Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey looks like we are going to war (or at least the President is trying to get permission for something we have been doing for awhile now).  

 

Not surprisingly both sides have issues with the plan.  Too broad, not broad enough, etc.  

 

Needless to say whomever the President is in 2017 they will have to clean up this mess.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

the comments section is the most homophobic garbage i've seen in some time. well done.

Sorry if it's offensive; I'm using an iPhone and I can't see the comments. As a rule, I don't read YouTube comments even if I can see them, because they seem to be made mostly by poorly behaved 12-year-olds.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't heard much about a Joe Biden run in 2016, but I wonder how gay voters will feel after hearing this:

 

Maybe he thought he is running for the GOP nomination.  

 

Anyway, I am sure this will be ginned up by the Right as Joe as anti-gay or something.  Which is a load of crap.  It is a colloquialism that generally mean gay, but also means close friends.   I highly doubt the Vice President meant anything by it.  The term is stupid.   I take more offense to the fact a sitting Vice President said a vulgar term like butt (and the same goes for when he said ACA was a "big fucking deal.")

 

Joe is an extremely smart politician and knows how to work people very well, he just let's his folksy dumb uncle act play a bit too much.  

 

Speaking politicians who say stupid stuff Boehner, who chastised Senate Democrats by telling them to get off their asses and do something.  Less we forget Boehner was fine when the GOP would filibuster and stall legislation when they were in the minority.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/shift/watch/boehner-press-briefing-398009923992/   

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nice to see that Bill O'Rielly's exaggerated war stories are being dealt with in the same manner ans speculation here, as we did with Brian Williams.  

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/bill-oreilly-brian-williams-falklands-war

 

But honestly who cares at this point?  

 

Really interesting this week was the fallout form Rudy Giuliani's comments about the President and the love of our country and the American People.  Which if anything belongs in the "That's Racist" thread.    

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/rudy-giuliani-president-obama-doesnt-love-america-115309.html

 

Rudy Giuliani is an idiot, more along the lines of Donald Trump then a Former Mayor of NYC.  He just says things to get attention and gin up the far right.  He is a man who hasn't won an election in like 18 years, but seems to speak for a far right wing of the GOP.  Any discussion of what he says is pointless.  However from a political standpoint, we need to discuss Scott Walker.  Gov. Walker was at the event, and when asked about Giuliani's comments he did not take the high road, and "punted" the question.  http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/233420-walker-i-dont-know-if-obama-loves-america  And more bizarrely he didn't know if Obama was a Christian or not.  Also his comments on evolution just make him sound stupid, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/speak-up-gov-walker/2015/02/16/5c63a1d0-b5ff-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html  

 

Putting aside whether you agree or disagree with Gov Walkers policies and record, you have to look at how he is handling some really basic questions.  He could have handled these questions extremely well, shown that he had class and leadership.  However he is coming off as stupid and feckless.  If Joe Biden fumbled questions in this way it would be front page news and discussed at great length.  But I guess Scott Walker has to call someone his "butt buddy" to get any traction round here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republican party is making it more and more difficult to nominate a viable candidate. Romney was viable and Bush will be as well, but not after saying a buch of stupid shit to mollify the extremists.

 

I'm about 75% certain this election will be Bush v. Clinton but the parties would be much better represented by Paul/Walker/Jindal/Carson/etc. v. Warren/Sanders

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I agree.  And what's interesting is the cycle from primary to elections has become like this:

 

Primary- be a radical, Dem's push a social-democracy type agenda, Republicans push an extreme neo-con agenda.

Actual election- be a moderate.  Reaching across the aisle, luring swing votes and trying to survive all that stuff you said that was too far afield earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I agree.  And what's interesting is the cycle from primary to elections has become like this:

 

Primary- be a radical, Dem's push a social-democracy type agenda, Republicans push an extreme neo-con agenda.

Actual election- be a moderate.  Reaching across the aisle, luring swing votes and trying to survive all that stuff you said that was too far afield earlier.

