Footwedge;1296860 wrote:You never mentioned the side dishes here. Do you have warmongering red beets and Keynesian cauliflour stinking up the dinner table too?

If nothing else, I'm repping this post for creatively integrating a point into the initial parallel.

And a little kool-aid to wash it down makes it all taste good, right?

gut;1296890 wrote:And a little kool-aid to wash it down makes it all taste good, right?

I prefer beer.

O-Trap;1296560 wrote:Republican options and nominees in recent history have been proven failures, I'd suggest. They've increased spending over their predecessors. They've failed to do anything about military conflict (even though Bush II's first platform was run on anti-interventionism).

That's really a gross overstatement. It lumps all Repubs together as if they have uniform views on all issues, and they simply don't. It also ignores that while the POTUS provides leadership, he still has to work with a bipartisan Congress.

Reality is a guy who goes 5 steps toward your goal will likely accomplish just as much, maybe more (depending on other attributes), as someone who goes 15 or 20 steps toward your goal. And your response is to reject that person summarily for falling short of your goals, rather than casting for someone who can get things going in the right direction.

I'd argue that Romney and Gary Johnson might likely accomplish about the same as each other, despite differences in their overall positions and ideals. I believe both would accomplish more than Ron Paul, not only because some of his positions are just impractical but because I also believes he lacks the leadership to build consensus.

Money aside, you're advocating these other losers as more capable of change when the evidence is they couldn't even build consensus in their own party. Sure, there are idiots on both sides that fixate on some trivial and inconsequential points, and/or perhaps just totally ignorant. But I still think most people buy-in to a convincing and compelling pitch (at least in primaries where people the D or R doesn't really impact the vote). The fact that the two guys most on this board advocate could manage little more than a distant 3rd really says a lot about their ability to champion their ideas and lead Congress and this country. So your "ribeye" is raw and tough and no more edible than the cow dung.

O-Trap;1296830 wrote:The candidate that the majority of the PARTY feels is best suited. I don't refuse to support the guy because I think there's a better candidate. I refuse to support him because I think he's harmful. I support others because I think that they are not.

The consensus process fails when people take their ball and go home. Maybe your guy wins the nomination but then can't win the general because the others take their ball and go home.

I now think the next question should be: Who would it be more miserable to visit for dinner -- Belly or Gut?

1. Belly - Yells at you, kicks you out of his house and never invites you back if you eat more quickly than he wants you to.

2. Gut - Offers one lackluster course and then yells at you and calls you a child if you don't eat every last bite with a smile.

I do love the humor and total ego in basically saying, "I know how things should be and if you don't vote like I think you should, you're just fucking doin' it wrong, yo!"


Who cares how YOU feel about shit? Just vote for my guy because, uh...I SAID SO and if I'm doing this, you better, too, you motherfucker!!!!!

gut;1296904 wrote:The consensus process fails when people take their ball and go home. Maybe your guy wins the nomination but then can't win the general because the others take their ball and go home.

Okay, I'll vote for your guy.

Heretic;1296912 wrote:I now think the next question should be: Who would it be more miserable to visit for dinner -- Belly or Gut?

1. Belly - Yells at you, kicks you out of his house and never invites you back if you eat more quickly than he wants you to.

2. Gut - Offers one lackluster course and then yells at you and calls you a child if you don't eat every last bite with a smile.

I do love the humor and total ego in basically saying, "I know how things should be and if you don't vote like I think you should, you're just fucking doin' it wrong, yo!"


Who cares how YOU feel about shit? Just vote for my guy because, uh...I SAID SO and if I'm doing this, you better, too, you motherfucker!!!!!

Reps.

gut;1296900 wrote:That's really a gross overstatement. It lumps all Repubs together as if they have uniform views on all issues, and they simply don't. It also ignores that while the POTUS provides leadership, he still has to work with a bipartisan Congress.

It doesn't mean they have the same view. It means they've consistently produced the same result. The deficit and excess spending have not gotten better under Republican authority. They have gotten worse every time. Results ... results are what matter. And the RESULTS of the last several decades tell us that neither major party knows how to put out a fiscally competent nominee for president.

Bush:
- furthered restriction of citizens' personal liberties (Hello, PATRIOT Act. How are you?)
- TARP (yay, bailouts!)
- unnecessary addition of military conflict (two wars on countries who, themselves, did not attack the US ... one for which there was zero evidence of any connection whatsoever)
- increased the deficit
- spent more than any of his predecessors

Obama:
- furthered restriction of citizens' personal liberties (re-signed PATRIOT Act and signed NDAA)
- Auto industry bailouts
- unnecessary addition of military conflict (Libya)
- increased the deficit
- spent more than any of his predecessors

Romney's not for a different camp than Bush was when he ran for re-election eight years ago. I see remarkably little change in the party then and now. Not everyone has a uniform belief within the party, but the party as a whole spits out the same kind of candidate as it did back then.

