U.S. Politics

Page 80 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
How is Romney going to stand up to Ahmadinejad and Iran when he can't even stand up to Rush Limbaugh?
Working in Limbaugh at any opportunity... well done.

I'd say Romney was more effective standing up to Limbaugh than Obama has been standing up to, oh lessee.... Bill Maher? And Limbaugh has not coughed up a cool million for Romney either.

The Democrat Kirsten Powers;

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html

Makes 'slut' and 'prostitute' look sort of.... mild.

Perhaps it's different when one agrees with who is making the derogatory comment.

And just in case it will suggested that Maher is 'just' a comedian:

But on the subject of Bill Maher, (Noel)Sheppard is absolutely right, Maher is too far out into the political punditsphere to be able to jump back behind the stand-up comic wall when it suits him, and verbal violence like this has no place in politics.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-calls-sarah-palin-the-c-word-during-his-stand-up-act/

At any rate, the "I don't bluff" comment from this Prez probably got little more than a chuckle from Ahmadinejad. And I'm not getting the impression Bibi was too impressed either.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aphronesis said:
not really. why? just that incumbents should last? there's no secession movement in the state that he could have headed?
They were both incumbents.

Who's baiting who here?:rolleyes:

then not the agonistic route please.
Right.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
VeloCity said:
How is Romney going to stand up to Ahmadinejad and Iran when he can't even stand up to Rush Limbaugh?
Stand up against what? Iran has not done anything. It is not a threat to the U.S.

It seems to me that Scott should be hopping mad about these so called financial conservatives running for prez. Aside from Paul every one of them is promising to start a war with Iran. Obama is the one mentioning costs. We all saw how many trillions of dollars the last two Republican wars cost us. Oops, I forgot. Going bankrupt by overspending on the military and useless wars is okay. It's spending money on our own people that is bad.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BroDeal said:
Stand up against what? Iran has not done anything. It is not a threat to the U.S.

It seems to me that Scott should be hopping mad about these so called financial conservatives running for prez. Aside from Paul every one of them is promising to start a war with Iran. Obama is the one mentioning costs. We all saw how many trillions of dollars the last two Republican wars cost us. Oops, I forgot. Going bankrupt by overspending on the military and useless wars is okay. It's spending money on our own people that is bad.
Wow.

You have me pegged. Had you worked in a little overt racism it would have been perfect.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Wow.

You have me pegged. Had you worked in a little overt racism it would have been perfect.
Then you explain to me why these supposed financial conservatives are so eager to waste money on another unnecessary war while at the same time they are moaning about the sky falling because of the national debt. There is a massive disconnect.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BroDeal said:
Then you explain to me why these supposed financial conservatives are so eager to waste money on another unnecessary war while at the same time they are moaning about the sky falling because of the national debt. There is a massive disconnect.
Publicly stating Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons and going to war are different, no?

BTW, the defense budget is getting slashed, Iran action or no. So you are getting what you want. The defense budget will be reduced no matter who is elected because it's the largest target on the discretionary side.

I just hope someone has the balls to put reforms in place regarding non-discretionary spending. It won't happen hence my 'sky is falling' post you ridiculed earlier.
 
And how much do you consider "slashed"? We spend more than the next 24 nations combined on defense, even though all 24 of them are considered our allies. I'd say if we made a 50% cut, that would be slashing it. Even though we'd still have a gargantuan military. How much do you think is slashing it?

Scott SoCal said:
Anyone else surprised that Kucinich was spanked so badly?
He was essentially running in Marcy Kaptur's district, after redistricting cost him his. So no, I'm not really shocked.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
And how much do you consider "slashed"? We spend more than the next 24 nations combined on defense, even though all 24 of them are considered our allies. I'd say if we made a 50% cut, that would be slashing it. Even though we'd still have a gargantuan military. How much do you think is slashing it?


He was essentially running in Marcy Kaptur's district, after redistricting cost him his. So no, I'm not really shocked.
Panetta testimony:

“No budget can be balanced on the back of discretionary spending alone,” he said. “Based on my own budget experience, I strongly believe that all areas of the federal budget must be put on the table -- not just discretionary, but mandatory spending and revenues. That’s the responsible way to reduce deficits and the responsible way to avoid ‘sequester’ provisions contained in Title 3 of the Budget Control Act.”

Sequestration would mandate another $500 billion in cuts over nine years from defense alone. The secretary called the provision a “meat ax” approach to fiscal policy, and said it would cause tremendous harm to America’s national security posture.

“These cuts would, in fact, hollow out the force and inflict severe damage to our national defense,” he said. Panetta stressed that it is not a question of choosing between fiscal responsibility and national security.

