rush Limbaugh daily collect Unemployment and Welfare and Food Stamps as well.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This holds for the Democratic Party as well.

It's the nature of a two-party system that no interest groups are actually represented well and alone but subsumed in a coalition of "THE OTHER GUYS ARE WORSE WE HAVE TO STOP THEM FIRST" that breeds a nonsensical political culture.

Or the political culture madison wanted

 

[Vahagn]

Your are assigning a lot to what the like and don't like without really getting their input. Your saying because certain things happen they support them because their guys are in power.

I genuinely believe they think Reagan was a great example of Fiscal Conservatism. I genuinely believe that they think Paul Ryan is a great fiscal conservative. I don't think it has anything to do with them being in power, and I don't think it's because they're too stupid to know the debt and deficits went up/will go up under those plans.

I think it absolutely has to do with what the polling says. And has said. The programs they support and the programs they abhor. The spending they support and the spending they abhor.

Conservatism demands that you strip medicare, social security, welfare, medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. To support a few and reject others, and the few you support to be the ones you collect, and the ones you reject to be the ones you associate with "lazy poor" or "black and mexican" people. is easy.


These people spent 2 years believing Obama's birth certificate was fake and he conned the entire nation, meanwhile they never asked for Bush's or McCain's long form birth certificate. There is no ideological consistency, if you look for one, their voting patterns won't make much sense.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The average person gets much more from Medicare then they pay in. If they didn't, it wouldn't be unsustainable. Medicare is a hand out, it's a hand out we made and it's ABSOLUTELY a liberal idea.

If you get 300K and you paid in 50K, you're still taking more from the govt than if you take 30K for welfare and pay in nothing. Although welfare recipients do pay in because many of them do work for decades before or after collecting welfare and pay plenty of taxes.


"I paid in" is delusional at best, it's self serving. Poor white conservatives who listen to Rush Limbaugh daily collect Unemployment and Welfare and Food Stamps as well.

That's not rush's audience, https://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com

and its constantly bandied about that poor white people are driving the republican party when stats actually show they're 'better educated' and wealthier.

 

[Vahagn]

I think liberals have one vast difference. They fight for things that don't represent their direct gains.

Heterosexual liberals fighting for gay rights. Male Liberals fighting for equal pay or pro-choice or violence against women.

Liberals with a legal status fighting for a pathway to citizenship and the dream act.

White liberals fighting for civil rights. Non-Muslim liberals supporting a Muslim community center or the President possibly being Muslim.


I think part of liberalism is the ability to support causes that have no direct relationship to you. That in fact one can argue make your life harder and not easier out of a sense of right and wrong.

I don't see those examples in the conservative movement. I see self serving policies 99% of the time.

That's not rush's audience, https://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com

and its constantly bandied about that poor white people are driving the republican party when stats actually show they're 'better educated' and wealthier.

The wealthier component is the other self-serving one. Low taxes on rich people and less regulation in industry being two examples.

 

[benjipwns]

You're completly missing what that post was about. They weren't liberal, they were reacting to people demanding liberal policy and the constraints of the time. They weren't liberals.

I don't dispute their existence just the fact that were this very liberal wing and RINOs. As I showed they republican party was dominated on issues of real liberal values by conservatives who voted against social solutions to problems.

One important thing here is that the Republican Party was basically wiped out of having any power in Congress for an extended period before a long rebuild. From 1962-1969 the Democrats never had less than 62 seats, having a 2/3rds majority for one four year period. And in the 1970s they slowly moved back up to 61 before 1977. The House never had less than 240 Democrats, usually 60+% and gaining 2/3rds a few times.

But Chase Smith, Javits, Fong, Percy, Brooke, Baker, Hatfield, Schweiker, Mathias and Weicker were fairly powerful forces in the GOP establishment. They were all to the "left" on social issues of really a good chunk of the Democratic caucus.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I genuinely believe they think Reagan was a great example of Fiscal Conservatism. I genuinely believe that they think Paul Ryan is a great fiscal conservative. I don't think it has anything to do with them being in power, and I don't think it's because they're too stupid to know the debt and deficits went up/will go up under those plans.

I think it absolutely has to do with what the polling says. And has said. The programs they support and the programs they abhor. The spending they support and the spending they abhor.

Conservatism demands that you strip medicare, social security, welfare, medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. To support a few and reject others, and the few you support to be the ones you collect, and the ones you reject to be the ones you associate with "lazy poor" or "black and mexican" people. is easy.