Sorry, but the Republicans have had their shot and failed at every turn, just like the Democrats have. I see no reason to change as long as change just means a different guy bringing the same result.

Both parties have had to deal with a Congress. Over the course of several decades, that isn't an Achilles' heel to one and not the other. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

gut;1296900 wrote:Reality is a guy who goes 5 steps toward your goal will likely accomplish just as much, maybe more (depending on other attributes), as someone who goes 15 or 20 steps toward your goal. And your response is to reject that person summarily for falling short of your goals, rather than casting for someone who can get things going in the right direction.

I'm contesting that it's NOT the right direction. You seem to think that Constitutional voters are "kinda Republican-ish," because some of the talking points are similar. The problem is that the results from Republican leaders don't reflect the rhetoric. Republicans aren't Libertarian Lite. If anything, results make them look like Democrats with a re-branded label. If I think both parties are heading for slightly different edge points on the same cliff, why should I care which one is driving when we go off said cliff?

As for this guy who would go a certain number of steps, the guy I'm voting for isn't my ideal. I actually spell out all the stuff I don't like about Gary Johnson in a thread somewhere in this forum. I'm not crazy about the guy, but I'm willing to compromise on someone put forth by a party who is at least pointed in the right direction.

gut;1296900 wrote:I'd argue that Romney and Gary Johnson might likely accomplish about the same as each other, despite differences in their overall positions and ideals.

History would indicate that a Republican president might likely accomplish about the same as a Democrat president.

Johnson platformed openly about shrinking the military budget and bringing unnecessarily stationed troops home. He didn't suggest an increase in funding. Do you not think this is tied to our economic well-being?

Johnson spoke out adamantly about the ills of the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA. Romney admitted he would have signed both of those.

Three examples of differences that the president would have control over. Romney admits to siding with Obama on each of them.

gut;1296900 wrote:I believe both would accomplish more than Ron Paul, not only because some of his positions are just impractical but because I also believes he lacks the leadership to build consensus.

He certainly lacks the spinelessness to pander. Again, those three things above could have, and would have been able to be curtailed by the president.

gut;1296900 wrote: Money aside, you're advocating these other losers as more capable of change when the evidence is they couldn't even build consensus in their own party.

It's because it's not "their own party." They used it as a platform because the current broken two-party system makes it damn-near impossible to have a voice any other way. They're both far more Libertarian than they are Republican at the Federal level, and their records both reflect that.

gut;1296900 wrote:Sure, there are idiots on both sides that fixate on some trivial and inconsequential points, and/or perhaps just totally ignorant. But I still think most people buy-in to a convincing and compelling pitch (at least in primaries where people the D or R doesn't really impact the vote).

Believe me, I know that most people buy into a candy-coated pitch. Being in marketing, working on Gingrich's primary campaign, I've seen enough of it.

gut;1296900 wrote:The fact that the two guys most on this board advocate could manage little more than a distant 3rd really says a lot about their ability to champion their ideas and lead Congress and this country.

Not at all. All it means is that they have the right party sponsoring their run.

gut;1296900 wrote:So your "ribeye" is raw and tough and no more edible than the cow dung.

The decrease in military spending alone, something the president himself has some control over, would be enough for it to be further in the right direction than either of the two popular muppets.

gut;1296904 wrote:The consensus process fails when people take their ball and go home. Maybe your guy wins the nomination but then can't win the general because the others take their ball and go home.

First, I doubt many Republicans take their ball and go home if there's a guy standing there with an 'R' next to his name railing on Obama. Doubt it much matters who it is.

Second, if the "concensus" falls outside the realm of agreeable compromise, then it's not a viable consensus at all.

Heretic;1296912 wrote:I now think the next question should be: Who would it be more miserable to visit for dinner -- Belly or Gut?

1. Belly - Yells at you, kicks you out of his house and never invites you back if you eat more quickly than he wants you to.

2. Gut - Offers one lackluster course and then yells at you and calls you a child if you don't eat every last bite with a smile.

I do love the humor and total ego in basically saying, "I know how things should be and if you don't vote like I think you should, you're just fucking doin' it wrong, yo!"


Who cares how YOU feel about shit? Just vote for my guy because, uh...I SAID SO and if I'm doing this, you better, too, you motherfucker!!!!!