“While I understand the differences, there should be consensus on one thing: that the leaders of both the legislative and executive branches of government have a duty to protect both our national and fiscal security,” the secretary said. “I fundamentally do not believe that we have to choose between fiscal discipline and national security. I believe we can maintain the strongest military in the world and be part of a comprehensive solution to deficit reduction.”
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67358

I'm guessing, if nothing changes, by the first of next year Panetta will consider the defense budget having been "slashed".
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,161
0
0
the only thing I can contribute to this conversation is that this isn't a star wars script. good vs evil bal bal bla but alas it is in our media world because news isn't presented as news. it is interpreted for us by analysts


If religious groups want to play in politics then let them pay the admission fee. Tax them.

memo to the GOP I know it may very well help us with the voter turn out in the lower dregs of our group but just go ahead and lose the social and religious front. no one with a logical bone in their body buys a word of it
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,161
0
0
Keystone and Federal Infrastructure contracting with China is a way to get Obama on the defensive btw. more talk on that would be nice
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
At any rate, the "I don't bluff" comment from this Prez probably got little more than a chuckle from Ahmadinejad. And I'm not getting the impression Bibi was too impressed either.
Sorry, do you really think either Bibi or Ahmadinejad are going to be kowtowed by Mitt Romney? That's hilarious. At least Obama is acting like an adult.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
He was essentially running in Marcy Kaptur's district, after redistricting cost him his. So no, I'm not really shocked.

Kaptur's been in DC since the early 80's and Kucinich is fairly high-profile and the press loves the guy.

I would have expected him to do better than getting a beat-down.

But then Kaptur had this edge;

The new 9th Congressional District stretches more than 100 miles from Cleveland (Kucinich’s base) all the way west to Toledo, encompassing 47 percent of her current district. That gave her an edge, as did her years of work on the Appropriations Committee, from which she funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to northern Ohio.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kucinich-faces-uphill-battle-for-redistricted-seat/2012/03/05/gIQA6MFrvR_story.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Sorry, do you really think either Bibi or Ahmadinejad are going to be kowtowed by Mitt Romney? That's hilarious. At least Obama is acting like an adult.

I don't think Romney would ever think to want or have Bibi kowtow to him.

Ahmadinejad is not smart enough to kowtow to anyone in the west including BO.

As for BO... when thinking of his foreign policy with respect to this issue 'adult' is not the first term that pops into my mind. Sorry.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Hitch said:
Scott. If Cali were held right now, who would you vote for.

And is that the same answer as you would have given me 1 or 2 months ago?
Romney.

I think it's the same.

I'm not wild about the R choices and have not been since day 1. I thought all along Romney would win because of his apparatus more than any other single reason and that he can appeal to the independents that voted for BO in 2008.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Romney.

I think it's the same.

I'm not wild about the R choices and have not been since day 1. I thought all along Romney would win because of his apparatus more than any other single reason and that he can appeal to the independents that voted for BO in 2008.
If you don't mind my asking, who did you vote for in 08? Im talking primary not ge :p

Cali was on ST then I think, so it was still Mccain vs Romney just about.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Romney.

I think it's the same.

I'm not wild about the R choices and have not been since day 1. I thought all along Romney would win because of his apparatus more than any other single reason and that he can appeal to the independents that voted for BO in 2008.
It is a shame that Mitt Romney does not have the enthusiasm or vision to come up with issues that could change people’s impression of him.

Does anyone remember the 1980’s MADE IN THE USA campaigns that were going on? Even Wallmart boasted about MADE IN THE USA. One thing Mitt could do,,,,,is or would be to try and bring back some of that type of enthusiasm to change average Americans visions on the future.

If he worded it correctly he could even sell the southern republicans on “the facts” about getting completely out of the wars abroad. He does not even have to tiptoe around “the fact” the wars were either started without real information etc. He can acknowledge the mistakes made and offer that since he is a business leader that you have “lessons learned” etc.

What happens is we bogged down trash about “issues” that are not worth the time or crazy half baked solutions on taxes etc. Some broad jobs plans are not worth talking about. Simplify.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Hitch said:
If you don't mind my asking, who did you vote for in 08? Im talking primary not ge :p

Cali was on ST then I think, so it was still Mccain vs Romney just about.
I think it was probably Romney. IIRC, Rudy was already out by then. If he wasn't then it would have been Rudy.

I honestly don't remember, but I have never been a big McCain fan so it was not him in the primary.

I was not overly impressed with our candidates back then either.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Glenn_Wilson said:
It is a shame that Mitt Romney does not have the enthusiasm or vision to come up with issues that could change people’s impression of him.

