Jump to content

Traveler19491

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    598
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Traveler19491

  1. This whole, "I'm just testing the waters, trying to determine support" thing is pure BS. They are all (including Hillary) manipulating the Federal Election Commission rules regarding campaign finance. As long as they're not a "declared" candidate they have a lot more flexibility as to reporting requirements and coordination between campaign officials and donors. Once they declare, a whole new set of rules take effect. There have been several complaints filed against Rubio, Bush, Walker, and some others. May have been complaints against Clinton, but I haven't seen any. I just wish to hell they'd get private money out of the election process altogether.

  2. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    Secretary Clinton carries a lot of baggage, and she is not guaranteed victory as some on the left presume; but she will be very difficult to beat. Republicans need to ignore the hyper-partisan nuts and choose a strong ticket that appeals to moderate voters in purple states. Normally Governor Bush would be an ideal candidate but his last name is going to make it hard for many people to vote for him. I like Senator Portman or Governor Huntsman as possibilities. And as a wildcard for VP, how about Democrat Senator Jim Webb? He was President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy and could help the GOP win Virginia.

    Your assertions are pretty much spot on, with the exception of your suggestion to the Republicans to "ignore the hyper-partisan nuts". While that is indeed exactly what they should do, it ain't never gonna happen, for the simple reason that the hyper-partisan ones constitute the majority of the voter turnout in the primaries, and they like their meat raw. So all of the occupants of the tiny Republican clown car are forced to cow-tow to the mouth breathers and put on their Acme Rocket Skates to see who can get farthest to the right the fastest. The winner then has to do his/her best to try to reverse course and tip toe back toward the center during the national campaign, hoping the wing nuts don't see, and that the middle wasn't watching. But the problem for that person then becomes political attack adds reminding voters of some of the bat sh*t crazy things they said during the primaries. Until the Republicans can find a way to divorce themselves from the extreme right it's going to get increasingly difficult for them to win the White House back. Not that they can't. The Dems are perfectly capable of shooting their own toes off. And though I do think that Hillary will probably win, being a serious lefty, I wouldn't trust her as far as I can drop kick an anvil. Her mortgage is held by Wall Street, and she's not about to piss them off.

    • Like 1
  3. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    I think a blanket minimum salary is a bad thing to have.

    The reasons are:

    - a minimum salary disregards personal situations, particulary living costs of employees. For example, one empoyee could live with his family and have no accomodation cost, while the other could have rent to pay. What about small businesses that don't do enough money to pay everyone a minimum salary?

    - expansion of employee numbers. this leads to an expansion of accomodation renters, and expansion of people who are unable to subsist without a salary, as opposed to small businesses. it expands the number of people in the economy who just are "dependent", at first from their salary, and when that fails, they will be dependent on welfare and other people's taxes.

    - another reason is that higher minimum wage causes expansion of mass consumption. Mass consumption is nefarious because people buy things that will be worthless in 5 years time.

    - higher wages cause an expansion of credit, and with the expansion of credit more money will flow into different markets, one of them being the real estate market, where prices will continue to rise, putting real estate progressively completely out of anyone's reach.

    - higher minimum wage makes it more difficult to privately employ other people. look at western countries where even families that are well-off can't afford staff.

    Finally, I think it is laughable that the government wants to raise minimum wage when at the same time it is unable to pay police officers enough to ensure they don't need to accept bribes to pay their family's bills.

    I'm not really sure what the end result is that your treatise is aiming for. You seem to be proposing a society where the workers live purely on the benevolence of the employer.

    - Why should a person who lives with family make less than someone who rents an apartment? The extra money saved by living with family could be used for the overall betterment of the entire family. As to the businesses that don't have ("do") enough money to pay everyone a minimum salary...if your profit margin is so small that you can't afford to pay your employees a minimum, then you either have a bad business model, your other expenses are too high, or you have under priced your product. Or, maybe you have too many employees?

    - An "expansion of accommodation renters" is bad...why? Then you posit that people requiring a salary is also a bad thing, suggesting that every single person should be an independent business person, which is a totally unsustainable economic model. Actually, an expansion of employees is something that every business should hope for, as that would indicate that the business is growing.

    - An "expansion of mass consumption". Unless you are ready to go back to a totally agrarian economy, mass consumption is the driving force behind capitalism. And unless you plan to buy nothing more than products made of granite, pretty much everything is going to have a life span in the range of 3 - 10 years. Stuff wears out.

