He's wrong? The economy is doing better and many Republicans have said in private they wanted in the Stimulus Bill. The Dailyshow/NYT as an article on it.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Is it just me or are Republicans just really really bad for the country?
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
He's wrong? The economy is doing better and many Republicans have said in private they wanted in the Stimulus Bill. The Dailyshow/NYT as an article on it.
Really? So, in turn, you're going to respond to my thread and make it even more and more popular?
You're a goddamn genius.
dzoner
Banned
'Rhetoric Vs. Results: Exploring The Democrat Record On Jobs'
Typical republican cocksuckery.
Not Democrat's or Democratic ... correct grammar usage ... nope, DEMOCRAT, because it sounds worse.
The republicans have become so inutterably corrupt it's almost beyond comprehension.
I'm not using that as an insult but as an example of how terrible of politician she is, she totally borked the '08 run and continues to be a cancer on the Republican Party.
I'd also expect people to not take things such as that out of context and actually read what I wrote. Then again, there is a reason why I don't spend so much time here.
Tristicus
Diamond Member
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
dzoner
Banned
'Politics' is what happens when two or more people interact.
Or one person in the case of a schizophrenic.
It is not inherently evil or good. It is just what happens.
I can't believe I missed that.
Yea, he's right but I am really interested how McCain choose Palin as he's largely successful career politician.
How he made this mistake, will probably never know but goddamn I'd be nice to know how he choose her.
dzoner
Banned
Byproduct of an operational intellect.
Of course it's known. Read 'Game Change' by McCain's campaign chair. The Republicvan base was polling bad on his first choice, Joe Liebermann, so they looked for a far-right woman to try to get women who were willing to switch from Democrats after Hillary lost to another woman. THey pulled up a list of national female far-right politicians and found Palin. She was not well vetted - McCain barely talked to her before she was nominated, in a reckless, irresponsible move dangerous to the nation and the world, bnased on the campaign numbers guys saying she fit the profile they could use.
Last edited:
You think they would have at least noticed she's a terrible public speaker, or something. Gah.
She's not, exactly. Had they checked, they'd find she wa sa former sportscaster - something making her look better as a speaker.
Saying she's a terrible public speaker is like saying Ann Coulter is an insane terrible author - it's true, but she fills a need. So does Palin. She has her fans. Fox pays her for a reason.
True, though Ann Coulter's more a fringe member of the Republican Party. She would LOSE instantly if she ever ran.
You wrote:
"It's totally obvious that Sara Palin is absolutely unfit to be vice president or let alone even use a computer without adult supervision."
Dropping the line that you think she is unfit to be vice president, the rest of the statement says (these are your exact words) "Sarah Palin is absolutely unfit to even use a computer without adult supervision."
Curious how my statement of the start of your message "You start a thread by saying Sarah Palin needs adult supervision to use a computer" was taking things out of context?
Kirby
Lifer
John Locke is rolling in his grave. If anything this country needs is a return to liberalism.
woolfe9999
Diamond Member
Her style of speaking plays well before the right type of audience. Where she's terrible is any time she has to operate without a script. But that is probably not something the McCain campaign could have foreseen even with better vetting.
Still, it is absolutely true that she was picked for her demographic features, with no consideration to whether she was qualified to act as President, an incredibly irresponsible decision for a candidate of McCain's advanced age. Basically, he was willing to risk the welfare of the country to get gain a few percentage points in the election.
With this and all of McCain's flip flopping over the years, suggesting that he has crossed the party line in the past to curry favor among independents, then moves to the right recently because he is facing a primary challenge in Arizona, I now think of McCain as basically the worst sort of politician in our present system, one who is willing to sell out anything and anyone for a vote. Almost all of them are like that to some degree or another I suppose, but whatever tiny shred of respect I may have once had for McCain is basically gone. Honestly I'd rather see the more conservative candidate beat him out in the primary. He just needs to go away.
- wolf
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
First Tab, you ought to understand that people have strong feelings about party. Personally I have long ago divorced any allegiance or preference towards any group or individual in politics.
A title as you have posted is guaranteed to attract responses that will be defensive, or out and out tit for tat responses.
If I may, I'll restate it somewhat.
It is you opinion that while the Democrats have faults, you perceive the Republicans to be without merit.
My personal response is that things are more complicated than how you have framed them.