These people spent 2 years believing Obama's birth certificate was fake and he conned the entire nation, meanwhile they never asked for Bush's or McCain's long form birth certificate. There is no ideological consistency, if you look for one, their voting patterns won't make much sense.

This sounds like you've constructed a conservative caricature and are judging reality to that.

And your last paragraph needs to be examined because your really mixing up expressions of partisianship in surveys with actual beliefs (the same could be said for climate change).

The more I read literature on the subject (done by academics) the more I'm rethinking my "I understand the other side and can explain why the act (always for evil or horrible reasons!) they way they do" comments. There's a lot more depth than the salons and dailykos image memes want to explore.

This isn't to say race isn't big or religion doesn't play a large part but its often taken for granted these things are causes not reflections or correlated phenomena

One important thing here is that the Republican Party was basically wiped out of having any power in Congress for an extended period before a long rebuild. From 1962-1969 the Democrats never had less than 62 seats, having a 2/3rds majority for one four year period. And in the 1970s they slowly moved back up to 61 before 1977. The House never had less than 240 Democrats, usually 60+% and gaining 2/3rds a few times.

But Chase Smith, Javits, Fong, Percy, Brooke, Baker, Hatfield, Schweiker, Mathias and Weicker were fairly powerful forces in the GOP establishment. They were all to the "left" on social issues of really a good chunk of the Democratic caucus.

agree. But on fiscal issues the republican party has always been the conservative party since Coolidge.

 

[benjipwns]

The average person gets much more from Medicare then they pay in. If they didn't, it wouldn't be unsustainable. Medicare is a hand out, it's a hand out we made and it's ABSOLUTELY a liberal idea.

If you get 300K and you paid in 50K, you're still taking more from the govt than if you take 30K for welfare and pay in nothing. Although welfare recipients do pay in because many of them do work for decades before or after collecting welfare and pay plenty of taxes.


"I paid in" is delusional at best, it's self serving. Poor white conservatives who listen to Rush Limbaugh daily collect Unemployment and Welfare and Food Stamps as well.

This is irrelevant. It's what they believe. And it's a conservative stance. Social Security and Medicare are good more because they've been around for a long time than any specifics.

The conservative acceptance of a strong military that blows up shit all over the world is due in part to "traditions" and the culture coming out of World War II and the Cold War. There's nothing inherent to "conservatism" about this because the "conservative" position for a long time was Washington's advice about entangling alliances because that was the tradition.

Defining conservatism as any one set of ideals, morals, policies, etc. can only be done as a snapshot of a period. It doesn't contain any underlying arguments about the morality of politics beyond a defense of tradition. "Low taxes" isn't an inherently conservative position other than the fact that well, in the past, taxes were lower. (Also people don't like taxes. Win-win.)

 

[Vahagn]

This sounds like you've constructed a conservative caricature and are judging reality to that.

And your last paragraph needs to be examined because your really mixing up expressions of partisianship in surveys with actual beliefs (the same could be said for climate change).

I think you're confusing educated conservatives that you can engage with in ideological debates with the overarching conservative voting block.

This is irrelevant. It's what they believe. And it's a conservative stance. Social Security and Medicare are good more because they've been around for a long time than any specifics.

The conservative acceptance of a strong military that blows up shit all over the world is due in part to "traditions" and the culture coming out of World War II and the Cold War. There's nothing inherent to "conservatism" about this because the "conservative" position for a long time was Washington's advice about entangling alliances because that was the tradition.

Defining conservatism as any one set of ideals, morals, policies, etc. can only be done as a snapshot of a period. It doesn't contain any underlying arguments about the morality of politics beyond a defense of tradition. "Low taxes" isn't an inherently conservative position other than the fact that well, in the past, taxes were lower. (Also people don't like taxes. Win-win.)

Uh, how far in the past were taxes lower? It's been that position of conservatives for decades despite taxes being higher for upper income earners for a long long time before Reagan or Bush. I think saying conservatism supports "traditions" is true, but that usually manifests itself in xenophobia, not just here, but everywhere.

Regarding war, that's not true. As long as conservatives think that a specific war is going to keep them safe, they support it. Regardless of the cost. When they think a war is pointless they haggle over money. The reason there is a much larger amount of public support for bombing ISIS than there was for bombing Assad is because people feel more threatened now. And conservatives especially respond to that feeling with "lets bomb the shit out of them"

This is of course self-serving. Getting pre-existing condition bans removed is going to save countless more American lives than bombing ISIS will, but until your average conservative FEELS that he'll benefit in the same way from Obamacare as he will from killing our enemies, he won't support it. And WHEN HE DOES, and this is the important part, he'll support Obamacare it just as he does Medicare.