    - "...with the expansion of credit more money will flow into different markets..." Ummm, you were apparently out for the entirety of Economics 101. This is exactly how capitalist markets work, and is deemed a GOOD thing. Markets expanding creates new jobs, which raises everyone's economic situation...unless those markets are controlled by oligarchs, which you are beginning to sound more and more like.

    - OK, yup, oligarch. "Look at western countries where even families that are well off can't afford staff." Goddam working class! Always whining about wanting more! How can I pay them another 60 baht a day and still keep the cook, the 5 maids, the butler, the gardener, or the chauffeur? And that's to say NOTHING about the crew for either the yacht or my two jets! These peons have absolutely NO sensitivity to the needs of someone at my station in life. Screw 'em...let 'em eat cake!

    • Like 1
  4. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    If you ask 301 B for something worth 299 B, there will be no transaction. It's as simple as that. Raising the minimum wage without increasing productivity just leads to higher unemployment. Some will get 60 B more per day, but some will get 300 B less per day.

    If you really want to improve the lives of workers you should promote incentives to increase productivity rather than populist and counter-productive measures like a minimum wage. Education, automation, research and development, investment, free trade and competition all help to boost productivity long term.

    Your first premise is totally flawed. The worth of the item is determined by the purchaser. Case in point: I enjoy my SangSom. I can buy that in a number of places, including 7-11 for 299 baht, or a little mom and pop place a bit further away for 265 baht. Suppose I really, really want a SangSom and coke. Where do I buy it? Always at the mom and pop? No. Sometimes I run to 7-11 because it is closer to where I live. So factors other than just the "worth" of the product have to be factored in.

    I would also debate your second assertion, that any rise in the minimum wage will necessary lead to layoffs. This same argument is consistently trotted out in the US whenever a rise in the minimum wage is proposed. The conservatives use this one every single time, and they have yet to ever provide supporting documentation. Are there some layoffs? Undoubtedly, especially in businesses that are already skating on thin ice. However, overall there has yet to be a net loss of jobs. In fact, most of the states or municipalities that independently boost the minimum wage tend to see job growth due to the increased economic activity that results from the higher wages. Those living on a minimum wage do not save that money, and they do not invest that money. They spend it, immediately. That money goes directly back into the economy and typically increases employment.

    • Like 1
  5. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    The law enforcement officer pulled the man over for a minor infraction.
    The man was asked to stay in his car while the officer ran the ID check.
    1. The man in the car disobeyed and got out of the car and was ordered back inside his car.
    2. He disobeyed a second time and got out again.
    3. Next infraction, he ran.
    4. He was caught & resisted arrest.
    The policeman used a taser. Fair enough.
    5. He knocked the taser out of the officers hand.
    6. He ran again.

    How much guff is an officer expected to take?

    Well, it would seem, according to the Supreme Court, a hell of a lot more than this one did. According to the 1985 SCOTUS ruling in Tennessee vs. Garner, a police officer may NOT use lethal force on a fleeing suspect, unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect represents a significant threat of death, or serious physical injury, to the officer or others. Being as Mr. Scott, at the point when Slager opened fire, did not represent either of those threats, then Slager was acting way outside of his legal parameters.

  6. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    King's been reigning since the late 1940s and now he's in his late 80s and one of the richest men around. Less reason to have the blues when you can afford a life of luxury on the back of brainwashed fans who live in relative poverty. Nice.

    It would appear from the tenor of your post that you're not a fan of BB and Lucile. Yes, the man has been tearing it up since the 40's, and his music has captivated millions during that period, most of whom do NOT live in relative poverty. Just because you are possessed of a complete lack of taste for the blues has zero relevance to the degree of his talent. I would suggest that any individual who provides you with entertainment in any area that interests you, but possibly not the majority of the rest of the planet, is probably also financially comfortable due to his/her talent. Does that make YOU brainwashed? A little respect for the man and the years he spent perfecting his art, as well as his accomplishments, would be nice.

