U.S. Politics

Page 220 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Oh lord.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/26/gingrich-2016-newt-may-be-open-to-running-again/

A prolific author, Gingrich said that he would do some of that analysis with a book on the 2012 race, which is due out next summer.

He told the Naples News that the party needed to “modernize and adapt” instead of dwelling on Mitt Romney’s flaws as a candidate and blaming him for the loss.

“Republicans have to stop and take a deep breath,” he said.

He urged a “practical solution” on immigration and said Democrats and Republicans needed to “slow down and listen to each other.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/26/gingrich-2016-newt-may-be-open-to-running-again/#ixzz2DMm7824U
Are you ****ing kidding me?? "Slow down and listen to each other"?? Gingrich has done more to create the partisanship that has gridlocked DC than just about any politico since Lee A****er.

**** off, Newt.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Replace 'communists' with 'secular progressives' and he's not that far off.



Depends on your definition of war. Boots on the ground invasion? Drones overhead? Cyber hacking? Lobbing in a few cruise missiles?

Vitriolic? Yeah, probably... his perception is more likely.



Now you are cracking me up:) Pot, meet kettle.
Serious question Scott. Remember affirmative action and how well that worked out? Do you think schools should be forced to enact similar policies with regressive conservatives? For the sake of equality and regardless of merit or achievement?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
aphronesis said:
Serious question Scott. Remember affirmative action and how well that worked out? Do you think schools should be forced to enact similar policies with regressive conservatives? For the sake of equality and regardless of merit or achievement?
Nope.

Never been a fan of reverse discrimination and I would not be a fan of reverse reverse discrimination.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Nope.

Never been a fan of reverse discrimination and I would not be a fan of reverse reverse discrimination.
But that's the position those making such claims are tending to put themselves in. Not that they'll be taken seriously of course, but they aren't offering plausible alternatives; let alone explanations of how this has come to pass.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Replace 'communists' with 'secular progressives' and he's not that far off.
OK then.

Depends on your definition of war. Boots on the ground invasion? Drones overhead? Cyber hacking? Lobbing in a few cruise missiles?

Vitriolic? Yeah, probably... his perception is more likely.
That Obama wasn't doing more in Iran and Syria was one of the things that you guys were ****ed off about during the election. Now he's doing too much. Can't you just pick one and stick with it?

Now you are cracking me up:) Pot, meet kettle.
How'd those Romney polls work out for you folks?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
aphronesis said:
But that's the position those making such claims are tending to put themselves in. Not that they'll be taken seriously of course, but they aren't offering plausible alternatives; let alone explanations of how this has come to pass.
But I'm not sure plausible alternatives are worth discussing.

Take education: The teachers unions will not allow and/or resist mightily their own being rewarded or punished by merit or achievement (or lack of). The unions position is just a microcosm of how things are developing across the political spectrum.

Teachers unions essentially launder money for the DNC, as do most other public employee unions.

Does anyone really think any ladder-climbing democrat wants to see change in public education? Who in the AARP crowd wants to unwind Obamacare (elder care subsidized by the young)? Does anyone think Trumka is at the WH several times a month to check on the Presidents dog?

Same stuff goes on in the R party too, so I'm not under many illusions.

Here's what I don't get. The charade could continue for some time if the economic engine will continue to produce. No matter what side you are on, one would think they would do everything in their power to make smart decisions in terms of perpetual economic growth. That, I think, was Putin's point in his 2008 speech that Lerma quotes.

And remember, Lerma has to cut through a helluva lot of clutter to get noticed here in the good ol USA.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
OK then.

That Obama wasn't doing more in Iran and Syria was one of the things that you guys were ****ed off about during the election. Now he's doing too much. Can't you just pick one and stick with it?

How'd those Romney polls work out for you folks?
That Obama wasn't doing more in Iran and Syria was one of the things that you guys were ****ed off about during the election. Now he's doing too much. Can't you just pick one and stick with it?
Why are you lumping me in with Lerma? He wrote the piece, not me. I selected some passages I agreed with. Waging war in Egypt wasn't one of them.