I would imagine if you cut up polling data in conservative polls for support and opposition to Medicare, it would divide up rather neatly along age groups. With younger people feeling that it's HARMING them by blowing up the debt, and older people feeling that it's HELPING them by paying for services.

 

[benjipwns]

agree. But on fiscal issues the republican party has always been the conservative party since Coolidge.

I think it's reasonable to demarcate the fiscal conservatism of Eisenhower back and Nixon forward. One cared about balanced budgets in more than lip service and was willing to raise or not reduce taxes to achieve it. (And cut spending! Eisenhower was the last President to really freeze defense spending.) The others "proved deficits don't matter."

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think it's reasonable to demarcate the fiscal conservatism of Eisenhower back and Nixon forward. One cared about balanced budgets in more than lip service and was willing to raise or not reduce taxes to achieve it. The others "proved deficits don't matter."

Well this whole debate also ignores there was different monetary systems, international systems, etc.

I can re-frame it that the republican party has been more the party of the rich since Coolidge. And eisenhower was weird in general. He was elected as a war hero and not as a conservative or even a republican.

Not that democrats haven't, but if your a rich businessman the republican party platform has been more consistently about 'conserving' your bank balance than the democrats (who by and large have been willing to do the same with brief experiments in taking a bit more from you)

 

[ChoklitReign]

Chris Christie might be off the hook in Bridgegate:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investiga...washington-bridge-closures-gwb-275661911.html

The U.S. Justice Department investigation into Gov. Chris Christie’s role in the George Washington Bridge lane closure scandal has thus far uncovered no evidence indicating that he either knew in advance or directed the closure of traffic lanes on the span, federal officials tell NBC 4 New York. … Federal officials caution that the investigation that began nine months ago is ongoing and that no final determination has been made, but say that authorities haven’t uncovered anything that indicates that Christie knew in advance or ordered the closure of traffic lanes.

 

[benjipwns]

Eisenhower actually campaigned on reigning in the wild out of control spending of the Democrats.

They had submitted a budget with a...

$10 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT.

0.4% of GDP

OUTLANDISH.

 

[Vahagn]

If it seems like I've built a caricature, it's because in almost every instance, the common conservative position is a self-serving one that's consistent with a white/christian/heterosexual/male supremacy position.


I either have to conclude that conservatives are fucking idiots for watching 50 years of Presidents promise to lower the debt and deficit and then proceed to raise it. Or I have to understand that they're more concerned with HOW we spend the money than the actual math. For example, tax cuts on rich people don't seem to register in their eyes as spending. Neither do wars, although that's changing recently. Supporting Medicare and Social Security is a huge position for the elderly and cutting these programs is a common theme among younger conservatives (who are concerned with their own debt burden).

Progressives, young and old support Medicare and Social Security whether they collect it or don't (or won't for decades). Progressives rich and poor support tax increases for rich people - an altruistic sentiment by rich progressives and a thought process of "fairness" by middle class ones.

Conservatives by contrast support tax cuts across the board but especially for rich people because - the rich see a direct benefit and the poor have been led to believe they get increased economic output that helps their financial well being. Both groups believing they directly benefit.


You can go down the list and see a contrast between self-interest on one side, and empathy and selflessness on the other. When male conservatives can support equal pay, or violence against women, or access to birth control, or a variety of things that benefit women as male progressives do, then I won't judge it that way.


Regarding religious superiority: The movement of small govt and constitutional freedoms supports person hood amendments, bans on gay marriage, criminal charges for abortions, blocking of Islamic community centers and Mosques from construction, and a limitation on birth control. Not to mention their whole "war on Christmas" shtick. There is a consistent pro-Christian values theme in all of these positions.

 

[pigeon]

Conservative Politicians, sure. But Conservatives overwhelmingly support medicare. Some 75% of Tea Party members consistently say they don't want Medicare messed with.

Same with Social Security. Conservative Politicians struggle with their ideological positions which should be against Medicare, but the conservative base overwhelmingly supports it.

Sure. And at the same time, lots of liberal voters say that we should balance the budget, even though they support all the actual social programs.

Americans in general favor cutting programs in the general but oppose cutting every program specifically. It's basically the same as how Americans hate Congress but generally like their own representative or how they like all of the components of Obamacare but hate the law itself.

Polls tap the id of the country, not the rational mind. They aren't self-consistent, and there's probably no reason to expect them to be. I'd love to cut taxes and raise funding for social programs at the same time too, why not? But in practice I know you can't. The man on the street doesn't have to worry about that, because he's just being asked what he wants, not what he would actually do.

 

[Vahagn]

Sure. And at the same time, lots of liberal voters say that we should balance the budget, even though they support all the actual social programs.

Americans in general favor cutting programs in the general but oppose cutting every program specifically. It's basically the same as how Americans hate Congress but generally like their own representative or how they like all of the components of Obamacare but hate the law itself.

Polls tap the id of the country, not the rational mind. They aren't self-consistent, and there's probably no reason to expect them to be. I'd love to cut taxes and raise funding for social programs at the same time too, why not? But in practice I know you can't. The man on the street doesn't have to worry about that, because he's just being asked what he wants, not what he would actually do.

But the conservative base doesn't support maintaining welfare, or medicaid, or college grants for poor people, or etc etc. It's not as simple as saying conservatives want to keep every program, they don't. There are clear and consistent lines drawn.

Benji argues that it's because of a "i paid in" mentality. But I argue that's just a dumb rationalization for hidden self-interest and hatred towards blacks and minorities benefiting. It's also why, I posit, southern and rural conservatives had no problem supporting FDR and his New Deal but began to turn on social programs once LBJ expanded them into a broader social component that Nixon utilized to play dog whistle politics with.

 

[Vahagn]

One data point and you're jumping for joy?

Two. Deficit Spending AND Job Creation. Add that to every significant social welfare program in the last century + every significant social advance - abolition movement, women's rights movement, women's suffrage movement, civil rights movement, labor movement and now LGBT Rights movements - of the last 175 years and I don't think it's even close.

Oh and, two shattered economies using small govt, deregulation, lower taxes policies and two rebuilt economies using Keynesian economic principles just in the last century alone. We're just running up the score at this point.

Southern Conservatives were the main opposition to the New Deal, the Republican Party had been vaporized. (And then in 1940 nominated a former supporter of the New Deal.)

There were some racist xenophobic idiots calling it the "Jew Deal" and going on and on with their conspiracy theories. But an electoral map that looks like this

can't really be used to suggest that the south was against FDR's plan.

 

[benjipwns]

But the conservative base doesn't support maintaining welfare, or medicaid, or college grants for poor people, or etc etc. It's not as simple as saying conservatives want to keep every program, they don't. There are clear and consistent lines drawn.

They actually do when polled on any policy specifics instead of generalities. This is why every single candidate runs on cutting waste, fraud and foreign aid because people think that's all that needs to be cut to maintain the rest.

Polls regularly show that people think foreign aid is like 30% of the budget, and the only one anyone ever gets close to the actual amount on is defense.

Benji argues that it's because of a "i paid in" mentality. But I argue that's just a dumb rationalization for hidden self-interest and hatred towards blacks and minorities benefiting. It's also why, I posit, southern and rural conservatives had no problem supporting FDR and his New Deal but began to turn on social programs once LBJ expanded them into a broader social component that Nixon utilized to play dog whistle politics with.

Southern Conservatives were the main opposition to the New Deal, the Republican Party had been vaporized. (And then in 1940 nominated a former supporter of the New Deal.)

 

[benjipwns]

Two. Deficit Spending AND Job Creation. Add that to every significant social welfare program in the last century + every significant social advance - abolition movement, women's rights movement, women's suffrage movement, civil rights movement, and now LGBT Rights movements - of the last 175 years and I don't think it's even close.

Oh and, two shattered economies using small govt, deregulation, lower taxes policies and two rebuilt economies using Keynesian economic principles in the last century. We're just running up the score at this point.

Well, although I'd quibble with your version of history, I was more referencing this than being completely serious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

 

[rocketknight]

oh my god that's amazing

 

[Vahagn]

Well, although I'd quibble with your version of history, I was more referencing this than being completely serious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

Seriously, this is pretty cool. But I don't think Hayek's character is saying anything except platitudes.

 

[Averon]

So Congress skips town without dealing with the ISIS bill after beating Obama over the head for weeks for "not doing anything". We've been hearing for weeks ISIS is this grand threat that's on the verge of invading America.

Pretty much proves no one in Congress gives a crap about ISIS, and this whole warmongering episode was just a cynical excuse to beat up Obama, and it's been a rounding success.

