Jump to content

Is It Over For The Republicans?


Recommended Posts

Oh, a switch even. Curiouser and curiouser.
Well, I am pretty liberal...
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, I am pretty liberal...
I know what that's a euphemism for.
Well, jeeze, if you're as "liberal" as Nikki, we can have some real fun indeed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you were to ever meet me in person you would not think any of those things were accurate.
No, I wouldn't call you mean. As for the party in general, though, you can't really top serving a wife with divorce papers while she's in the hospital getting cancer surgery and then going to Washington to call for re-opening orphanages.
So, are you saying that Republicans are just pussy Anarchists in denial? While I think that has a poetic sound it it, in theory, I don't think it's particularly true ( W/R/T republican motivation). It's true, they don't like a powerful federal government ( In theory, at least). Yet, I don't think because they want to limit the role of federal government that they hate government itself. I think you are right, however, in the sense that sometimes their desire to shrink and change to role of government is at odds with the roles they posses in government we have a the moment. This is particularly seen in some of the lower branches of the Executive branch, in the cabinet departments. it's an interesting paradox.
Well, maybe more like pussy libertarians. But yeah, I don't think that much incompetence could be a coincidence. In their own circles, they call tax cutting "starving the beast." They're well aware that the more in debt and more cash-strapped a government is, the less it can function. That, they think, is a good thing. Thus, they give us massive debt paired with lower tax revenue. It worked for Reagan and it "worked" for Dubya. Too bad it nearly destroyed the country, but then that's not their main concern.
wow.So having a big daddy controlling your every move is the answer? This is an affront to the very idea of freedom.When did I say that? Never. Stop fighting the straw man and start thinking.Philosophically the two parties will never convince the other that they are right. Republicans do indeed hate big government. Thank God.
Republicans "hate" big government, but they've given it to the country repeatedly over the last fifty years, and the ONLY time that government payrolls shrank significantly was under Clinton/Gore. Explain that, please. While you're at it, please explain how cost-cutting Republicans who hate government spending also managed to drive up the debt and the deficit by a factor over Democrats.As for "big daddy," the Republicans are more than happy to control every move in a gay's bedroom and in my womb. So get off that high horse -- you guys just want to control different things than Dems, but personal liberty isn't really your strong suit, especially not under this administration.My point is, Dems want government to work efficiently and well. Republicans don't, and the actions of BOTH parties bear out those very philosophies. That's not some kind of weird coincidence. That's being consistent with your core beliefs.Hblask and I had a (very polite) philosophical difference. I gave as an example the theatre I worked for. The city gave us $150,000 seed money. Lots of local conservatives bitched about that. Now, five years later, we return almost $150,000 A YEAR in tax revenue to the city, and we're still growing and will be here for decades to come. Obviously, an outstanding investment in terms of return. Philosophically, I think when an investment with that kind of potential presents itself to a city council, they should take it, just as I would as an individual investor. Henry said philosophically, even if the city could have that kind of return, they should pass up the investment in the interests of keeping government small. I can see his philosophy and he can see mine. They're different, and we won't agree, but we can see how each has good points. More importantly, we can see how we're both being consistent with our core beliefs.If you buy the idea that Republicans have internal consistency, it really only follows logically that they would govern poorly. And they do.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hblask and I had a (very polite) philosophical difference. I gave as an example the theatre I worked for. The city gave us $100,000 seed money. Lots of local conservatives bitched about that. Now, five years later, we return almost $150,000 A YEAR in tax revenue to the city. Obviously, an outstanding investment in terms of return. Philosophically, I think when an investment with that kind of potential presents itself to a city council, they should take it, just as I would as an individual investor. Henry said philosophically, even if the city could have that kind of return, they should pass up the investment in the interests of keeping government small. I can see his philosophy and he can see mine. They're different, and we won't agree, but we can see how each has good points. More importantly, we can see how we're both being consistent with our core beliefs.