How'd those Romney polls work out for you folks?
So now being wrong = being insane? Wow.
 
Scott SoCal said:
But I'm not sure plausible alternatives are worth discussing.

Take education: The teachers unions will not allow and/or resist mightily their own being rewarded or punished by merit or achievement (or lack of). The unions position is just a microcosm of how things are developing across the political spectrum.

Teachers unions essentially launder money for the DNC, as do most other public employee unions.

Does anyone really think any ladder-climbing democrat wants to see change in public education? Who in the AARP crowd wants to unwind Obamacare (elder care subsidized by the young)? Does anyone think Trumka is at the WH several times a month to check on the Presidents dog?

Same stuff goes on in the R party too, so I'm not under many illusions.

Here's what I don't get. The charade could continue for some time if the economic engine will continue to produce. No matter what side you are on, one would think they would do everything in their power to make smart decisions in terms of perpetual economic growth. That, I think, was Putin's point in his 2008 speech that Lerma quotes.

And remember, Lerma has to cut through a helluva lot of clutter to get noticed here in the good ol USA.
Well, a couple of things. The charge of left socialists (communists) in education extends beyond school into higher education. In the latter case, the scramble to display merit has become overhyped and absurd in terms of its output within the upper tiers and equally banal and administrative in the lower schools. The unions that exist, at least the few I've had part of, exist to ensure--in theory--some bargaining rights for fixed term and non-tenure faculty. I.e. graduate students primarily. And to negotiate reasonable work expectations for fairly minimal contract pay. Places like Stanford, for example, circumvent this problem by being selective at the outset and taking (relative) care of all academic staff, regardless of position--rather than establish vastly assymmetrical hierarchies. Those jobs are so few, however, that prospects will jump through all set hoops, often effectively demeaning themselves, rather than go without. The point here though, and the reality, is that most mid-level institutions of higher education are not infiltrated with secular progressives anymore than they are largely populated by moderates and even some social conservatives. Varies from state to state, city to city, but at the elite liberal institutions they are teaching networking as much as anything else and graduates are relying on their parents, at the less elite places, students are being groomed slightly more toward job placement and still relying on their parents. How long can this last under current conditions?

That said what the unions do is one thing, but in terms of quality of education at the precollege level, it seems to be going down in the public domain. That's very much the case in New York where there are severe supply and facility issues, but there's also the fact that many of the teachers are not equipped to deal with the students. Part of that is personal or subjective bias--liberal disdain for inner-city realties--but part of it comes down to the fact that it's no longer clear why students are being taught what they are and how it's supposed to allow them to interface with the realities of the contemporary economy.

Short answer, I don't think that a great deal of schools in the US are preparing students to achieve economic growth in a long term transformative sense.

Then of course there's this, which you may have noticed.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/26/1164742/-The-manufacturing-skills-gap-is-really-a-good-employer-gap#

But the other side of that reality is that if youth in this country are not better educated (outside the elite institutions) then they're going to be completely inequipped to propose and maintain an alternative landscape to the one sketched in that times article. That situation has been a long time coming from both top and bottom.

I can't speak to Russia really beyond the 1950s, but I do think their economic trajectory has been so different to ours that it may not be entirely useful to make direct comparisons.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
I was so looking forward to your reaction re: solar energy subsidies, Scott.:confused:
Energy subsidies.... ok.

Subsidies in this case are tax incentives and tax breaks. But to the point: let's just look at Exxon/Mobile. From 2005 to 2010 their net, pre-tax was $66 Billion. Their Federal income tax paid over this period was $21 Billion after what ever tax breaks they received.

Solar would have to receive subsidies to break even resulting in no income tax paid (as I understand it), so the argument may be specious.