Does anyone remember the 1980’s MADE IN THE USA campaigns that were going on? Even Wallmart boasted about MADE IN THE USA. One thing Mitt could do,,,,,is or would be to try and bring back some of that type of enthusiasm to change average Americans visions on the future.

If he worded it correctly he could even sell the southern republicans on “the facts” about getting completely out of the wars abroad. He does not even have to tiptoe around “the fact” the wars were either started without real information etc. He can acknowledge the mistakes made and offer that since he is a business leader that you have “lessons learned” etc.

What happens is we bogged down trash about “issues” that are not worth the time or crazy half baked solutions on taxes etc. Some broad jobs plans are not worth talking about. Simplify.
Not sure it matters.

The press is in the tank for Obama, refuse to vette him and no matter what Romney does or says the already established narrative won't change.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Not sure it matters.

The press is in the tank for Obama, refuse to vette him and no matter what Romney does or says the already established narrative won't change.
speaking about vetting. Maybe something about that today from redtreviso's and velocity's favorite news source.

It is sad to think what another 4 years with President Obama might do to the country.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Romney.

I think it's the same.

I'm not wild about the R choices and have not been since day 1. I thought all along Romney would win because of his apparatus more than any other single reason and that he can appeal to the independents that voted for BO in 2008.
Sorry, that appeal to the independents went out with his pandering to the loony wing of the Republican party, and he will have to keep pandering until June. After insisting that he is severely conservative, the "let Detroit go bankrupt" fiasco, and the recantation of Romneycare, he does not have much appeal to the moderates. If his opponents had even half the money that his campaign has then he would have been buried long ago. The only thing that Romney has going for him is more money and better organization than his Republican opponents. He won't have the same advantages against Obama. The candidate himself is weak.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BroDeal said:
Sorry, that appeal to the independents went out with his pandering to the loony wing of the Republican party, and he will have to keep pandering until June. After insisting that he is severely conservative, the "let Detroit go bankrupt" fiasco, and the recantation of Romneycare, he does not have much appeal to the moderates. If his opponents had even half the money that his campaign has then he would have been buried long ago. The only thing that Romney has going for him is more money and better organization than his Republican opponents. He won't have the same advantages against Obama. The candidate himself is weak.
Both candidates are weak. Don't forget that.

You strike me as being smarter than to fall for the "let Detroit go bankrupt" left smear. Given the underlying problems were not addressed at GM how long do you think it might be before they need more money?

And another thing, GM posted a net income of $7.6 Billion. Awesome. How much corporate income tax did they pay on that profit?

So lessee, we have a manufacturer that makes internal combustion engines among other things, who makes a record profit, pays zero taxes on those profits and is championed by the left. Strange bedfellows indeed.

I'm guessing if the UAW was not a stakeholder in GM you would not care less if they went out. But it's just a guess.

As for Romney's appeal to independents... we will see won't we?
 
BroDeal said:
Sorry, that appeal to the independents went out with his pandering to the loony wing of the Republican party, and he will have to keep pandering until June. After insisting that he is severely conservative, the "let Detroit go bankrupt" fiasco, and the recantation of Romneycare, he does not have much appeal to the moderates. If his opponents had even half the money that his campaign has then he would have been buried long ago. The only thing that Romney has going for him is more money and better organization than his Republican opponents. He won't have the same advantages against Obama. The candidate himself is weak.
One could argue that weakness in a GOP primary is strength in a general. His weakness in the primary are the far right voters, tea party and religious nuts. His strengths are the moderate suburbs. Besides while so called moderate voters arent big on him their big on Obama neither. They feel neither hatred nor love for either candidate and absense of strong feelings means that both candidates have a chance of winning them over, even if Obama is a strong favourite.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
The Hitch said:
One could argue that weakness in a GOP primary is strength in a general. His weakness in the primary are the far right voters, tea party and religious nuts. His strengths are the moderate suburbs. Besides while so called moderate voters arent big on him their big on Obama neither. They feel neither hatred nor love for either candidate and absense of strong feelings means that both candidates have a chance of winning them over, even if Obama is a strong favourite.
I would argue that first he needs a good turnout from the Republican base to win, and he cannot get the base excited. In fact, his positions and flip flopping turns a lot of the base off. Second, he needs to present a difference between himself and Obama. Going by Romney's record, he is not any different than Obama. Going by what he has said in the primaries, he is a conservative. So moderates are left with someone who either is no different than the sitting president or someone who panders to the conservative extremists. The bottom line there is that he will be defined by the opposition using his own words against him. Third, he needs to present a big idea for why he should be president. Even his Republican supporters cannot come up with anything other than he can win or he has the best organization and most money. That won't work in the general election. Fourth, he needs charisma and he has not got any. If he cannot instill passion in his own followers then he is boned in the general. He is a weak candidate.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY