bobbob1313 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Yeah, he just seems like a new coat of paint on the same old GOP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I agreed w/ much of what he said, but agree w/ the criticism that his speech didn't really seem to address Obama's. Also, as a libertarian/conservative his stance on social issues (which lines up right w/ Falwell and Robertson) scares me. I was hoping the younger leaders to emerge for the Republicans would be less tools of the Christian right, but their hold on my party remains firm. I think the Republican Party is under the belief that they have to go after that percentage of the population and make those social views issues. And, you're right, until they let that part of the party drift towards the fringe, the entire party runs the risk of becoming totally irrelevant. I have no idea what Jindal's social views are, I was just saying that basing his entire future political career off one scripted speech given to a camera seems a little shortsighted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I expect to get attacked for this, but Jindal is the right's Obama, and they're gonna ride him all the way to a knock down, drag out fight in 2012. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I expect to get attacked for this, but Jindal is the right's Obama, and they're gonna ride him all the way to a knock down, drag out fight in 2012. I definitely see that. Although, if Obama looks like a sure thing in 2012, they might throw up a sacrificial lamb and save their rising star for 2016. Of course, there might be someone different by then, too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I have no idea what Jindal's social views are, I was just saying that basing his entire future political career off one scripted speech given to a camera seems a little shortsighted.No, no. I'm adding the exorcism in there, too. Jajaja. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 John Boehner is another rising star in the party that is getting talked up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Recent presidential history has not be kind to guys who have been on the national stage for more than a couple of years. Clinton, W and Obama have benefited from being fresh faces. Are they rolling out Jindal too early? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Obama's big introduction to the nation was his speech at the 2004 DNC. That's earlier before the next election than this is. Worked out well for Obama. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Obama's big introduction to the nation was his speech at the 2004 DNC. That's earlier before the next election than this is. Worked out well for Obama. Yeah, it really just depends on the individual. A lot of times, those rising stars turn out to be nothing special. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Obama's big introduction to the nation was his speech at the 2004 DNC. That's earlier before the next election than this is. Worked out well for Obama.Right, and Clinton was in 1988 DNC. But they didn't really become part of the day-in-day out part of the National conscious until about a year before Iowa. Lots and lots and lots of people do not watch the conventions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 It is worth noting that back in October a group called the Tax Foundation published a report on which states received the most money from Washington compared to what they paid into the trough in the form of federal taxes. It should come as no surprise that southern republican states are consistently in the top ten as 'feeders' from the trough. Bobby's state ranks 4th with receiving $1.78 for every $1 paid in. Barbour's Mississippi is 2nd with $2.02 for every $1 paid in and Palin's Alaska is $1.84 for every $1 paid in. You can see the report here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html So basically Jindel's speech was just more hot air from the GOP. I agree with some of you that the Reppublican's have been taken over by religious extremists. The problem is now that is who their candidates are as well and Jindel wrote a college thesis on exorcism, so he is extreme. I also recognize the Republican's use to be a good party and stand for something, but honestly that ship sailed with Ike in the 50's. And this greed is good bs that Reagan ushered in and Bush followed to the extreme needs to die. Sadly, Jindel is not the guy to do it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Y'know, if Republican ideas are so great, why are we in the mess we're in now? I mean, I certainly understand some of their economic arguments, but it seems all it's resulted in is the erosion of the middle class, the class that really is the backbone of this country. Am I missing something? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Y'know, if Republican ideas are so great, why are we in the mess we're in now? I mean, I certainly understand some of their economic arguments, but it seems all it's resulted in is the erosion of the middle class, the class that really is the backbone of this country. Am I missing something? Nope, you pretty much have it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I mean, fuck, it used to be only one member of a family had to have a full-time gig to lead a pretty good life. I am not putting all of this on laissez-faire capitalism (well, all right, I am, actually) but we have seriously gotten off track here in the U.S. of A. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Y'know, if Republican ideas are so great, why are we in the mess we're in now? I mean, I certainly understand some of their economic arguments, but it seems all it's resulted in is the erosion of the middle class, the class that really is the backbone of this country. Am I missing something? Yes, you're missing something. Especially since you think we've been operating under some kind of laissez-faire capitalist system, which we have not for quite some time now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 So, what is it I am missing? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 What you're missing is that the corporations don't need the middle class as consumers anymore. Real growth is in the emerging nations. 20 years from now there will be no middle class. Have a nice day. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 There are those that would argue that this mess we are in has nothing to do with either side's policy differences, and everything to do with what they do agree on (lending based economy). I'm not sure I agree with that, but I think that's probably much closer thanjust saying "Republicans did it!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Yes, you're missing something. Especially since you think we've been operating under some kind of laissez-faire capitalist system, which we have not for quite some time now. That's right Bush nationalized the banks. So it really is a charade to act like it is still a free market. It never was in the first place. When there is no competition and massive multinational corporations control all goods and services, that is not a free market. But history will record it as Bush who brought it to an end. And the other post is right we have been operating under a laissez-faire capitalist system. It's been like that since Reagan. Trickle down economics is actually golden shower for the middle class economics. A 19th century style caste system. But people are waking up and everyday Wall street throws tantrums because Obama won't send them truckloads of freshly printed money, I take as a small step back to a fair and balanced economy, where hard work is rewarded with a livable wage and pension so that a worker can retire with dignity and not live in poverty when they get too old to work or work until the day they die. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 You said we are not operating under a free market and that we have been operating under a laissez faire capitalist system in the same post. That's impressive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 There are those that would argue that this mess we are in has nothing to do with either side's policy differences, and everything to do with what they do agree on (lending based economy). I'm not sure I agree with that, but I definitely don't agree that it's the republican's fault either. But it is. They inherited a surplus and turned it into a record deficit by going to war in Iraq and giving irresponsible tax cuts to the top 1% in this country. And it is starting to look like it was a gigantic rip off from the first TARP, which again was the Republicans. Now I agree there are problems with both parties but facts are facts and the Republican's economic and foreign policy is exactly why we are in this mess. It just seems like denial to try and claim anything else. You said we are not operating under a free market and that we have been operating under a laissez faire capitalist system in the same post. That's impressive. That's right the death of free market capitolism is 9/2008, but like I said it has not really been a free market for some time, especially the way company's tie up people's retirement in the stock market. That really is not a free choice, just like the million other fees banks and govt. impose just to get at your money. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Putting people's retirements in the stock market doesn't seem like it would have much of anything to do with a free market, since people choose to join companies that do that. And democrats voted in large numbers for the Iraq war in the Senate and presented very little opposition to Bush for 6 and a half years of his term, and didn't really do much to oppose him when they had the majority. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 What you're missing is that the corporations don't need the middle class as consumers anymore. Real growth is in the emerging nations. 20 years from now there will be no middle class. Have a nice day.Aw, hell no. How many guns are in private ownership in this country? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Putting people's retirements in the stock market doesn't seem like it would have much of anything to do with a free market, since people choose to join companies that do that. And democrats voted in large numbers for the Iraq war in the Senate and presented very little opposition to Bush for 6 and a half years of his term, and didn't really do much to oppose him when they had the majority. But it has everything to do with a free market because it gives these crooks the capitol to run these schemes and notice the first casualty of all recessions are people's 401k's and look at the length Uncle Sam has gone to protect shareholder's and banks but not the victims of their practices the homeowner who has lost their home and the worker who has lost their retirement. Coincidence? They basically overvalue stocks and create these bubbles and do not create the safe investments for people's retirement and college funds. It is very intentional and when your employer signs you up with little or no choice and you are not given a choice about your specific investment but it is controlled by a broker, that is not the definition of a free market. You will get no argument from me about the Democrats completely failing to provide an opposition to the war. They should be ashamed. The blood is on their hands too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Investments from 401Ks are not the entirety of our market. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.