I don't think we are anywhere near solar power for auto transportation yet the subsidy numbers include the production of gasoline. Between the federal govt and US States, the tax revenue generated from the sale of gasoline and diesel totals about $63 billion annually. Already, the Feds are freaking out as more efficient vehicles are producing less revenues... and the bait and switch is this: before long US consumers will be taxed on miles driven AND fuel consumed. So, money saved with CAFE standards is going to do nothing (economically) and any savings will be replaced by yet another tax.

Solar's great. But energy taxation is big business.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Why are you lumping me in with Lerma? He wrote the piece, not me. I selected some passages I agreed with. Waging war in Egypt wasn't one of them.




So now being wrong = being insane? Wow.
You are trying to cherry pick the 5% of what this guy says that is not entirely effing bat-**** crazy and say "see he has a point here", no, he doesn't, he has just stepped down the crazy for a second. The fact that it resonates with you should give you pause (but most likely will not).
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
You are trying to cherry pick the 5% of what this guy says that is not entirely effing bat-**** crazy and say "see he has a point here", no, he doesn't, he has just stepped down the crazy for a second. The fact that it resonates with you should give you pause (but most likely will not).

His broader point of America repeating the Soviet mistake is debate-worthy. You don't like the comparison, so it is, of course, crazy. I would think that should give you pause.


I thought Putin's quotes were interesting. Odd is getting lectured on limited government free market capitalism from someone of Putin's background, don't you think?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Amsterhammer said:
This has made my day!:D

Cute.

I like the "Dat A$$" version better.

Name your hard drive on the PC or MAC to "Dat A$$" THEN ever so often your computer will prompt you with the question. "Would you like to Back "Dat A$$" up? CLICK YES. :D
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
So now being wrong = being insane? Wow.
They developed their own polls that overrepresented their own constituency to create an image of Romney being ahead because that's what they wanted to believe - remember the "Unskewed" dude, who took the national polls and then reweighed all of them based on the Republican-friendly Rasmussen model? - and then you all believed it while mocking the Nate Silvers et al. who's models did actually reflect reality. That's not being wrong, that's creating an alternative reality more to your liking.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
His broader point of America repeating the Soviet mistake is debate-worthy. You don't like the comparison, so it is, of course, crazy. I would think that should give you pause.
um, yes, Scott, it is in fact crazy. We're not even at the level of the UK or Canada, let alone the Soviet Union. Might be time for the TP'ers and cons to take a deep breath. Oh but right, America is doomed if we re-elect Obama. I keep forgetting.


Odd is getting lectured on limited government free market capitalism from someone of Putin's background, don't you think?
Yeah it is. I would think that should give you pause.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Rick Santorum, never passing up a chance to be a complete paranoid black-helicopter conspiracy nutjob.

President-unelect Rick Santorum made his triumphant return to the Capitol on Monday afternoon and took up a brave new cause: He is opposing disabled people.

Specifically, Santorum, joined by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), declared his wish that the Senate reject the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities — a human rights treaty negotiated during George W. Bush’s administration and ratified by 126 nations, including China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

The former presidential candidate pronounced his “grave concerns” about the treaty, which forbids discrimination against people with AIDS, who are blind, who use wheelchairs and the like. “This is a direct assault on us,” he declared at a news conference.

Courageous? Or just contentious? The treaty requires virtually nothing of the United States. It essentially directs the other signatories to update their laws so that they more closely match the Americans with Disabilities Act. Even Lee thought it necessary to preface his opposition with the qualifier that “our concerns with this convention have nothing to do with any lack of concern for the rights of persons with disabilities.” Their concerns, rather, came from the dark world of U.N. conspiracy theories. The opponents argue that the treaty, like most everything the United Nations does, undermines American sovereignty — in this case via a plot to keep Americans from home-schooling their children and making other decisions about their well-being.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/santorums-new-cause-opposing-the-disabled/2012/11/26/9ab0605a-3829-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
They developed their own polls that overrepresented their own constituency to create an image of Romney being ahead because that's what they wanted to believe - remember the "Unskewed" dude, who took the national polls and then reweighed all of them based on the Republican-friendly Rasmussen model? - and then you all believed it while mocking the Nate Silvers et al. who's models did actually reflect reality. That's not being wrong, that's creating an alternative reality more to your liking.
Fine. To what end? To look like fools now?

