Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
:Madly flings faeces about:Alyrium Denryle wrote:*rolls up a newspaper and smacks you on the nose with it*[R_H] wrote:What about Ron Paul as McCain's VP? According to BBC he's still in the race.
NO! BAD MONKEY! We do not discuss Ron Paul, you hear me! We Do Not Discuss!
Edi wrote:I just read that speech transcript. What a loathsome, dishonest, pig-ignorant, fear-mongering fucktard shitstain. He deserved to lose.
Former President George H. W. Bush had a few big disagreements with Reagan during the Primaries. President Bush represented the more moderate aspects of Republicanism, compared to Reagan's conservatism. Bush also famously described the Reagan economic plan as "Voodoo economics". Reagan once called the elder Bush a "Brooks Brother's Republican".FSTargetDrone wrote: I think you give him too much credit. He's sucking up by showing what a Patriot he is, nothing more. And he's no friend of McCain.
He's already set aside his political ambitions for what he thinks is "the greater good". I think he'd be more than willing to do it again, "Well if you must burden me with the Vice Presidency... <feigned weary resignation>"Romney's concession wrote:...If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win.
We shouldn't really be surprised, but that damn speech was all over the place. He talked about everything from the "threat to our culture" to some bizarre connection of pornography with out-of-wedlock births (huh?).Edi wrote:I just read that speech transcript. What a loathsome, dishonest, pig-ignorant, fear-mongering fucktard shitstain. He deserved to lose.
Well, then you will be bothered by McCain's speech today. He mentioned his service and his imprisonment at least 5 times by my count, laying it on pretty thick at the end too, at least up to the point I turned off the TV.Glocksman wrote:The other day I listened to a McCain speech on way home from work, and he kept repeating variations about his 'call to service' and 'proud to serve his country all his adult life', and other not-so-subtle reminders of his time in the Hanoi Hilton.
The Reagan "big tent" is fraying at the moment. And while plenty of people would be happy to see it fall apart, McCain isn't one of those folks. He may very well hold his nose and go for a "conservative pick". Remember This thread? There are quite a few conservatives who are used to getting their way, who have been threatening to sit out if McCain gets the nod, it's stupid and childish, but there is a concern about it. McCain's not an idiot, he's got to be aware of how some members of his party view him. The smart election move is to try and mend the breach, the easiest way to do that is to pick a VP who commands the most support. Romney fits that description. Romney finished second to McCain in delegates, getting him onboard somehow is better than alienating that group, it might not be as a VP, but that's the easiest and most visible way to try and reconcile the party infighting. Whether or not McCain does this depends on how seriously he takes the Conservative discontent.FSTargetDrone wrote: Gerald Tarrant, how do we know that Romney is a given as a likely running mate for McCain? Isn't there someone else he'd rather have alongside him than Romney, who he apparently despises?
LOL. Reminds of Matt Taibbi on Bill Maher's Real Time:-This looks very conciliatory, just what he'd need to do to get on board the "Straight-Talk Express."
Do fiscal conservatives still exist? A "fiscal conservative" whose whole policy is cut taxes doesn't really count. There has to be cut spending and cut taxes, and if the former isn't around they could be extinct. People who just say cut taxes aren't fiscal conservatives -- they're freeloaders.Knife wrote:True. Something I think die hards like Hannity forgot about the big tent party is that it was a big tent. Just because recent election cycles had the bible thumpers reigning king, doesn't mean there has been a shit load of fiscal conservatives out there holding their nose and going along with it. Now it would seem the so called conservative movment is loosing it's graps, they think it's the end of all GOPdom. Really funny to watch.
It all depends on whether the Mormons can act as an entity together. Even if 50% of the Mormons don't vote, it wouldn't turn UT blue. They'd have to actively vote for Obama or Hillary, and I just don't see that happening. The Mormons I spoke to hated Obama and Hillary -- you could see their distaste in their eyes.Either way, the bible thumpers are getting their feelbads knocked around this year and I'm loving it.
Later in the speech....And our economy is also burdened by the inexorable ramping of government spending. Don't focus on the pork alone – even though it is indeed irritating and shameful. Look at the entitlements.
Are you shitting me? Our economy is burdened by government spending, so lets raise military spending? I'm I grasping at straws here, or did he pull a gypsy switch?In the face of evil in radical Jihad and given the inevitable military ambitions of China, we must act to rebuild our military might – raise military spending to 4% of our GDP, purchase the most modern armament, re-shape our fighting forces for the asymmetric demands we now face, and give the veterans the care they deserve.
