Can't handle the jandal?
Santorum 2012!
Advertisement
by Forsher » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:47 pm
by Alien Space Bats » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:58 pm
by Farnhamia » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:00 pm
Alien Space Bats wrote:I hereby dub Mitt Romney "Pander Bear".
Mitt "Pander Bear" Romney.
It has a nice ring to it. doesn't it?
by Wikkiwallana » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:03 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Maineiacs » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 pm
by Shrillland » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:05 pm
by Farnhamia » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:08 pm
by Revolutopia » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:11 pm
by New England and The Maritimes » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:18 pm
Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.
by Tmutarakhan » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:27 pm
Alien Space Bats wrote:...
So where does that leave Mitt? He has no choice but to double down and move to Santorum's right on reproductive issues. He has to come out and say that 90's Mitt was before he saw the light, and that now he's hard-core pro-life and anti-contraception. He has to endorse a complete elimination of Title X money (because he's been attacking Santorum for supporting Title X); he has to say he's going to throw poor women under the bus when it comes to mammograms, etc...
by Gauthier » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:38 pm
Tmutarakhan wrote:Alien Space Bats wrote:...
So where does that leave Mitt? He has no choice but to double down and move to Santorum's right on reproductive issues. He has to come out and say that 90's Mitt was before he saw the light, and that now he's hard-core pro-life and anti-contraception. He has to endorse a complete elimination of Title X money (because he's been attacking Santorum for supporting Title X); he has to say he's going to throw poor women under the bus when it comes to mammograms, etc...
Today he was asked how he would balance the budget. He said he would do it by eliminating Planned Parenthood. This is stupid on multiple levels.
by Nightkill the Emperor » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:46 pm
Nat: Night's always in some bizarre state somewhere between "intoxicated enough to kill a hair metal lead singer" and "annoying Mormon missionary sober".
Swith: It's because you're so awesome. God himself refreshes the screen before he types just to see if Nightkill has written anything while he was off somewhere else.
by The Archregimancy » Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:15 am
Alien Space Bats wrote:I also think Mitt has committed a strategic blunder in saying publicly that he can't accept Santorum as his VP because Frothy isn't conservative enough on birth control and abortion. You have to wonder if there's some sort of gene in the Romney family tree that makes him say stupid things that can kill his campaign. But with that quote, not only has Mitt bought Rick Santorum's position on reproductive rights, he's actually committed himself to exceeding it.
The Tory Party today is united by its fiscal conservatism whereas Republicanism today is principally concerned with social conservatism. The unwavering Tory commitment to eliminating the UK’s structural deficit contrasts sharply with the diverse views held within the party on social and moral issues, from fox-hunting to abortion. The present-day Republican Party, however, is very much the inverse of this. The leading Republican presidential nominees have proposed different but singularly bizarre economic schemes, which don’t amount to a credible response to President Obama’s American Jobs Act. Instead, more attention has been paid – collectively – to advocating a position of extreme social conservatism.
Today’s British Conservatives don’t share this political logic, and as such they now lack a natural American partner. One has to go back a generation and switch parties – to Clinton’s Democrats – to find an American party with any kind of ideological likeness to today’s British Conservatives. Clinton’s record of sustained growth and careful cultivation of a large budget surplus is fiscal Conservatism in action and we shouldn’t be surprised therefore, that his party bears strong resemblance in its aims and political strategy to the current British Conservative party.
by Kaeshar » Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:48 am
The Archregimancy wrote:Alien Space Bats wrote:I also think Mitt has committed a strategic blunder in saying publicly that he can't accept Santorum as his VP because Frothy isn't conservative enough on birth control and abortion. You have to wonder if there's some sort of gene in the Romney family tree that makes him say stupid things that can kill his campaign. But with that quote, not only has Mitt bought Rick Santorum's position on reproductive rights, he's actually committed himself to exceeding it.
With David Cameron passing through DC and sharing a mutual love-in with Obama, it's perhaps worth considering the extent to which the current Republican contest has finally and definitively severed the traditional ties between the Republican Party and the UK Conservative Party. Those links were traditionally strong - though deliberately underplayed on both sides - with political strategists from both parties often crossing the Atlantic to share tips.
Those ties have been under strain for some time - the Bush/Blair love-in and Bush's refusal to meet with Conservative leader Michael Howard because of the latter's criticism of the Iraq 'weapons of mass destruction' justification for Iraq weakened them considerably - but Rick Santorum's recent comments about Margaret Thatcher and the NHS and the Obama/Cameron love-in have clearly demonstrated that the UK Conservatives now consider their US counterparts to be toxic.
Or, as a recent article in the UK's Daily Telegraph (aka the 'Daily Torygraph') put it:The Tory Party today is united by its fiscal conservatism whereas Republicanism today is principally concerned with social conservatism. The unwavering Tory commitment to eliminating the UK’s structural deficit contrasts sharply with the diverse views held within the party on social and moral issues, from fox-hunting to abortion. The present-day Republican Party, however, is very much the inverse of this. The leading Republican presidential nominees have proposed different but singularly bizarre economic schemes, which don’t amount to a credible response to President Obama’s American Jobs Act. Instead, more attention has been paid – collectively – to advocating a position of extreme social conservatism.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... guage.html
Which leads us to a situation where a gay marriage-supporting climate change-accepting Conservative Prime Minister wouldn't be caught dead being photographed with the Republican candidates, and a Republican candidate - supporting his argument that the NHS destroyed the British Empire - claims that a former Conservative Prime Minister who was, in many ways, to the left of her current successor was a Tea Party Tory who felt her inability to abolish the NHS was her greatest political failure.
Which in turn leads to a columnist in a British right of centre Conservative-supporting newspaper (same link as above) arguing that:Today’s British Conservatives don’t share this political logic, and as such they now lack a natural American partner. One has to go back a generation and switch parties – to Clinton’s Democrats – to find an American party with any kind of ideological likeness to today’s British Conservatives. Clinton’s record of sustained growth and careful cultivation of a large budget surplus is fiscal Conservatism in action and we shouldn’t be surprised therefore, that his party bears strong resemblance in its aims and political strategy to the current British Conservative party.
I don't doubt that the UK Conservative Party has become more fiscally conservative since the halcyon (tongue partially in cheek there) days of the Reagan-Thatcher relationship, embracing a program of governmental fiscal austerity that out-Thatchers Thatcher - but it's also become more socially liberal, or at least more socially diverse, embracing several gay MPs, and even indeed ministers. It maintains a socially conservative faith-based wing (including my MP, alas), but the latter is marginalised - and is in any case Anglican rather than Evangelical. After all, nobody (or nobody serious) seems to be objecting to Darwin's presence on the ten pound note.
Summed up, even the most natural political western democracy political allies* of the Republican party think the Republicans have driven off the cliff into a sea of toxic political poison that renders informal international alliances undesirable.
*The Australian Liberal Party probably excepted.
by Alien Space Bats » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:08 am
The Archregimancy wrote:<Cogent discourse on why Britain's Tories and America's Republicans now come from different universes>
by New England and The Maritimes » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:12 am
Alien Space Bats wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:<Cogent discourse on why Britain's Tories and America's Republicans now come from different universes>
I've seen this coming for a while as well, but the rift made me chuckle when the riots hit Britain last year.
Sean Hannity had a Tory pundit - I can't recall his name - call in for an "interview" on his radio program. Sean wanted so very, very badly to hear his Tory counterpart say that Britain's problem was gun ownership, to the point where he kept leading the conversation back to that subject.
The Tory was stereotypically polite, but continued to insist that the real problem lay in the overly centralized command structure of the municipal police - a command structure that made rapid response to the situation on the streets difficult. Decentralization of the chain of command and greater accountability to local communities and constituencies was the answer, he said.
Sean couldn't let go: "But wouldn't it be better if people had the right to arm themselves and use those weapons to protect their homes and shops? Wouldn't that reduce the looting?"
The Tory was circumspect, but you could almost hear the patronizing smile in his voice: "It's a societal issue, really. In America, you're all armed - and that includes the police, because the people are armed. That cuts down on property crime, which we're having a lot of here with these riots, but it also means a much higher murder rate. We don't have as many guns, so we do have a higher rate of property crime - but we end up with a lot less gun violence. I'm not saying that America has made the wrong choice; it's just that we've made different choices here in Britain, and that just a matter of culture as much as anything else."
Sean continued on to wrap up the interview, trying and failing to fit it all into the American right-wing perspective; his guest didn't really criticize him, but obviously gave him no help at all in spinning the story to fit the FOX News line.
I have to say it totally made my day to hear Hannity so utterly frustrated.
Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.
by The Jahistic Unified Republic » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:34 am
Briutannia wrote:Tubbsalot wrote:Lol @ everyone voting Ron Paul. Wishful thinking is such a powerful thing.
Well he's at 22% to Romneys 24% and there's still the unfactored Democrat vote and the undecided, and considering Paul has the best ground team...
It'll be close, but I think he can pull it off - unless the PPP poll tonight tells us otherwise.
The Emerald Dawn wrote:"Considering Officer Krupke was patently idiotic to charge these young men in the first place, we're dropping the charges in the interest of not wasting any more of the Judiciary's time with farcical charges brought by officers who require more training on basic legal principles."
by Farnhamia » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:55 am
The Jahistic Unified Republic wrote:Briutannia wrote:
Well he's at 22% to Romneys 24% and there's still the unfactored Democrat vote and the undecided, and considering Paul has the best ground team...
It'll be close, but I think he can pull it off - unless the PPP poll tonight tells us otherwise.
I am a libertarian, so I naturally support Paul. But I'm wondering if he is just doing it to hype up his son Rand for the 2016 election... Just a thought.
by Ruridova » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:02 am
by Farnhamia » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:05 am
by Jocabia » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:05 am
by Gauthier » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:08 am
by Farnhamia » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:11 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Cheblonsk, Gabrielos, Gravistar, Kubra, Statesburg, Tiami
Advertisement