It might be me. I ramble like this in real life as well. I'm just less organized, because I can't cite sources as well.

Heretic;1296912 wrote:I now think the next question should be: Who would it be more miserable to visit for dinner -- Belly or Gut?

1. Belly - Yells at you, kicks you out of his house and never invites you back if you eat more quickly than he wants you to.

2. Gut - Offers one lackluster course and then yells at you and calls you a child if you don't eat every last bite with a smile.

I do love the humor and total ego in basically saying, "I know how things should be and if you don't vote like I think you should, you're just fucking doin' it wrong, yo!"


Who cares how YOU feel about shit? Just vote for my guy because, uh...I SAID SO and if I'm doing this, you better, too, you motherfucker!!!!!

Who would it be more miserable to visit for dinner --Gut :laugh:

Unfortunately, since the Constitutional protections from government that at one time made this a somewhat free country are gone, regardless of how you vote you will be force fed the vomit or the shit at the barrel end of a gun that they stole your money to make.

O-Trap;1296305 wrote:Suppose you were a part of a group of 101 people. These 101 people were given a choice on what to eat for dinner, but they all have to eat the same thing, and it would be determined by a casting of votes. The choices were as follows:

1. Cow dung
2. Cow vomit
3. Ribeye

Now, through discussion with many of those in your group of 101, you have come to learn that, through the promotion of the farmer(s), the only two options that have a realistic chance of winning are the dung and the vomit.

You don't know for sure which between those two is the front-runner, but it is certain that it is not the ribeye.

Given your one vote to cast, how do you vote?

It's not about taste. It's about nutritional value. I think the vomit would give me more of well-rounded nutritional value. I'll go with the vomit and write in Rick Santorum.

O-Trap;1297281 wrote: Bush:
- furthered restriction of citizens' personal liberties (Hello, PATRIOT Act. How are you?)
- TARP (yay, bailouts!)
- unnecessary addition of military conflict (two wars on countries who, themselves, did not attack the US ... one for which there was zero evidence of any connection whatsoever)
- increased the deficit
- spent more than any of his predecessors

1. The Patriot Act has been in effect for over a decade now. I'm still waiting for the first person to be unlawfully detained because of its provisions. Then again, with judicial review at every level, maybe it doesn't quite have the potential of turning the country into a police state like many claim.

2. TARP and the GM bailouts were terrible. Strike for Bush on that one.

3. "Unnecessary addition of military conflict". How about the "unfortunate occurance of thousands of civilians slaughtered during the first year of his presidency"? The Taliban, you know, the ruling regime in Afghanistan, were complicit in what Al Qaeda did. Ron Paul apparently agreed and voted to authorize military force.

I'll grant that Iraq was bad. But neither war was "illegal" (as many have claimed)- both were authorized by Congress.

4. Deficits and spending- yes Bush was terrible.

Romney's not for a different camp than Bush was when he ran for re-election eight years ago. I see remarkably little change in the party then and now. Not everyone has a uniform belief within the party, but the party as a whole spits out the same kind of candidate as it did back then.

Sorry, but the Republicans have had their shot and failed at every turn, just like the Democrats have. I see no reason to change as long as change just means a different guy bringing the same result.

Both parties have had to deal with a Congress. Over the course of several decades, that isn't an Achilles' heel to one and not the other. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

My take on the Republican Party is this: I'm voting for Mitt Romney because the party that nominated him apparently was good enough for Ron Paul to seek their nomination.

Refusing to fire Obama is a fundamental failure of your responsibility as a citizen. Most of you clearly aren't involved in high-level business meetings because if you were I guarantee you know you can't run a business that way. If you looked the other way your company fails as Obama runs it into the ground. It's A or B, you guys can't make a decision you'd be shitcanned just like Obama should be.

Derp derp derp derp. The justifications to throw away your vote on a non-factor just make no sense, and it's not a rational decision. And, sure enough, we see fantasy scenarios where this is going to make a difference, become an agent of change, despite evidence nothing has happened and no progress has been made. There's always a group of voters that go this shtick, probably more or less the same group every election, but 20 some years or more and it's going nowhere. Keep banging your head against the wall I'm sure some day long after you're dead you might make a difference.

Well, I KNOW this doctor is going to botch my surgery, but in my uneducated opinion I'm not sure you can do any better...so I'm sticking with the guy that will kill me. This is basically what you guys are saying and it's simply incredulous.

It's so cute how people think their vote matters regardless.

gut;1297651 wrote:Well, I KNOW this doctor is going to botch my surgery, but in my uneducated opinion I'm not sure you can do any better...so I'm sticking with the guy that will kill me. This is basically what you guys are saying and it's simply incredulous.