 

[benjipwns]

The first one was structured as each getting a turn rather than the back and forth of round two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

 

[B-Dubs]

So Congress skips town without dealing with the ISIS bill after beating Obama over the head for weeks for "not doing anything". We've been hearing for weeks ISIS is this grand threat that's on the verge of invading America.

Pretty much proves no one in Congress gives a crap about ISIS, and this whole warmongering episode was just a cynical excuse to beat up Obama, and it's been a rounding success.

You've just described every international event that's occurred since he took office.

 

[benjipwns]

There were some racist xenophobic idiots calling it the "Jew Deal" and going on and on with their conspiracy theories. But an electoral map that looks like this

http://www.270towin.com/historical_maps/1932.gif

can't really be used to suggest that the south was against FDR's plan.

But the actual opposition within the Senate and Supreme Court could rather than a binary map that tells us nothing about future events. (Especially when in 1932 FDR ran as a small government budget cutter.)

Chris Christie might be off the hook in Bridgegate:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investiga...washington-bridge-closures-gwb-275661911.html

http://www.app.com/story/news/local...gwb-scandal-investigation-continues/15892951/

NEWARK – NBC says a report by Brian Williams on the network's Nightly News that federal charges have been ruled out for Gov. Chris Christie in the George Washington Bridge scandal was incorrect. ¶ Federal prosecutors say the investigation is ongoing and haven't made any announcement on Christie's status.

"The investigation is continuing,'' said Rebekah Carmichael, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Paul Fishman.'

 

[AtomnayaKlubnika]

Interesting article about the 14th Weather Squadron, the Pentagon office for climatology. No more doubt for them, climate change is a real thing and will play a major role in the futur decision making process.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/weather-warriors-meet-pentagons-combat-climatologists-n206451

 

[benjipwns]

Obama will stop at nothing to politicize our underfunded to the point that it's on the brink of collapse military.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Obama will stop at nothing to politicize our underfunded to the point that it's on the brink of collapse military.

What?

 

[benjipwns]

He's using them to promote junk climate "science" while slashing the budget to the bone instead of stopping ISIL from crossing the Mexican border.

 

[alstein]

Interesting article about the 14th Weather Squadron, the Pentagon office for climatology. No more doubt for them, climate change is a real thing and will play a major role in the futur decision making process.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/weather-warriors-meet-pentagons-combat-climatologists-n206451

One of my old NCOs is there now. These guys do awesome work, and when I was in I used their products every day.

Of course, the information is set up to become less accurate next year, as the FAA is trying to eliminate the boots on the ground again like they tried 2 yrs ago (and failed)

Often those puzzles talked about later in the article that lead to bad data are caused by weather machines running inaccurately (which is quite often), without humans to fix them (the FAA wants ATCs to do it, but they're too busy doing their jobs, and don't know how to it anyways, the folks locally don't even know how to log into the machine)

 

[Black Republican]

can someone tell me how RI has such a high unemployment rate? what problems do they have in a tiny ass state?

 

[Oblivion]

can someone tell me how RI has such a high unemployment rate? what problems do they have in a tiny ass state?

I've been told that the RI government is notoriously corrupt.

 

[B-Dubs]

I've been told that the RI government is notoriously corrupt.

They make Jersey look like a bastion of good governance sometimes and let me tell you that is not easy.

 

[Diablos]

I doubt RI is as corrupt as Pennsylvania. We're ranked fifth.

 

[Oblivion]

They make Jersey look like a bastion of good governance sometimes and let me tell you that is not easy.

Which is actually really surprising. I mean, isn't Lincoln Chafee not a complete shithead?

 

[WayneMorse]

In RI the Dem candidate for governor's main campaign platform is annihilating the pension system.

 

[jamesinclair]

can someone tell me how RI has such a high unemployment rate? what problems do they have in a tiny ass state?

The plantations arent doing well in the modern economy.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The plantations arent doing well in the modern economy.

I understand this reference .gif

 

[sc0la]

Cnn playing #Whiteyfilm right now. The Obama going down for sure.

Wait this is about some white mobster guy.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I drew it in crayon this time

 

[Diablos]

cantseeshit.jpg

 

[B-Dubs]

I drew it in crayon this time

Please tell me that's a bar napkin.

 

[Joe Molotov]

cantseeshit.jpg

It looks like Democrats will hold on to 55 seats, but the Republicans will get 97. Quite a bold prediction.

 

[Diablos]

LOL. Alright there buddy.

btw 1923 pledge of allegiance was the best:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

 

[Aaron Strife]

Please tell me that's a bar napkin.

It was at Perkins.