• 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 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
PhoenixDark said:
Really seems like the understanding of "freedom" has been morphed to truly ridiculous levels. You don't have the "freedom" to not wear a seat belt. You don't have the "freedom" to yell fire in a crowded theater.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything wrong with recognizing government mandates (or prohibitions) as restrictions on freedom. The mandate or prohibition means that a person no longer has the legal right to do or refrain from doing some act, which right the person enjoyed prior to the enactment of the mandate or prohibition. I think the issue (I won't call it a "problem") is that some people have a lower tolerance for government restrictions on freedom than others.

RustyNails said:
We all knew this was coming. He was trying to position himself and failed miserably. Public officials should leave zero room for doubt, and what he said was utter stupidity. Why even leave the door open. Its like saying parents should have the choice to keep their gun safety on or off, but I always keep mine on. Its a choice to harm yourself and others or not, which is pretty much a false choice. Just tell people vaccinate your kids. The end. Why bring your dumbshit freedomz argument into the fray.
Click to expand...

Oblivion said:
Sorry, I honestly don't see any difference between what Christie said yesterday and his "clarification" that you posted. In both instances he's pretty much giving his blessing that parents who decide to refuse vaccines for their kids be allowed to do so.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between Christie's original comment and the clarification, to wit:

Metaphoreus said:
There are two distinct issues here, and understanding which issue Christie is addressing is critical to understanding his comment and how to react to it. The first issue is this: Should the government mandate that parents have their children vaccinated? The second is this: When given the choice, should parents choose to vaccinate their children?
Click to expand...

Christie's original comment clearly went to the first issue; his clarification could go either way ("should" as in, "they should choose to", or "should" as in, "they should not ignore the mandate already in place"). As I said, it is election-season politicking of the worst sort to misrepresent Christie's original comment as one directed at the second issue.

And why do people keep ignoring the fact that every state engages in the kind of balancing analysis Christie describes?
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
The thing about Hillary is that America has known Hillary for a long time. We've gone through her trash multiple times now and found nothing. It's not as if you're opinion on Hillary we be changed as much as it's about the candidate she's up against.

Her numbers will probably go down, as everyone's numbers go down once they campaign, but considering she's been campaigning since the 90s, I don't really see her favorables changing too much.



That's sort of how I feel -- Burr is vulnerable only because of how meh the state seems to be on him, but we'll see.
Click to expand...

Good point. At the same time I don't think the main goal of the GOP is to use old scandals/stories/bullshit/etc to make people think less of Clinton. I think it's to create Clinton fatigue. People are tired of hearing about Whitewater, blue dresses, etc...perhaps retreating them can make people tired of Clinton in general, too.

McCain lost for a variety of reasons but one was the perception that he was the past and Obama was the future. If the GOP was a decent party with good candidates, the best shot at beating a nearly 70 year old Hillary Clinton would be to cast her as the past, with the GOP nominee being the future. But they can't do that. They're ceding the future to Hillary by taking the positions of the past: against gay marriage, retrograde views on abortion, against scientific research, pandering to bitter culture war veterans (see: Huckabee's Beyonce comments), against birth control, against net neutrality, etc.

The funny thing is that I've long felt Rand Paul was the best shot at neutralizing this line of attack and exposing areas in which establishment democrats favor the past (like civil liberties). But Paul fucks that opportunity up by taking unforced errors on so many issues (Civil Rights Act, vaccines, etc).

Also: I think many GOP donors agree with this assessment, but have erred in believing Marco Rubio is the guy who can do this to Hillary, despite the fact that he has willfully taken all the positions of the past, including giving a shit about Fidel Castro. Being a 2pac fan and possibly having Pitbull support you isn't enough.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
I think that Rand Paul is one of the few would could surprise and make it truly competitive with Hillary. But he won't be the candidate and he's said some stupid things, so it's moot.

EDIT: In the House vote, R Reps Katko, Dold, and Poliquin voted against repealing Obamacare. I believe this is a first?

Katko is in a D+5 district, Dold is D+8, Poliquin is D+3.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
ivysaur12 said:
No one is, but then this goes back to my other point:
Click to expand...

Well, the flu vaccine is an easy example of one that we right now don't mandate except in rare cases. The disease it protects from is not quite as bad as something like measles and the vaccine is a lot less effective at preventing the disease, plus the disease a given vaccine protects from is only around for a year.

People should still get flu shots, but it's obviously not quite as monstrous to not get your children their flu shots, and it doesn't bother me all that much that the government doesn't make people check a conscientious objector box to skip it.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
Gotchaye said:
It does seem to me to be really weird to think that parents who don't vaccinate their children should have their children taken away. Vaccination doesn't really require any action on an ongoing basis. Surely the maximally forceful policy here is just to send a few police officers and a nurse to someone's house and vaccinate their children, then leave them to raise them however they want. Maybe you have to do this a few times, but it's still a lot less awful than taking people's kids away.
Click to expand...

Are these vaccines available in the nasal spray form?