  7. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    One thing which Mitt (and his VP candidate) mentioned during the presidential campaign which irked me:

    In their eagerness to appeal to armed forces folks and right-wing conservatives, they said something to the effect; "even if the military doesn't ask for added funds, we're going to increase their funding." Already, US military spending is astronomical, particularly at that time, when there were 2 wars going on. The ways in which the armed forces waste money is legendary. Yet, there was Mitt and Ryan saying, in essence, "no matter that you waste millions of taxpayers' dollars per day, we're going to lavish truckloads more money on you, more than you even asked for in your budget requests."

    Here's a graph to illustrate your very good point. If we halved the defense budget we'd still be outspending China and Russia combined, the only two countries that could conceivably mount a legitimate military threat to us, by a considerable margin.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101440355#.

    • Like 2
  8. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    Unfortunately, an inordinate amount of posts on this forum, most especially when dealing with politics, quickly descend into name calling and insults. But the Thaivisa warriors on here, secure in their anonymity, are too happy to sling mud.

    alt=whistling.gif>

    Give me a break clown. Go back to school and come back when you can post something intelligent.

    A not inappropriate comeback, Ulysses. However, if you've read all of my posts you would note that I later went back and apologized for that unfortunate lapse in judgement...which I don't recall ever seeing you do.

    • Like 2
  9. Unfortunately, an inordinate amount of posts on this forum, most especially when dealing with politics, quickly descend into name calling and insults. But the Thaivisa warriors on here, secure in their anonymity, are too happy to sling mud. I would hazard a guess that, were we all sitting around a table and sharing a few beers, our discussions might become animated, perhaps even heated, but the level of juvenile behavior exhibited on here is amazing. Is it not possible to disagree about politics, or any other subject, without acting like a bunch of prepubescents at a Valentine's Day dance, arguing over some girl we both want to dance with? Good god. Whatever happened to civil debate? It is extremely unlikely that my liberal views are ever going to change the minds of the conservatives on here, or anywhere else for that matter. Likewise, the Tea Partyers haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of changing mine. So why not discuss things like adults, state our views, give our supporting evidence, and then debate. Not whine. Of course I'm probably just exercising my fingertips with this post.

  10. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    I am not normally a fan of Charles Krauthammer on Fox but he gave a pretty good assessment of the potential GOP candidates the other day.

    In short he appeared to dismiss most of them including Bush as a serious opponents of Clinton.

    Personally I would like a new Democrat to challenge Hillary.

    Agreed. I would love to see Elizabeth Warren run, but she has apparently ruled herself out.

  11. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    ***SIGH*** Naturally I meant "debate" between intelligent individuals with differing viewpoints who can cite non-partisan, independent sources. Not slugs who are skilled at nothing more than cutting and pasting pundit comments that agree with their particular viewpoints. Sorry, but I'm not into the cutting and pasting wars. Too much like what my ex used to call, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, and counter nyah, nyah, nyah". I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, but on her worst day she is light years ahead of W. At least she can talk in complete, grammatically correct sentences, and doesn't have the rest of the first world nations wondering <deleted> is wrong with American voters. Oh, and she apparently can't see Russia from her front porch, and doesn't think it's cute that her kids use the dog as a step stool to reach the sink. And can state which newspapers she reads.

    Posts don't get much sillier than yours.

    Your off the wall comparison of Hillary to Sarah is ridiculous in the extreme.

    In the first place, Palin never said she could see Russia from her front porch. She said Russia could be seen from parts of Alaska...which is true.

    As somebody that owns five golden retrievers and has a six year old nephew that rides them around the yard, what her son did is childish behavior and any criticism of it is just as childlike.

    Thirdly, I don't really care what newspapers Palin reads but the main stream media and progressive liberals can't seem to get enough of her, even though she will very likely not be the Republican nominee for any national office.

    My point in referencing those three links is NOBODY can tell us what Hillary's accomplishments were during her tenure as Secretary of State. Not Hillary, the Democratic National Committee or the State Department can come up with an answer to that little poser.

    You want an intelligent conversation?

    Then you try answering the question...What were Hillary Clinton's accomplishments as Secretary of State?

    Even more broadly based, try and tell us what she has accomplished on her own during her long career, other than marrying William Jefferson Clinton.

    But then..."At this point, what difference does it make"?