You're advocating firing the doctor who you know is going to botch your surgery and hiring one with a history of botched surgeries. Firing Kenneth Lay as CEO to hire Bernie Madoff.

The frying pan we're in is crippling, but the fire is no better.

So you can rail against how the frying pan has been so wrong for America, and you'll hear me agree every step of the way, but I'm not going to agree that we should hurl ourselves into the fire just to get out of the pan.

If you were in an executive meeting about firing the CEO in lieu of a new one (unfortunately, the American people don't have the option of firing one before they can look for another), and the new one had a history of the same problems as the one you're firing, would you hire him? If you did, you'd be fired along with the next guy.

You see, I've been in a similar meeting. We, of course, had the luxury of firing the detrimental EVP before hiring another one, but during the hiring process, we certainly wouldn't replace the weak link with an equally weak link.

If your plan is to do that, what really is the point of removing the old one? That's not a defense of keeping the old one. It's a defense of not hiring the new candidate.

You're welcome to continue ridiculing someone who isn't going to vote for the frying pan or the fire all you want. Not going to change the fact that the option you're trying to paint as the logical choice is, in fact, a fruitless one, and will defeat the purpose of rectifying the previous one.

gut;1297651 wrote:Refusing to fire Obama is a fundamental failure of your responsibility as a citizen. Most of you clearly aren't involved in high-level business meetings because if you were I guarantee you know you can't run a business that way. If you looked the other way your company fails as Obama runs it into the ground. It's A or B, you guys can't make a decision you'd be shitcanned just like Obama should be.

Derp derp derp derp. The justifications to throw away your vote on a non-factor just make no sense, and it's not a rational decision. And, sure enough, we see fantasy scenarios where this is going to make a difference, become an agent of change, despite evidence nothing has happened and no progress has been made. There's always a group of voters that go this shtick, probably more or less the same group every election, but 20 some years or more and it's going nowhere. Keep banging your head against the wall I'm sure some day long after you're dead you might make a difference.

Well, I KNOW this doctor is going to botch my surgery, but in my uneducated opinion I'm not sure you can do any better...so I'm sticking with the guy that will kill me. This is basically what you guys are saying and it's simply incredulous.

Look, I already said I'm going to vote for your guy. Leave me alone.

Fine, I am too.

Yay fire!

gut;1297651 wrote:Refusing to fire Obama is a fundamental failure of your responsibility as a citizen.

LMAO. My fundamental responsibility is to take care of myself and my family. Electing Romney does absolutely nothing in bettering America. Anybody that thinks otherwise is oblivious to history over the past 35 years in the US.

I hope Romney wins. It's much more fun to watch my former party do all the things that they do....counter to their pre election rhetoric.

When Bush was in office, it was Comedy Central each day, every day. When I laugh a lot, I'm a happier person. Laughter is without question the best medicine.

Go Mitt go. Show the world how outsourcing more jobs will miraculously increase 12 million private sector jobs here in America. He's a funny, funny guy.

Footwedge;1297957 wrote:When Bush was in office, it was Comedy Central each day, every day. When I laugh a lot, I'm a happier person. Laughter is without question the best medicine.

Under the Obama & Reid and MSM Circus you have to be one happy, happy camper.

believer;1298028 wrote:Under the Obama & Reid and MSM Circus you have to be one happy, happy camper.

Lately, it hasn't mattered who the president was. There were plenty of laughs during Clinton as well ... oh the jokes that were made ...

jhay78;1297619 wrote:My take on the Republican Party is this: I'm voting for Mitt Romney because the party that nominated him apparently was good enough for Ron Paul to seek their nomination.

The roots of the Republican Party certainly were, but Paul was no stranger to pointing out the bastardization of the party as it exists today.

Just two decades ago (almost exactly), Bush II was campaigning on non-interventionism. The change there has not been for the better. I fully understand how 9/11 changed a lot of things, but once the dust settles from a catastrophe like that, cooler heads need to prevail, and I'd contend that they are not in the Republican Party ... and that is hurting our economy and restricting our freedom.

O-Trap;1298143 wrote:Bush II was campaigning on non-interventionism.

I remember in one of the 2000 debates when W. actually used the phrase, "we shouldn't be going around acting like we're the world's policeman." :laugh:

2kool4skool;1298270 wrote:I remember in one of the 2000 debates when W. actually used the phrase, "we shouldn't be going around acting like we're the world's policeman." :laugh:

Yep. I remember that, too.