Its time to put our military budget to use and drop vaccine gas bombs.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Good point. At the same time I don't think the main goal of the GOP is to use old scandals/stories/bullshit/etc to make people think less of Clinton. I think it's to create Clinton fatigue. People are tired of hearing about Whitewater, blue dresses, etc...perhaps retreating them can make people tired of Clinton in general, too.

McCain lost for a variety of reasons but one was the perception that he was the past and Obama was the future. If the GOP was a decent party with good candidates, the best shot at beating a nearly 70 year old Hillary Clinton would be to cast her as the past, with the GOP nominee being the future. But they can't do that. They're ceding the future to Hillary by taking the positions of the past: against gay marriage, retrograde views on abortion, against scientific research, pandering to bitter culture war veterans (see: Huckabee's Beyonce comments), against birth control, against net neutrality, etc.

The funny thing is that I've long felt Rand Paul was the best shot at neutralizing this line of attack and exposing areas in which establishment democrats favor the past (like civil liberties). But Paul fucks that opportunity up by taking unforced errors on so many issues (Civil Rights Act, vaccines, etc).

Also: I think many GOP donors agree with this assessment, but have erred in believing Marco Rubio is the guy who can do this to Hillary, despite the fact that he has willfully taken all the positions of the past, including giving a shit about Fidel Castro. Being a 2pac fan and possibly having Pitbull support you isn't enough.
Click to expand...

Some seem to think nominating Jeb makes him the future vs hillary being the past ignoring the fact that he is a Bush.

Edit: once he "introduces himself to america" hillary will be old news. Jeb was govenor of florida but hillary has been around for "20" years on the national stage.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Some seem to think nominating Jeb makes him the future vs hillary being the past ignoring the fact that he is a Bush.

Edit: once he "introduces himself to america" hillary will be old news. Jeb was govenor of florida but hillary has been around for "20" years on the national stage.
Click to expand...

And I'm going to assume nothing in Hillary's past will be as distasteful to voters as the Terry Shaivo farce.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Some seem to think nominating Jeb makes him the future vs hillary being the past ignoring the fact that he is a Bush.

Edit: once he "introduces himself to america" hillary will be old news. Jeb was govenor of florida but hillary has been around for "20" years on the national stage.
Click to expand...

It's different -- Hillary has gone from First Lady to Senator to Presidential Candidate to Secretary of State to Presidential Candidate. She's literally never been out of the spotlight, and she's never been not campaigning. Anyone who is over 20 has pretty much made up their mind on what they think of Hillary since she's been around and in the public eye for so long and so consistently.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
ivysaur12 said:
It's different -- Hillary has gone from First Lady to Senator to Presidential Candidate to Secretary of State to Presidential Candidate. She's literally never been out of the spotlight, and she's never been not campaigning. Anyone who is over 20 has pretty much made up their mind on what they think of Hillary since she's been around and in the public eye for so long and so consistently.
Click to expand...

Yeah it will be different. At the end of the day, the "old news" attack wont matter because they both cancel the "dynasty" thing.

If its Clinton vs Bush(most likely outcome barring some insurgent campaign by either side), we will either have one of the most civil & issue driven campaigns of the modern era or one of the most nastiest barn burner campaigns this country has never seen before. I cant wrap my head around jeb going negative. He seems too much of a pacifist. He wants to run a "positive" campaign. If anything I see Hillary's camp going all out negative & jeb letting the superpacs do all his dirty work like romney did to gingrich.

The two families like to talk in interviews about how good they get along now but I will see it when I believe. No way they act civil under a high stakes presidential campaign. Bill wants his wife to be president and will do what it takes for that to happen. If it means destroying Jeb, the bush family & their friendship then I see hillary's camp saying "so be it".
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
It's different -- Hillary has gone from First Lady to Senator to Presidential Candidate to Secretary of State to Presidential Candidate. She's literally never been out of the spotlight, and she's never been not campaigning. Anyone who is over 20 has pretty much made up their mind on what they think of Hillary since she's been around and in the public eye for so long and so consistently.
Click to expand...
Yeah but maybe all those 18-19 year-olds will vote for Rand Paul and throw the presidency to Jeb Bush!
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
B88YDmRIgAE51Iv.jpg:large
 
E

Ecotic

Member
Well Paul's taken himself off the 'serious candidate' list with his 48 hour implosion. What's better is he doesn't even realize it.

What's the serious candidate list left at now? Bush, Walker, Christie, Rubio, and maybe, maybe Perry and Jindal?

That's actually pretty thin, Republicans may have to start looking at the third tier candidates who have expressed a bit of interest or garnered some press like John Kasich, Mike Pence, Brian Sandoval, and Bob Corker.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Black Mamba said:
So Vox got Obama's quote wrong about him being open to anti-vax people.

Good going Vox. You and 538 have been such disappointments.


http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-no-obama-didnt-pander--20150202-column.html

Obama was saying the science behind why autism rates are on the rise is inconclusive, he dismissed any link to vaccinations.