    I realize that you couldn't give a rat's hind quarters what newspapers Palin reads, but apparently intelligent voters do, and since she recently appeared at the Iowa summit, and then, on Hannity, insinuated that she might run again, I think a lot of people would, in fact, be interested in what sources influence her thinking. That estimation would be backed up by the fact that that one interview did more to damage her reputation among centrist voters than any other single misstep, among myriad, that she made. People who care about their vote have this silly feeling that they'd like their President, or Vice-President, to be well informed, and that their information come from legitimate sources. The fact that she could not muster one single reference at least seemed to indicate that she doesn't read, at least not publications dealing with national or foreign affairs. That would be problematical.

    I am well aware that Palin never uttered the catch phrase about Russia. I was using sarcasm to illustrate a point.

    As far as Hillary's accomplishments.....

    http://theweek.com/articles/468265/hillary-clintons-9-most-memorable-moments-secretary-state

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/02/19/hillary-clintons-accomplishments-speak-for-themselves

    You asked, so there's an answer to "that little poser". You may not agree, but you stated, categorically, that "NOBODY can tell us what Hillary's accomplishments were." Well, you only asked for an answer. I've given you two.

    Thank you for the response. Now let me address that response.

    First, concerning Sarah Palin. If you honestly believe she has a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming a nationally elected figure, you are well behind the power curve. The main stream media is convinced she is a joke, Hollywood considers she is a joke and nearly every liberal TV news outlets consider her a joke. If you think for a second she can overcome all the negative publicity a campaign from her would garner to be elected, or even nominated in the first place, your knowledge of national politics needs a refresher course.

    I think Palin is a sincere, honest person that isn't the right fit for the present day national scene. She is an asset in other areas but not on a national ticket. If you wish to be enamored with her failings and not focus on any real contenders in the Republican party...be my guest.

    Now, on to Hillary's top 9 "accomplishments". Guess the author couldn't find 10 so had to stop at 9. By the way, the article is titled as her 9 "most memorable moments" rather than her 9 "accomplishments".

    Let's look at them:

    1. The liberation of Libya

    Yep. Libya is liberated from Ghadaffi all right. It only took the death of four Americans in Benghazi to turn this memorable moment into a disaster. We won't even talk about the current state of affairs in Libya. What this proved is neither one of them were capable of answering that 3 AM phone call.

    2. The opening-up of Myanmar

    The Generals in Myanmar wanted to open it or it would still be closed. What impact her diplomatic skills had on their decision is unknown and very likely minimal at best.

    3. Playing peacemaker in the Middle East

    How could I possibly have missed this one? the Middle East is a haven of peaceful protests with Israel and all those surrounding Muslim countries roasting marshmallows over the campfire and singing Kumbaya.

    4. Freeing a Chinese dissident (Really a popular move in Boise, Idaho)

    5. Killing Osama bin Laden (Standing shoulder to shoulder with Seal Team 6)

    6. Tightening sanctions on Iran (Sanctions started in 1979. She tightened them so Obama could relax them.)

    7. Isolating Syria's Assad (Yet another smashing success in the Middle East.)

    8. Fighting for women's rights (Women are still not driving in Saudi and female genital mutilation is rising in the UK. Mission accomplished)

    9. Becoming a pop icon. cheesy.gif.pagespeed.ce.HaOxm9--ZvISAZ3- alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20>

    I won't answer your second link other than to restate my question. What has she accomplished on her own during her long career, other than marrying William Jefferson Clinton.

    Without the name recognition and her "stand by my man" she would have accomplished nothing on her own, in particular the New York Senate seat.

    I don't think she can win an election if she gets the nomination. We will see.

    Like I said, I didn't think you would agree, and to be perfectly honest, I don't find them all that impressive myself. But you had said, "...NOBODY...", and I just felt like that merited a response. No, I don't think Palin can now, or ever will, make a legitimate contender for the nomination, let alone the Presidency. I have no doubt that, in her heart of hearts, she is sincere in her beliefs, but sincerity alone does not a good politician make. And I would take issue with your contention that, "She is an asset in other areas...". Aside from being able to draw the Tea Party subscribers who are plagued by an inability to construct a grammatically correct protest sign, she is rapidly becoming a liability for the Republicans. Even Bill O'Reilly recently panned her, along with Trump, saying that their candidacies would make a good "reality show". But no, I don't think I'll ever have to lose any sleep over a Palin Presidency.

    As to Hillary's chances...let's just say that I'm not impressed with her as a potential President, any more than I was with her tenure as Secretary of State. But, unless the Republicans can come up with someone with some real luster (and at this point the field is pretty poor), Hillary just might pull it off. Time will tell.