For example, I'll say that I hit the Reps pretty hard during the time Bush was in office. My principle complaints about him and his administration was a lack of foresight and ability to engage in introspection. The ideals they had were so "correct" that they sought to implement them on an enormous scale without consideration to consequences or even questioning their premise. Such is the nature of hubris. Consequently, we engaged in a war that was not to the benefit of our nation. It was a distraction from those who attacked us. If someone disagrees with me, they will have to justify hamstringing our effort in Afghanistan to bring down those who in fact attacked us to make war on a peaceful people. Make no mistake. A war cannot be waged on an individual. We may have been after Saddam, however many died because of the consequences of our actions. The usual justification is that Saddam harmed many more than we did. To me that's a bit like saying it's permissible to murder one person because another killed ten. Hardly a convincing moral argument.
Now let's fast forward to the Dems. Up front, I'll say that they are ahead because they haven't been trying to create new wars.
That said, let's look at what the Dems themselves have done. Let me choose their two largest efforts.
They backed the bailouts.
Well, one can argue if they were necessary, however one thing is painfully obvious. They were constructed to reward those who brought economic chaos. Consider that it would have been possible to insert language to the effect that borrowing public money meant that bonuses were null and void until such time as they were repaid in full. Now certainly the Republicans didn't ask for such a thing, but neither did the Democrats. Is it not beyond credibility that an entire Party missed this? How can it justify increasing the public liability by rewarding abject greed? If the Reps are so awful, why were the Dems no better?
Now something you brought up is health care, and it's been debated ad infinitum here on the forums.
A couple questions.
First, what is health care reform as you understand it?
Second, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
Third, how would you go about taking on the complex task of reform? What would be the consequences of your actions? Are you sure your assumptions are correct? On what basis do you believe that?
Fourth, after due consideration, is the government actually addressing health care, or is it someone else? Is it taking the best possible course of action to achieve what you believe it's goals are? Are they in fact trying to accomplish what you believe you think they are, and why do you think that the best possible course of action is being taken by the Democrats?
Here's the thing. I've always said that anyone can be critical of those they disagree with, but it's most valuable to challenge your assumptions and those you choose to side with. Holding your own accountable is more useful than holding a hundred others up in scorn.
What are your answers to my questions regarding health care and why do you believe as you do?
A title as you have posted is guaranteed to attract responses that will be defensive, or out and out tit for tat responses.
If I may, I'll restate it somewhat.
It is you opinion that while the Democrats have faults, you perceive the Republicans to be without merit.
My personal response is that things are more complicated than how you have framed them.
For example, I'll say that I hit the Reps pretty hard during the time Bush was in office. My principle complaints about him and his administration was a lack of foresight and ability to engage in introspection. The ideals they had were so "correct" that they sought to implement them on an enormous scale without consideration to consequences or even questioning their premise. Such is the nature of hubris. Consequently, we engaged in a war that was not to the benefit of our nation. It was a distraction from those who attacked us. If someone disagrees with me, they will have to justify hamstringing our effort in Afghanistan to bring down those who in fact attacked us to make war on a peaceful people. Make no mistake. A war cannot be waged on an individual. We may have been after Saddam, however many died because of the consequences of our actions. The usual justification is that Saddam harmed many more than we did. To me that's a bit like saying it's permissible to murder one person because another killed ten. Hardly a convincing moral argument.
Now let's fast forward to the Dems. Up front, I'll say that they are ahead because they haven't been trying to create new wars.
That said, let's look at what the Dems themselves have done. Let me choose their two largest efforts.
They backed the bailouts.
Well, one can argue if they were necessary, however one thing is painfully obvious. They were constructed to reward those who brought economic chaos. Consider that it would have been possible to insert language to the effect that borrowing public money meant that bonuses were null and void until such time as they were repaid in full. Now certainly the Republicans didn't ask for such a thing, but neither did the Democrats. Is it not beyond credibility that an entire Party missed this? How can it justify increasing the public liability by rewarding abject greed? If the Reps are so awful, why were the Dems no better?
Now something you brought up is health care, and it's been debated ad infinitum here on the forums.
A couple questions.
First, what is health care reform as you understand it?
Second, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
Third, how would you go about taking on the complex task of reform? What would be the consequences of your actions? Are you sure your assumptions are correct? On what basis do you believe that?
Fourth, after due consideration, is the government actually addressing health care, or is it someone else? Is it taking the best possible course of action to achieve what you believe it's goals are? Are they in fact trying to accomplish what you believe you think they are, and why do you think that the best possible course of action is being taken by the Democrats?
Here's the thing. I've always said that anyone can be critical of those they disagree with, but it's most valuable to challenge your assumptions and those you choose to side with. Holding your own accountable is more useful than holding a hundred others up in scorn.