Fucking hell. Here is the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkluT1GbAc
Click to expand...
NYT botched it too:
“An earlier version of this article gave incomplete context for a quote by President Obama. When he said of autism and other disorders among children, ‘Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines, this person included,’ he was not referring to himself, he was pointing to a member of the crowd. An earlier version also misattributed a quote. It was Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control, who said on the ABC News program ‘This Week’ that the science was clear and convincing. ‘Study after study has shown that there are no negative long-term consequences. And the more kids who are not vaccinated, the more they’re at risk and the more they put their neighbors’ kids at risk as well.’ It was not Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a possible 2016 presidential candidate who also appeared on the show. Also, because of an editing error, a previous version of the article misstated the TV show on which Mr. Obama was appearing when he urged parents to “get your kids vaccinated.” It was the ‘Today Show,’ not ‘Meet the Press.’ ”—New York Times, Feb. 3
Click to expand...
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Ecotic said:
Well Paul's taken himself off the 'serious candidate' list with his 48 hour implosion. What's better is he doesn't even realize it.

What's the serious candidate list left at now? Bush, Walker, Christie, Rubio, and maybe, maybe Perry and Jindal?

That's actually pretty thin, Republicans may have to start looking at the third tier candidates who have expressed a bit of interest or garnered some press like John Kasich, Mike Pence, Brian Sandoval, and Bob Corker.
Click to expand...

So Jeb and Walker.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
For more than two decades, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was a member of a group, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, that advocated a link between vaccinations and autism, among other conspiracy theories.

The AAPS, as Kentucky’s Courier-Journal noted in a 2010 article on Paul’s association with it, opposes mandatory vaccinations and promoted discredited studies, which linked the vaccine-component thimerosal to autism in children.

As Rachel mentioned on the show, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which Paul was a proud member of for many years, has also argued that HIV does not cause AIDS.
Click to expand...
In other words, Rand Paul may or may not believe that HIV does not cause AIDS.

This is better AAPS fun:
On October 25, 2008 the AAPS website published an editorial implying that Barack Obama was using Neuro-linguistic Programming, "a covert form of hypnosis", to coerce people to vote for him in his 2008 presidential campaign
Click to expand...
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Manmademan said:
Obama isn't a citizen, just a muslim with a forged birth certificate and thus his presidency is invalid.

Hillaryisstill44.com
Click to expand...
Here's something I've always wondered.

Why do we count Grover Cleveland as two separate Presidents?

I mean sure, he's arguably one of the five greatest Presidents, but why does he get two numbers just because Benjamin Harrison had a shitty term inbetween his.

Hillary will only be the 44th individual to be President.

EDIT: lol he even got two dollar coins in that Presidential set
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Is there any serious Republican contender out there who does not say dumb shit, and is generally not batshit insane? Few years ago it was only Sarah Palin. But now it's like every day I'm hearing stupidity pouring out of their mouths.
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
RustyNails said:
Is there any serious Republican contender out there who does not say dumb shit, and is generally not batshit insane? Few years ago it was only Sarah Palin. But now it's like every day I'm hearing stupidity pouring out of their mouths.
Click to expand...

I don't think Jeb Bush has said anything too stupid lately.

Also TIL that Jeb didn't go to Yale, meaning that if he was elected President he would be the first since Reagan to not go to Ivy League.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
WayneMorse said:
I don't think Jeb Bush has said anything too stupid lately.

Also TIL that Jeb didn't go to Yale, meaning that if he was elected President he would be the first since Reagan to not go to Ivy League.
Click to expand...
Chris Christie wouldn't be either, Delaware and Seton Hall. (Nor Lindsey Graham.)

Jeb did go to one of the "Public Ivies" though.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Harding, Coolidge (Amherst), Hoover (Stanford), Truman (didn't graduate from college), Eisenhower (West Point), Johnson (withdrew from Georgetown Law), Nixon (Duke Law) and Reagan are the non-Ivy League Presidents since McKinley.

W. Bush is the only President to finish Business School. (JFK withdrew.)

Ben Carson would be the first to have completed medical school. (William Henry Harrison attended but withdrew to kill Indians)

The two Roosevelts were given JD's from Columbia in 2008. Which is probably serving them very well.

Garfield, Taft, Wilson, Nixon, Carter, H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama have all taught at college.

Garfield: Professor of Latin, Greek, Mathematics, History, Philosophy, Rhetoric and English literature. Which I hope was one class.

Wilson wasted his life the most, getting a PhD, then becoming a Professor of Politics.
] While there, he enjoyed frequent trips to his birthplace of Staunton. He visited with cousins, and fell in love with one, Hattie Woodrow, though his affections were unrequited.[29]

His health became frail and dictated withdrawal, so he went home to his parents, then living in Wilmington, North Carolina, where he continued his law studies.[30] Wilson was admitted to the Georgia bar and made a brief attempt at law practice in January 1882; he found legal history and substantive jurisprudence interesting, but abhorred the day-to-day procedural aspects. After less than a year, he abandoned the practice to pursue his study of political science and history. Both parents expressed concern over a potentially premature decision.[31]
Click to expand...
lol
 
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