  12. If the Secretary of State is appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, I do not find that a "win", regardless of your definitions (which I do not find fits the situation). But it isn't worth the debate. As for you never claiming to be a "respected intellectual" and that must include me, please let me remind you that solely based on three sentences, you managed to discern my level of intelligence, that I am not qualified to debate, and that my schooling must have been remiss since I need to go back. So please do not include my intelligence, my opinion, or even my lack of facts (and why would one need to include facts for a personal statement) with you desire to debase me. Standing by your previous statements of ludicrous proportions is fine.....it merely asserts that you have a need to belittle other, which I find offensive. Oh, and I still think Hillary was a lousy Sec of State....and I don't need any "facts" to support that opinion.

    And to you I owe an apology. I was out of line in making disparaging allusions to your education, your intellectual capacity, or your ability/qualifications to debate. That is not my style. You and I may disagree politically, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and to express such. And any disagreements we may have do not give me the right to belittle you in any way. Again, my apologies.

  13. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    ***SIGH*** Naturally I meant "debate" between intelligent individuals with differing viewpoints who can cite non-partisan, independent sources. Not slugs who are skilled at nothing more than cutting and pasting pundit comments that agree with their particular viewpoints. Sorry, but I'm not into the cutting and pasting wars. Too much like what my ex used to call, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, and counter nyah, nyah, nyah". I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, but on her worst day she is light years ahead of W. At least she can talk in complete, grammatically correct sentences, and doesn't have the rest of the first world nations wondering <deleted> is wrong with American voters. Oh, and she apparently can't see Russia from her front porch, and doesn't think it's cute that her kids use the dog as a step stool to reach the sink. And can state which newspapers she reads.

    Posts don't get much sillier than yours.

    Your off the wall comparison of Hillary to Sarah is ridiculous in the extreme.

    In the first place, Palin never said she could see Russia from her front porch. She said Russia could be seen from parts of Alaska...which is true.

    As somebody that owns five golden retrievers and has a six year old nephew that rides them around the yard, what her son did is childish behavior and any criticism of it is just as childlike.

    Thirdly, I don't really care what newspapers Palin reads but the main stream media and progressive liberals can't seem to get enough of her, even though she will very likely not be the Republican nominee for any national office.

    My point in referencing those three links is NOBODY can tell us what Hillary's accomplishments were during her tenure as Secretary of State. Not Hillary, the Democratic National Committee or the State Department can come up with an answer to that little poser.

    You want an intelligent conversation?

    Then you try answering the question...What were Hillary Clinton's accomplishments as Secretary of State?

    Even more broadly based, try and tell us what she has accomplished on her own during her long career, other than marrying William Jefferson Clinton.

    But then..."At this point, what difference does it make"?

    I realize that you couldn't give a rat's hind quarters what newspapers Palin reads, but apparently intelligent voters do, and since she recently appeared at the Iowa summit, and then, on Hannity, insinuated that she might run again, I think a lot of people would, in fact, be interested in what sources influence her thinking. That estimation would be backed up by the fact that that one interview did more to damage her reputation among centrist voters than any other single misstep, among myriad, that she made. People who care about their vote have this silly feeling that they'd like their President, or Vice-President, to be well informed, and that their information come from legitimate sources. The fact that she could not muster one single reference at least seemed to indicate that she doesn't read, at least not publications dealing with national or foreign affairs. That would be problematical.

    I am well aware that Palin never uttered the catch phrase about Russia. I was using sarcasm to illustrate a point.

    As far as Hillary's accomplishments.....

    http://theweek.com/articles/468265/hillary-clintons-9-most-memorable-moments-secretary-state

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/02/19/hillary-clintons-accomplishments-speak-for-themselves

    You asked, so there's an answer to "that little poser". You may not agree, but you stated, categorically, that "NOBODY can tell us what Hillary's accomplishments were." Well, you only asked for an answer. I've given you two.

  14. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    I had no idea you could WIN Secretary of State, only that there is a vote on the confirmation. You can't WIN if you need to first be nominated. And she was a lousy Sec of State anyways.

    My, what an interesting comment. And yet we refer to the NOMINEE of one of the two parties as "WINNING" the election. One has to persuade a majority of Senators to VOTE in favor of their NOMINATION, and the WINNING vote determines if the individual will be confirmed. Even the media refers to a Presidential nominee as winning or losing the confirmation. As to the quality of her service, that is open to legitimate debate, of which, I am afraid, you are not qualified. Give me a break clown. Go back to school and come back when you can post something intelligent.

    It seems to me that WIN indicates a conflict, a contest. Someone who is appointed has no conflict, and further, asking a group to confirm if this selection is acceptable does not, to me, constitute a "win". As for myself, since you have no idea of my level of education, background, or really anything, I must construe your non-flattering comments (which has a monotonous continuation throughout many of your posts) to indicate that to protect what must be low self-esteem, you must denigrate others in an attempt to allude to an apparent delusional pulpit, when in fact a true, respected intellectual does not need to succumb to such nugatory actions. Perhaps you should look at your own Neanderthal knuckle dragging cretin remarks.....

    Merriam Webster: win (intransitive verb), to succeed at arriving at a place or a state. You were the one who insisted on starting an argument based solely on semantics. The dictionary backs up my use of the word, one that individuals possessing a degree in journalism also subscribe to. Your statement, "It seems to me..." illustrates that your position is nothing more than your personal opinion. Also, in a Senatorial confirmation hearing, there is in fact, "a conflict, a contest". The party in opposition to the White House is often seeking to block the nomination, while the party aligned with the White House is seeking to confirm.

    Merriam Webster: conflict (noun), 2a: competitive or opposing action of incompatibles: antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons)......Merriam Webster: contest (noun), to make the subject of dispute, contention, or litigation; especially: dispute, challenge.

    A Senatorial confirmation hearing satisfies all of those definitions, ergo she won her confirmation ( http://www.inquisitr.com/16034/hillary-clinton-wins-confirmation-as-secretary-of-state/ ). You wanted to get into a conflict over a matter of semantics, so there you are. Your determination to hang onto your personal restrictive definition of the word is based on nothing more than your personal opinion.

    My comments about an individual being a knuckle dragging cretin were directed at one person who made a disparaging, racist remark aimed at a man whose heroic actions saved lives. I stand by my estimation of the author's character and mental capacity. However, your original snarky comment ("I had no idea you could WIN Secretary of State...") was intended to belittle my usage of a word in a journalistcally accepted context, and was a "non-flattering comment" in its own right, revealing your own capacity for nugatory actions (thanks for that one, by the way. I learned a new word. Love it!) My self esteem is just dandy, thank you very much. And what the hell is, "an apparent attempt to allude to a delusional pulpit"? I have to admit, I've never heard of a "delusional pulpit". I never made claim to be a "respected intellectual", but for you to exclude me from that class must mean that you feel yourself included, otherwise how would you know whether or not I am one? Now that seems a touch egotistical. No, Sparky, my sole aim on this forum is to debate facts. I admit to a liberal bias, but I do try to use facts, and when I am using my own opinion I state it as such. I won't debate Hillary's success or lack thereof as Secretary of State. I'm no fan. The aim of my post about her "wins" was to illustrate that the individual who labeled her a "loser" wasn't using facts.

  15. ***SIGH*** Naturally I meant "debate" between intelligent individuals with differing viewpoints who can cite non-partisan, independent sources. Not slugs who are skilled at nothing more than cutting and pasting pundit comments that agree with their particular viewpoints. Sorry, but I'm not into the cutting and pasting wars. Too much like what my ex used to call, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, and counter nyah, nyah, nyah". I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, but on her worst day she is light years ahead of W. At least she can talk in complete, grammatically correct sentences, and doesn't have the rest of the first world nations wondering &lt;deleted&gt; is wrong with American voters. Oh, and she apparently can't see Russia from her front porch, and doesn't think it's cute that her kids use the dog as a step stool to reach the sink. And can state which newspapers she reads.

    • Like 1
  16. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    Of course. For most Republicans, their dislike of the man in the White House has nothing to do with him being "black".

    Ulysses, for the most part I have a reasonably high regard for your comments. You are one of the few thinking conservatives on here, but I have to call you on this one. A party that is amenable to the likes of Ted Nugent, who called Obama a "subhuman mongrel", and then invites him to their fund raisers, and is OK with having Steve Scalese, who spoke to a white supremacist group, be the majority whip, and ne'er a word of condemnation, is a party that has most definitely got problems with a black DEMOCRAT being President. Yes, they would back Carson, or Rice, were they to win the primaries, but that would only be because they had no choice. There have been way too many comments about Obama's race from the lunatic fringe of the Republican party, with only feigned disavowal coming from the powers that be, for anyone to seriously believe that the Republicans totally embrace a black man as President. They never really even liked Colin Powell.

    • Like 1
  17. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    I had no idea you could WIN Secretary of State, only that there is a vote on the confirmation. You can't WIN if you need to first be nominated. And she was a lousy Sec of State anyways.

    My, what an interesting comment. And yet we refer to the NOMINEE of one of the two parties as "WINNING" the election. One has to persuade a majority of Senators to VOTE in favor of their NOMINATION, and the WINNING vote determines if the individual will be confirmed. Even the media refers to a Presidential nominee as winning or losing the confirmation. As to the quality of her service, that is open to legitimate debate, of which, I am afraid, you are not qualified. Give me a break clown. Go back to school and come back when you can post something intelligent.

  18. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    Bush Romney etc. and even talk of Palin or Trump.

    Is this the best the GOP can muster.

    Looks to me like the Democrats could put a sack of potatoes in the White House if they wanted to.

    To win the Republican party's nomination you need to court the conservative right, but doing so will cost you the centre in a Presidential election and if you can't claim the centre, you aren't winning anything.

    True. The Republicans had such success in the mid-terms due mostly to the fact that the center tends to mostly ignore mid-terms, and it's pretty much the hard core that votes, and hard core conservatives turn out in much larger numbers than Democrats. Add to that the fact that most Democratic candidates in the most recent mid-terms were, for some reason, convinced that aligning themselves with Obama would not be a good idea, and they had little to run on. However, the upcoming Presidential election will be a totally different ball of wax, I'm thinking. The first week in office with their new majority, and what did Republicans do? Took dead aim at Social Security, abortion, and trying to throw out even more overtime protections for regular workers. Yes, they absolutely have the average person's best interests at heart. If they are not very, very careful, the Democrats are going to have super tankers full of ammunition to use against them. It's most likely that Obama will continue bringing up populist suggestions/programs that appeal to the middle and working classes, and programs to help the poor and reform immigration, the Republicans will shoot them all down, as well as continue blocking nominations and anything else that he wants done. The Republicans will continue to alienate African Americans, women, Latinos, and minorities of all stripes, all of whom are near to eclipsing white Americans as a majority. This is all going to make for ridiculously easy attack adds in 2016.

    • Like 2
  19. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    He deserves criticism. If that was the best the Republicans had to offer, they deserved to lose, too.


    Sounds like you bought the MS media smears, distortions and propaganda, hook line and sinker - no surprise there. Luckily, a lot of people have woken up to how they were manipulated.

    July 2, 2014 - Obama Is First As Worst President Since WWII, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More Voters Say Romney Would Have Been Better.
    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056

    However, if one actually uses CURRENT information, one finds that the President's numbers are doing rather well...much better than W's at the same point in time. http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/14/obama-job-rating-ticks-higher-views-of-nations-economy-turn-more-positive/

    And in your Quinnipiac poll, Obama only lost to W by 5 points. No, it wasn't so much of a smear campaign (are you actually saying that Rush, Sean, Bill, all of the fun kids at Faux News, et al didn't say ANYTHING of a "smear" nature about Obama? Seriously?), as it was Mitt's own case of foot-in-mouth disease. Case in point...the "47%" thing didn't exactly help him.

  20. <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

    I have no crystal ball, and have no idea who the next President will be.


    You and - despite all the spin - everyone else on this thread. Hillary Clinton was the clear front-runner in 2008 too, but she did not even get the nomination.

    That is quite true. The problem that Hillary faces is that she is viewed with serious suspicion by the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party, and is seen as being way too friendly with, and accommodating to, Wall Street. What I see potentially happening is that Obama will continue what he has begun, a major program of populist proposals that will wind up appealing strongly to swing voters. While none of those proposals will stand a chance of getting through the Republican controlled Congress, the Dems will use that as campaign fodder, and then a much more populist candidate, like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, could conceivably unseat Hillary. The Republicans would like that, because Warren and Sanders are much more unknown quantities, and would be easier to campaign against. However, Obama was pretty much unknown, until he came out of nowhere and got himself elected. It will be a very interesting election season.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...