What are your answers to my questions regarding health care and why do you believe as you do?
I'll disagree with you on that, but the schizophrenic line was funny. :thumbsup:
That's an absolutely terrible reasoning. Let's pass this horrendous bill, because anything is better than doing nothing? Pure idiocy. And to say that all Republicans have no patriotism is akin to saying all Democrats are treasonous. Both are equally foolish statements.
Absolutely agreed. True classical liberalism, not this current bullshit form, either.
Lemon law
Lifer
When we ask the question of why John McCain choose Sarah Palin, there is an object lesson not to be missed.
If we look at the Republican field for POTUS in 2008, almost everyone except John McCain tried to appeal the the extreme right wing of the GOP. Now how come why fort did John McCain win the GOP primaries as the un GWB candidate. Short answer, the GOP leadership may have lost their collective minds, but the larger GOP electorate remained rational, and showed they understood reality.
But once McCain had the GOP nomination locked up, he needed to balance his ticket with someone, anyone, that could appeal to the radical right of the GOP.
Initially Sarah Palin looked like she would be the McCain right choice, as Sarah wowed the whole GOP convention with her drill baby drill speech. But when Sarah later demonstrated she was a total open mouth insert foot idiot, she alienated the very rational GOP electorate that put McCain over the top in the GOP primaries. That and the fact that McCain gave the economy a sound bill of health just as it collapsed around him in late September/08, made a McCain defeat in the general election of 11/08 inevitable.
And now, as we come into the general election of 11/2010, that disconnect between the GOP leadership and its larger GOP electorate will remain a giant question mark.
If we look at the Republican field for POTUS in 2008, almost everyone except John McCain tried to appeal the the extreme right wing of the GOP. Now how come why fort did John McCain win the GOP primaries as the un GWB candidate. Short answer, the GOP leadership may have lost their collective minds, but the larger GOP electorate remained rational, and showed they understood reality.
But once McCain had the GOP nomination locked up, he needed to balance his ticket with someone, anyone, that could appeal to the radical right of the GOP.
Initially Sarah Palin looked like she would be the McCain right choice, as Sarah wowed the whole GOP convention with her drill baby drill speech. But when Sarah later demonstrated she was a total open mouth insert foot idiot, she alienated the very rational GOP electorate that put McCain over the top in the GOP primaries. That and the fact that McCain gave the economy a sound bill of health just as it collapsed around him in late September/08, made a McCain defeat in the general election of 11/08 inevitable.
And now, as we come into the general election of 11/2010, that disconnect between the GOP leadership and its larger GOP electorate will remain a giant question mark.
To Hayabusa Rider -
The bailouts are absolutely necessary,the whole "we're rewarding failure" is a decent argument but if the bailouts didn't go through the United States wouldn't even have a domestic auto industry. Plus, Obama personally asked the GM(or was it Ford?) CEO to step down once the bailouts wen through.
The argument doesn't stand up.
As for health reform, it has to be passed. Costs are outrageous and Cuba - a country run by a dictator has better quality of care than the United States. Most bankruptcies are also due to medical bills.
At face-value the Democrats want a more regulated-system and possibly with some kind of "safety net" for those whom can't afford it. On the other hand Republicans want to have lax regulations and have the "market" adjust.
Of course, I'd personally say that we absolutely need more regulations considering the whole deal we've had with pre-existing conditions as the primary example. There's also the amount of spam(death panel lie) coming from Republicans that makes me want to support this even more. If this bill is so bad as they say it is, then there no reason for them to be shitting out like that.
The bailouts are absolutely necessary,the whole "we're rewarding failure" is a decent argument but if the bailouts didn't go through the United States wouldn't even have a domestic auto industry. Plus, Obama personally asked the GM(or was it Ford?) CEO to step down once the bailouts wen through.
The argument doesn't stand up.
As for health reform, it has to be passed. Costs are outrageous and Cuba - a country run by a dictator has better quality of care than the United States. Most bankruptcies are also due to medical bills.
At face-value the Democrats want a more regulated-system and possibly with some kind of "safety net" for those whom can't afford it. On the other hand Republicans want to have lax regulations and have the "market" adjust.
Of course, I'd personally say that we absolutely need more regulations considering the whole deal we've had with pre-existing conditions as the primary example. There's also the amount of spam(death panel lie) coming from Republicans that makes me want to support this even more. If this bill is so bad as they say it is, then there no reason for them to be shitting out like that.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