 

Our 24 hour news cycle and media obsessed culture might actually do some good in this regards.  In the past many of the far right / far left statements by candidates weren't blasted over the airwaves, so people didn't pay attention.  Now it fills our days and our screens.  We see what idiotic things these people are saying.  Such as another great one by GOP Front-runner Scott Walker.  In an interview in the National review he actually said his stance on unions would send a single of toughness to ISIS and Putin.   http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414183/what-scott-walker-actually-said-larry-kudlow

 

That was said with out irony, or as a joke.  It is a real thing that Gov Walker thinks.  He not only is a stupid, he is an egomaniac 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Obama vetoed the Keystone Pipeline. I don't give too much of a shit either way. It's not going to change the amount of crude oil we use or transport, it might just be transported a little less safely now, depending upon whom you believe. It's 100% pure politics on both sides.

 

My general thinking on the subject is with oil production way up on this continent and with prices declining, we've got the Arab states on the ropes economically. With true energy independence, we could deal with Saudi Arabia and the like on our values and national security needs, not our energy needs.

 

Not to downplay climate change and other environmental concerns, but I think our continued (though lessened) dependence upon foreign oil is the more pressing crisis. Alternate energy vs. fossils isn't an either/or, it's a both and. Smart policy would tax fossils for R&D into alternatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah agreed on the ambivalence concerning the Keystone. It's neither averting environmental devastation, nor losing us millions of revenue that it's been stopped again. As you mentioned, that oil is still being used.

 

The one thing that most folks didn't seem to catch with that conversation was that it's Canadian oil that's being shipped overseas with the gulf as a port. Not a big windfall for the U.S there. Also, there was some crazy eminent domain stuff that was highly questionable in ethical/legal terms. When you have a foreign government/corporation plowing through your farmland eyebrows are rightfully raised, ironically even more so on the part of the right wing/ don't tread on me types. This is more evidence that the national stage for the GOP is often out of touch with some of their own supposed values.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we don't have enough demand for the the oil produced in Canada.  So that oil can either be refined in the US, under tight environmental standards, or it can be refined in China (which is where much or most of the surplus will go if the pipeline isn't completed).  

 

It's kind of absurd to only focus on the environmental impact of supplementing an already substantially complete pipeline system and ignore the environmental impact of the oil being refined in China.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more evidence that the national stage for the GOP is often out of touch with some of their own supposed values.

 

The GOP are the masters of deflection and messaging.  They have a large part of our population convinced that they are for less government, smaller taxes.  They really are not.  They are more for the corporations, rather than the American people.  

 

This little article has made the rounds since it was first published.  Top 10 Reasons to Vote Republican.  I have been seeing it come up lately again.  While I think some of it is a little heavy handed, it is interesting.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

This little article has made the rounds since it was first published.  Top 10 Reasons to Vote Republican.  I have been seeing it come up lately again.  While I think some of it is a little heavy handed, it is interesting.   

That came up on my Facebook feed too. The one that always gets me is the whole "big government" lie. I understand if a constituent sincerely believes that less government is better than more (although that is a somewhat simplistic way to look at it), but when an actual politician starts that crap, I want to punch them in the neck. Oh, really, you think less government is the answer? Then why are YOU running for public office!? Planning to fire a bunch of staffers once you get in? How about firing yourself? A-holes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

some of it is a little heavy handed

A little? Please.

I understand if a constituent sincerely believes that less government is better than more (although that is a somewhat simplistic way to look at it), but when an actual politician starts that crap, I want to punch them in the neck. Oh, really, you think less government is the answer? Then why are YOU running for public office!?

The number of elected officials is relatively stationary; it's the government's overreach that creates "big government." More laws, more regulations, more taxes, more involvement in our daily lives -- that kind of thing. The government wants tighter and tighter controls on the Internet, on the airwaves, on what we eat, on what we read, on what we drive, on what we purchase, on what we say, etc. and that's what people are growing tired of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little? Please.

 

Obviously you disagree with the article.  Pity, comments aside.  Other then point 8 (You want government to hurt people not help people), which IMHO stupid argument, can you refute the statements?  

 

 

The government wants tighter and tighter controls on the Internet

 

 Heard Rush complaining about this same thing today.  So are you against the Net Neutrality regulations?  Just curious.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...