See, it's stuff like this that prevents me from ever being a libertarian, as I think the government should develop cultural endeavors, and I support things like your theater more than I do social welfare programs, which I luke warmly support, the support of which I would surely trade away for expanded personal freedoms, if the trade was ever put to me.People say that funding for the arts is not in the role of government, but I completely disagree.Art and public works ( and preferably, artistic public works) are the only things a government does that last the test of time( well, that isn't abstract, like 'political ideas" or "scientific advancement") and I'm a big sucker for arts and science funding.
Link to post
Share on other sites
See, it's stuff like this that prevents me from ever being a libertarian, as I think the government should develop cultural endeavors, and I support things like your theater more than I do social welfare programs, which I luke warmly support, the support of which I would surely trade away for expanded personal freedoms, if the trade was ever put to me.
This is somewhat similar to me. When it comes to civil liberties, I am about as libertarian as they come, but I also believe in governmental social support systems such as a welfare program (though more tightly restricted and regulated than the one currently in place) as well as "cultural endeavors" such as this one. It really makes it difficult to throw my entire support behind a candidate of a 2 party political system, but if given the chance, I would make the libertarian choice and hope to find a way to replace the rest.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It really makes it difficult to throw my entire support behind a candidate of a 2 party political system, but if given the chance, I would make the libertarian choice and hope to find a way to replace the rest.
Given the chance, I would vote for a Mad Scientist, who had a domineering wife who loved the arts.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the chance, I would vote for a Mad Scientist, who had a domineering wife who loved the arts.
So I should marry Lolly?
Link to post
Share on other sites
So MacDaddy, Do you prefer to be the dominant or submissive one?
Truth be told, I am actually a switch, and enjoy all kinds of roles. There have been times where I thought I was one or the other, but the truth is, I enjoy all manner of things and kinks, and have given up trying to put myself into one box. I would never be "lifestyle" in either role, however. In terms of out of bedroom relationships, I basically need someone who is fiesty and combative, and likes to argue and doesn't arguments personally ( or better still, uses the arguments as fore play). Full submissives are too meek and don't have enough back bone. Full Dommes are too big of unreasonable cnts (which makes them hot, bedroom wise, but not relationship wise). So, I find myself intellectually and emtionally attracted to switches of some sort or another
Link to post
Share on other sites
Truth be told, I am actually a switch, and enjoy all kinds of roles. There have been times where I thought I was one or the other, but the truth is, I enjoy all manner of things and kinks, and have given up trying to put myself into one box.
I like the answer. It does make me feel a bit boring though. I'm mostly into non-kinky, mostly vaginal, standard intercourse. You know, the faggy hetero type.Edit- So how pissed do people get when you go completely off topic like this? Tonight I feel like I'm playing the Hornacek role to yours and Dutch's so-called Stockton/Malone thread derailment tandem.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the answer. It does make me feel a bit boring though. I'm mostly into non-kinky, mostly vaginal, standard intercourse. You know, the faggy hetero type.
I wouldn't be in a non-kinky relationship. I can have vanilla sex ( particularly when drunk and horny) but I enjoy kink so much more that being in a relationship with a purely vanillia sex girl would be unbearable, and I'd probably become so repressed I'd end up a gimp in a Leather daddy bar on the DL. Kink (or lack thereof) is a complete deal breaker for me.
Edit- So how pissed do people get when you go completely off topic like this? Tonight I feel like I'm playing the Hornacek role to yours and Dutch's so-called Stockton/Malone thread derailment tandem.
Usually, not very pissed. People I hope laugh at most of it, try to ignore some of the more disturbing parts of it, and usually it breaks out in threads that were lousy to begin with ( and sorry, nutz, but the idea that the republicans will never win another election is a lousy, absurd topic) . If it's a good topic and good thread, it will survive some shenanigans. If it's a bad thread, it deserves to be put out of it's misery.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't be in a non-kinky relationship. I can have vanilla sex ( particularly when drunk and horny) but I enjoy kink so much more that being in a relationship with a purely vanillia sex girl would be unbearable, and I'd probably become so repressed I'd end up a gimp in a Leather daddy bar on the DL. Kink (or lack thereof) is a complete deal breaker for me.