Rasmussen was pretty close in 2008, if not the closest. So somehow he got stupid over the last coupla years?

Nate Silver is the new messiah. Until he gets it wrong. Feel free to show everybody where I mocked the guy.

I think some very serious people with much to lose got it very wrong. I guess that too is not allowable to you. Strange to say the least.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
um, yes, Scott, it is in fact crazy. We're not even at the level of the UK or Canada, let alone the Soviet Union. Might be time for the TP'ers and cons to take a deep breath. Oh but right, America is doomed if we re-elect Obama. I keep forgetting.


Yeah it is. I would think that should give you pause.

It did. That's why I posted it.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
His broader point of America repeating the Soviet mistake is debate-worthy. You don't like the comparison, so it is, of course, crazy. I would think that should give you pause.


I thought Putin's quotes were interesting. Odd is getting lectured on limited government free market capitalism from someone of Putin's background, don't you think?
As I said in the previous post it's a rather staggering case of historical amnesia to suggest that the US might repeat a Russian mistake. How far back do you think his understanding of the Soviet economy runs? Let alone of what Communism actually was.

At the time that Putin made that speech, Russia was run by oligarchs and mafia whose levels of corruption up until the financial crash had made Moscow one of the most expensive and decadent places to live in the world. Previously state owned and run enterprises, facilities and properties had been auctioned off to the wealthy at a fraction of what they were worth, then consolidated and returned to the public at vastly inflated prices. To hear Putin offering a bit of sobriety in that moment, while the US was mired in its military adventures was only a continuation of those practices by slightly different means.

There's very little worth debating there.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
VeloCity said:
They developed their own polls that overrepresented their own constituency to create an image of Romney being ahead because that's what they wanted to believe - remember the "Unskewed" dude, who took the national polls and then reweighed all of them based on the Republican-friendly Rasmussen model? - and then you all believed it while mocking the Nate Silvers et al. who's models did actually reflect reality. That's not being wrong, that's creating an alternative reality more to your liking.
Yeah those polls reminded me of the exit polls from the 2004 election. :rolleyes:

Same delusional crap from the left back then when "you all" bought in and believed it while mocking the other polls.

Then again I don't remember Scott being a member during the time for the run up / polling on this forum. I thought he was out and did not have his account on.

You must know him better than what I thought. :eek:
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
aphronesis said:
As I said in the previous post it's quite another a rather staggering case of historical amnesia to suggest that the US might repeat a Russian mistake. How far back do you think his understanding of the Soviet economy runs? Let alone of what Communism actually was.

At the time that Putin made that speech, Russia was run by oligarchs and mafia whose levels of corruption up until the financial crash had made Moscow one of the most expensive and decadent places to live in the world. Previously state owned and run enterprises, facilities and properties had been auctioned off to the wealthy at a fraction of what they were worth, then consolidated and and returned to the public at vastly inflated prices. To hear Putin offering a bit of sobriety in that moment, while the US was mired in its military adventures was only a continuation of those practices by slightly different means.

There's very little worth debating there.
Oh. Alrighty then.

Funny how we are all so seemingly interested in what the rest of the world thinks of us until we don't like or agree with the sentiments.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Oh. Alrighty then.

Funny how we are all so seemingly interested in what the rest of the world thinks of us until we don't like or agree with the sentiments.
Not sure I follow. Does Russia have a right to criticize US militarism? Sure. But given their bitter experiences in Chechnya and Afghanistan, never mind their own interests in a twenty-first century reconfiguration of Middle East energy resources, this is not strictly a humanitarian intervention.

Russia's producers were also beginning to hurt in 2009 because the raw materials market had began to dry up for them in 2008, but that doesn't mean Putin's remarks had much to do with generating economic growth for the populace of the country.

Frankly, I don't really see what you're saying. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the sentiments; I simply don't see how they have much relevance to the current US situation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY