2012 Election Thread

[twatts]

so, i avoid the political boards here like the plague, but thought id just pop in to say:
we are all doomed if this fuker gets elected.

and by fuker i mean the antichrist mormon sonof abitch.

He ain't gonna win, but a sick part of me thinks this country deserves him. . .

1.  watch ryan demolish biden...
2.  watch mittens win...
3.  watch Terry get disgusted...

I knew I should have stayed in DL all those years ago...

Terry

[Undermind]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/mitt-romney-abortion_n_1952780.html

http://mittromneyflipflops.com/#javascript:void(0)

[VA $l!m]

so, i avoid the political boards here like the plague, but thought id just pop in to say:
we are all doomed if this fuker gets elected.

and by fuker i mean the antichrist mormon sonof abitch.

He ain't gonna win, but a sick part of me thinks this country deserves him. . .

so true.
i live in a very "red" state, and it disgusts me just looking at 90% of the people when i'm actually out and about and thinking that they are insane enough to actually want this devil to lead our country.

TBH this electoral year has made me realize more than ever how much i am a stranger in a strange land.

back to your point though Hicks, it really seems as if it could be the only solution though in the long run.
if not this time around then maybe the next.
people will never learn until they are completely and utterly screwed. --i dont mean out of work and cant afford health care screwed. i mean rounded up and forced into slave labor type of screwed.
this country is on a crash course for pure facism, or at the least some other sort of ism, where freedom is just a sick joke someone once told and everyone decided they wanted to forget about.

CONSUME YOUR  PRODUCTS WHILE YOU CAN YOU FUCKING AUTOMATONS! CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME! FOR TOMORROW YOU WILL STARVE! AND FOR GENERATIONS ONWARD YOU WILL STARVE AND LABOR FOR THE RULING CLASS!
ENJOY YOUR GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED DRUGS! GET HIGH ON CAFFEINE AND NICOTINE AND WORK WORK WORK! THEN DRINK YOUR 5% ALCOHOL AND GO HOME AND BEAT YOUR WIFE!!
REST WELL KNOWING YOU HAVE GREASED THE WHEEL OF CAPITALISM ONE MORE DAY! FOR THE FUTURE HOLDS NOTHING BUT MISERY!!!!





...end rant./ exit political board stage left--

[sls.stormyrider]

the Prez is in trouble.
Big bird wasn't gonna help him anyway.

[sls.stormyrider]

couple things referenced above

teachers union - the Reach for the Top program required the teachers union to sign a pledge agreeing to the concept that promotion will be based on merit. Sounds simple, right. That isn't what is done now (at least in our town). Many locals were against it - not only did our union not sign the pledge, but the local union pres wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper explaining why he was risking the town getting $ over this principle.
  also, based on rhetoric coming from the WH and also the CHI teachers strike, some teachers union locals have done the unthinkable this year - support GOP candidates.
so - someone out there thinks this isn't just empty campaign rhetoric.

re oil co loopholes. POTUS obviouslycan't write a bill, but following the news the last few years this has been seriously been considered and brought up in congress. There were numerous headlines over the past few years how the GOP wouldn't accept them because they saw it the same as increasing taxes.

anyway, no excuses for Obamas performance during the debates.

interesting though - casting Romney as a moderate is making the "etch a sketch"candidate prophecy come true.

[VDB]

interesting though - casting Romney as a moderate is making the "etch a sketch"candidate prophecy come true.

True -- but as well as this worked for him in the debate, it still can't help but cause confusion and incoherence. Did you see where Romney told an Iowa media outlet that he has no plans for legislation to affect access to abortions (moderate Mitt) and then immediately his campaign essentially refuted that (primaries Mitt)? You'd think they'd be a little more disciplined than that.

[PIE-GUY]

Wednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.

[VDB]

Wednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.

Well, he didn't say who should be teaching them character and discipline, just that it's the best thing to prevent violent crime. And I can't disagree with that.

[PIE-GUY]

Wednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.

Well, he didn't say who should be teaching them character and discipline, just that it's the best thing to prevent violent crime. And I can't disagree with that.

It presents the notion first championed by Reagan that the problem in the inner-cities is a lack of character and discipline, not a lack of quality education, health care, opportunity, security, etc. It blames the issues on the victims while ignoring the root causes. It's 100% bullshit.

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

[twatts]

Wednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.

Well, he didn't say who should be teaching them character and discipline, just that it's the best thing to prevent violent crime. And I can't disagree with that.

What better place to teach, than at the schools???  Considering everyone supposedly agrees with teaching "them" character and discipline, why not use the existing education tools in those neighborhoods - the public schools???  Then why is the GOP cutting public school budgets around NC???  Seems counter-indicative to say you want to provide for "those" people, and yet continually vote to take away those things that can help those very people... 

Terry

[sls.stormyrider]

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

I have to disagree - I think Republicans aren't happy with it either (they may not put it as high a priority though). Clearly, the difference is approach. Republicans think the answer is merely in the free market (which is where all answers lie), where the Dems think the govt can and should do something about it (which is were many answers lie).

the best social program is a job. how we get there is the hard part, clearly improving schools is key. Again, the GOP wants to do that via the free market also.

[PIE-GUY]

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

I have to disagree - I think Republicans aren't happy with it either

Here's the thing... let's just look at healthcare for a second. If we were to remove "uninsured" citizens (a category which includes both urban and rural poor) from the statistics, we would rank right in line with other first world countries in categories like infant mortality, etc. But we have third world poverty in our rural and urban areas that Republicans want to ignore, so we end up with infant mortality rates that are statistically below many developing nations.

If you don't think the government has a responsibility to address this issue, then you are OK with maintaining a third world segment of our population. It's that simple to me.

To say they want to see a free market solution is to offer no solution at all. There will never be profits in providing healthcare to people who have no money. Never. Can't happen. Won't happen.

[VDB]

Wednesday, Oct. 10, 3:31 p.m. EDT: Paul Ryan on inner-city character development: Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, when asked whether this country has a gun problem, responded in a recent interview, "The best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities. Is to help teach people good discipline, good character." We were with him right up to the "opportunity" bit. 

First, it's curious that this conservative candidate would place the government in charge of what we can only imagine would be the pretty intrusive work of character development for would-be criminals.

Well, he didn't say who should be teaching them character and discipline, just that it's the best thing to prevent violent crime. And I can't disagree with that.

It presents the notion first championed by Reagan that the problem in the inner-cities is a lack of character and discipline, not a lack of quality education, health care, opportunity, security, etc. It blames the issues on the victims while ignoring the root causes. It's 100% bullshit.

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

But the excerpt you presented said that Ryan suggested the government should "teach people good character, good discipline." Unless there's more to the quote, I don't see him saying that. That's what I was pointing out.

There's no doubt that desperate situations beget desperate actions. But I'd argue there are lots more people in inner cities who don't commit violent crimes than those who do. And plenty of those who don't are still themselves in desperate situations. So what's the difference between the criminals and non-criminals? I'd argue a lot of it has to do with differences in character and discipline. So again, maybe that's what Ryan was trying to point out. That's not blaming the victims, it's blaming the perpetrators.

We can and should do things to improve overall conditions in stricken communities and help improve opportunities for all, which will help reduce poverty and crime. But just because a Republican pointed out that people who commit violent crimes might have some character flaw doesn't mean the point ought to be completely dismissed out of hand.

[twatts]

To say they want to see a free market solution is to offer no solution at all. There will never be profits in providing healthcare to people who have no money. Never. Can't happen. Won't happen.

QFT.

I work in Telecom.  After an initial push to put fiber everywhere, AT&T and Verizon have decided to bag it altogether.  They will support existing services, but will not seek to expand current networks.  Profit drives these companies, not a want to give service to every household.  It became too costly with the legal battles with Cable, increased competition from wireless and satellite, and a seemingly ignorant population (we have some of the worst service in the world while paying astronomical rates). 

The failure of the Free Market to reach every single person in our country is precisely why we have PBS. 

Terry

[sls.stormyrider]

Look, we are a first world country with third world inner-cities. Republicans think that's OK. Democrats do not. That's a gross over-simplification, but it is impossible to refute in general terms.

I have to disagree - I think Republicans aren't happy with it either

Here's the thing... let's just look at healthcare for a second. If we were to remove "uninsured" citizens (a category which includes both urban and rural poor) from the statistics, we would rank right in line with other first world countries in categories like infant mortality, etc. But we have third world poverty in our rural and urban areas that Republicans want to ignore, so we end up with infant mortality rates that are statistically below many developing nations.

If you don't think the government has a responsibility to address this issue, then you are OK with maintaining a third world segment of our population. It's that simple to me.

To say they want to see a free market solution is to offer no solution at all. There will never be profits in providing healthcare to people who have no money. Never. Can't happen. Won't happen.

I agree with you on the solution- that's why I usually vote with the Dems.
I don't think they don't care (maybe some don't) - they just think the market will do all, which to me is untrue
the other standard answer is that the States will do it. I agree that theoretically local control is better, looking around to see the different services offered in different states, and how states handle block grants make me skeptical of that approach as well.