Oh my lady is in no way vanilla. I am by far the less kinky one. She has gotten me to do all sorts of dirty stuff and continually pushes my boundaries, but as far as your everyday practical sex, it's mostly standard, if vigorous and/or lengthy sex.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh my lady is in no way vanilla. I am by far the less kinky one. She has gotten me to do all sorts of dirty stuff and continually pushes my boundaries, but as far as your everyday practical sex, it's mostly standard, if vigorous and/or lengthy sex.
See, it really depends what you consider kink. Even if it isn't pulling out hot wax and whips and butt plugs and St andrew's crosses, it can still be kinky. For me kink is about the exchange of power, about one person controlling the sexual encounter, and the other submitting to that control. So, the sex can still be rather vanillia, but it's that control dynamic that I find to be hot, what form it takes is really incidental. You can still have "practical" kinky sex. I love that your lady is wild, by the way, she's going to corrupt you. Happened to me in college.
Link to post
Share on other sites
See, it really depends what you consider kink. Even if it isn't pulling out hot wax and whips and butt plugs and St andrew's crosses, it can still be kinky. For me kink is about the exchange of power, about one person controlling the sexual encounter, and the other submitting to that control. So, the sex can still be rather vanillia, but it's that control dynamic that I find to be hot, what form it takes is really incidental. You can still have "practical" kinky sex. I love that your lady is wild, by the way, she's going to corrupt you. Happened to me in college.
Yep. Wild is the correct description. She's been working on corrupting me for a while now, and I must say, there has been quite a bit of progress in that area. A lot of people would probably consider me fairly kinky at this point. Those people are normal though, and in the face of you and Dutch, they blush and scamper, I'm sure. But I must retire now. That same lady is going to have my balls in a jar if I sleep all day tomorrow and don't drive her back to school. Good night, my very large friend.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. Wild is the correct description. She's been working on corrupting me for a while now, and I must say, there has been quite a bit of progress in that area. A lot of people would probably consider me fairly kinky at this point. Those people are normal though, and in the face of you and Dutch, they blush and scamper, I'm sure. But I must retire now. That same lady is going to have my balls in a jar if I sleep all day tomorrow and don't drive her back to school. Good night, my very large friend.
Well, the amount of kink I've experienced in real life is a fraction ( and a smallish one, at that) compared to what I've seen online, a great deal of which I would never do in real life. Much of me and dutch is pure shock value, and we sort of have a game of chicken, where we see who can say the most fcked up and disturbing thing in the most matter of fact way, it's mostly shock value. Mostly.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Will we ever see another republican... Maybe.. but the MSM certainly doesnt helpAn Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage from the Washington Post OmbudsmanBy Deborah HowellSunday, November 9, 2008; Page B06 The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts. My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4. Numbers don't tell you everything, but they give you a sense of The Post's priorities. The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues. Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion." The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain. Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors -- like most of the national news media -- found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics. The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that. McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, and Obama won his on June 4. From then to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both. Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues. Counting from June 4, Obama was in 311 Post photos and McCain in 282. Obama led in most categories. Obama led 133 to 121 in pictures more than three columns wide, 178 to 161 in smaller pictures, and 164 to 133 in color photos. In black and white photos, the nominees were about even, with McCain at 149 and Obama at 147. On Page 1, they were even at 26 each. Post photo and news editors were surprised by my first count on Aug. 3, which showed a much wider disparity, and made a more conscious effort at balance afterward. Some readers complain that coverage is too poll-driven. They're right, but it's not going to change. The Post's polling was on the mark, and in some cases ahead of the curve, in focusing on independent voters, racial attitudes, low-wage voters, the shift of African Americans' support from Clinton to Obama and the rising importance of economic issues. The Post and its polling partner ABC News include 50 to 60 issues questions in every survey instead of just horse-race questions, so public attitudes were plumbed as well. The Post had a hard-working team on the campaign. Special praise goes to Dan Balz, the best, most level-headed, incisive political reporter and analyst in newspapers. His stories and "Dan Balz's Take" on washingtonpost.com were fair, penetrating and on the mark. His mentor, David S. Broder, was as sharp as ever. Michael Dobbs, the Fact Checker, also deserves praise for parsing campaign rhetoric for the overblown or just flat wrong. Howard Kurtz's Ad Watch was a sharp reality check. The Post's biographical pieces, especially the first ones -- McCain by Michael Leahy and Obama by David Maraniss -- were compelling. Maraniss demystified Obama's growing-up years; the piece on his mother and grandparents was a great read. Leahy's first piece on McCain's father and grandfather, both admirals, told me where McCain got his maverick ways as a kid -- right from the two old men. But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager. The Post had good coverage of voters, mainly by Krissah Williams Thompson and Kevin Merida. Anne Hull's stories from Florida, Michigan and Liberty University, and Wil Haygood's story from central Montana brought readers into voters' lives. Jose Antonio Vargas's pieces about campaigns and the Internet were standouts. One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska. In early coverage, I wasn't a big fan of the long-running series called "The Gurus" on consultants and important people in the campaigns. The Post has always prided itself on its political coverage, and profiles of the top dogs were probably well read by political junkies. But I thought the series was of no practical use to readers. While there were some interesting pieces in The Frontrunners series, none of them told me anything about where the candidates stood on any issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Obama handled his first press conference very well. And unlike many on here, I'm not at all unhappy with his choice for Chief of Staff. Chief of Staff is a position that requires a pragmatic pitbull which seems to describe Rahm Emanuel to a T. He will be the bad guy who takes the heat for some of Obama's decisions that won't please either the Republican Party or his own. And that will happen. So to me this choice is a smart one and hopefully indicative of other smart choices to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites
See, it's stuff like this that prevents me from ever being a libertarian, as I think the government should develop cultural endeavors, and I support things like your theater more than I do social welfare programs,
But by saying this, you've bought into The Big Lie: the notion that getting the federal government involved, you get *more* of what you want than if you had just kept the money locally. Love arts = love federal spending on arts. Love helping people = love federal bureaucrats helping people. I don't really see the connection, and certainly historically we have a lot of evidence otherwise.As for local communities doing stuff like this, I'm seriously moderating my position on these things. In the example SB gave, though, I don't think saying "we can increase the size of govt if we do this" is a good reason to do a project. Local govt should NOT be a for-profit venture. Now, if they say "every dollar we get is one dollar that we lower property taxes", and a majority of the community wants the project, I can live with it. It's still not a great idea, because there is no particular reason that people who are such failures in life that they have to take city council jobs are very good at selecting and setting up business ventures. But from a philosophical point of view, I no longer have a problem with communities doing this type of thing. Just practical objections.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But by saying this, you've bought into The Big Lie: the notion that getting the federal government involved, you get *more* of what you want than if you had just kept the money locally. Love arts = love federal spending on arts. Love helping people = love federal bureaucrats helping people. I don't really see the connection, and certainly historically we have a lot of evidence otherwise.As for local communities doing stuff like this, I'm seriously moderating my position on these things. In the example SB gave, though, I don't think saying "we can increase the size of govt if we do this" is a good reason to do a project. Local govt should NOT be a for-profit venture. Now, if they say "every dollar we get is one dollar that we lower property taxes", and a majority of the community wants the project, I can live with it. It's still not a great idea, because there is no particular reason that people who are such failures in life that they have to take city council jobs are very good at selecting and setting up business ventures. But from a philosophical point of view, I no longer have a problem with communities doing this type of thing. Just practical objections.
I'd say more that when you have projects like this in your tax base that you have better options than raising taxes when infrastructure projects come along that need to be done. So in some respects, you could say that having these projects allows you to keep property taxes lower instead of raising them when there's a maintenance project that needs to be done. If the government is allowed to keep a rainy day fund then when you have economic downturns such as now, you don't have to make cuts in essential services or raise taxes. To me community based projects are the essence of smaller government. The more community based projects that return a profit, the less the community depends on the state and feds. That gives more independence to those local communities. To me the stupidest thing that both Republicans & Libertarians do is to block such projects. By doing so, you only increase your local community's dependence on the state and federal monies with all the strings that come with them. This is the exact opposite of the result you desire which is less state and federal involvement in local communites.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...