That's standard Republitard thinking. They believe that "small government" only refers to social programs which help the poor or regulations which limit corporate freedom, not anything else.SpacedTeddyBear wrote:Later in the speech....And our economy is also burdened by the inexorable ramping of government spending. Don't focus on the pork alone – even though it is indeed irritating and shameful. Look at the entitlements.Are you shitting me? Our economy is burdened by government spending, so lets raise military spending? I'm I grasping at straws here, or did he pull a gypsy switch?In the face of evil in radical Jihad and given the inevitable military ambitions of China, we must act to rebuild our military might – raise military spending to 4% of our GDP, purchase the most modern armament, re-shape our fighting forces for the asymmetric demands we now face, and give the veterans the care they deserve.
Considering that for decades upon decades, going way waay back to the founding of the US, something like 75-90% of the Federal Governments budget was actually military spending, yeah.Darth Wong wrote:That's standard Republitard thinking. They believe that "small government" only refers to social programs which help the poor or regulations which limit corporate freedom, not anything else.
Don't forget, there was that tiny little incident with the family Irish Setter:Coyote wrote:The same holds true for Mitt Romney. If he was caught on live TV setting kittens on fire, 99% of the LDS would still vote for the homeboy.
Wednesday, Jun. 27, 2007
Romney's Cruel Canine Vacation
By ANA MARIE COX
The reporter intended the anecdote that opened part four of the Boston Globe's profile of Mitt Romney to illustrate, as the story said, "emotion-free crisis management": Father deals with minor — but gross — incident during a 1983 family vacation, and saves the day. But the details of the event are more than unseemly — they may, in fact, be illegal.
The incident: dog excrement found on the roof and windows of the Romney station wagon. How it got there: Romney strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus, an Irish Setter, in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario, which the family apparently completed, despite Seamus's rather visceral protest.
Massachusetts's animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal "in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon." An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying "it's definitely something I'd want to check out." The officer, Nadia Branca, declined to give a definitive opinion on whether Romney broke the law but did note that it's against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, and "if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal." And while it appears that the statute of limitations has probably passed, Stacey Wolf, attorney and legislative director for the ASPCA, said "even if it turns out to not be against the law at the time, in the district, we'd hope that people would use common sense...Any manner of transporting a dog that places the animal in serious danger is something that we'd think is inappropriate...I can't speak to the accuracy of the case, but it raises concerns about the judgment used in this particular situation."
We should just "execute" bin Laden? Summary execution is now a voting plank?FSTargetDrone wrote:Here's his speech.
I enjoyed this part best:
What a stand-up fellow."I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.
You got it all wrong.Illuminatus Primus wrote:We should just "execute" bin Laden? Summary execution is now a voting plank?
We should execute Obama. They're obviously the same person.I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Obama bin Laden
Whatever, I don't care about your definition is. There are plenty of fiscal conservatives out there who've been either holding their nose at the GOP for the last eight years and/or are still fiscal conservatives yet aren't repubs.brianeyci wrote:
Do fiscal conservatives still exist? A "fiscal conservative" whose whole policy is cut taxes doesn't really count. There has to be cut spending and cut taxes, and if the former isn't around they could be extinct. People who just say cut taxes aren't fiscal conservatives -- they're freeloaders.
I wonder why ads aren't running painting the Republicans as liberals since they've had an administration that's spent more money than any other administration ever. And even if you take out the shit on WoT, it's still more. I would attack them on the money over and over and over, their weak point.
Again, in the primary Romney got 90% of the repub vote here. That's a pretty cohesive enity, while Obama got 57% of Utah dems vote. So yeah, it's a block that would have voted Romney and feels like they got screwed. What ultimately happens will be interesting to watch.It all depends on whether the Mormons can act as an entity together. Even if 50% of the Mormons don't vote, it wouldn't turn UT blue. They'd have to actively vote for Obama or Hillary, and I just don't see that happening. The Mormons I spoke to hated Obama and Hillary -- you could see their distaste in their eyes.
Aren't they the same people?Superman wrote:You know why he dropped out, right? He said he wanted to spend more time with his kids and wives.
*rimshot*
Oh, right, I keep forgetting. Iraq and OBL are the same thing because he's not really in the Afghan/Paki border region. He's in Iraq and we're just not looking hard enough. And the Iraqis aren't going to tear alQaeda in Iraq into tiny little pieces the first chance they get because it's not like Shia Iraqis would hate Sunni al Qaeda operatives telling them what to do. And it's not like Iraqis are pissed because there are damned "ferners" in their country telling them how to run it.But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror.
anyone who doesn't go on a drunken speanding splurge. Cut taxes perhaps but cut pork and do away with earmarks. You know, people who believe in responsible finances. But this is ot.brianeyci wrote:
Then what is your definition?
Do you include the military in this definition? Because most conservatives seem to think that we should return to a very old-fashioned culture of militarism, and in the past, military budgets were often a huge proportion of national spending.Knife wrote:anyone who doesn't go on a drunken speanding splurge. Cut taxes perhaps but cut pork and do away with earmarks. You know, people who believe in responsible finances. But this is ot.brianeyci wrote:Then what is your definition?
