The Goat Pen

You're high

Jungle Rat wrote:You're high

No, pretty low today, given Junior Seau

Why? Dude took the easy way out leaving his children without a father?

AlabamAlum wrote:There is no difference between the parties. We have Dempublicans and Republicrats.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/29 ... rio-loyola

Loyola wrote:Our generation faces a moment of historic decision. Perhaps never in American history have two more different visions of government been so evenly pitted against each other for the people to choose. In one vision, government is the center of public life, and economic freedom is equated with a dehumanizing descent into “social Darwinism.” In the other vision, limited government, economic freedom, and self-reliance are essential for a society to be both successful and virtuous, while the entitlement state creates a dehumanizing descent into enfeebled dependency. Down one path lies the road to Greek-style perdition; down the other lies a chance for renewal and resurgence.

If it is to be Mitt, starting with the Wednesday immediately after that day Romney is elected, we will all expereince a feeling of pride and admiration for our beloved nation that most of us have never fully experienced in our lifetimes, probably not since Ike was elected in 1952. It will be that uplifting, that inspirational.

As good as half this country felt the moment Barack Obama was President Elect, it will be even MORE SO for much more than half this country the moment Barack Obama is given his 80 days notice for termination.

What a bunch of horseshit. New boss, same as the old boss.

Jungle Rat wrote:Why? Dude took the easy way out leaving his children without a father?

After he tried to kill himself two years ago driving his car off the cliff, I would have hoped that his wife/ex-wife and mother and whatever he had for close family wold have stepped in and had him committed. We'll find out eventually, but I going to guess that 20 years of NFL head beatings and there is severe brain damage here. We was not the Junior Seau he was even 8 years ago, not intelectually that's for damn sure.

They should have helped him, save his life.

aTm wrote:What a bunch of horseshit. New boss, same as the old boss.

Great song, great lyric, but does not apply in this case.

Saying they are the same is like saying Reagan and Carter were the same.

First off, hate to burst your bubble, but Romney has a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning.

seriously, among the GOP candidates, who is most qualified to describe the similarities (to the moderates) between Romneycare and Obamacare than Willard Mitt Romney?

FYP.

The voters in Massachusetts voted for a moderate in Romney and got a moderate. Republicans will vote for a conservative in Romney and would, at least in a theoretical sense, get a moderate.

But barring an economic meltdown, Romney will get spanked just like all the other RINO nominees McCain, Dole and Bush 1.

Professor Tiger wrote:

seriously, among the GOP candidates, who is most qualified to describe the similarities (to the moderates) between Romneycare and Obamacare than Willard Mitt Romney?

FYP.

The voters in Massachusetts voted for a moderate in Romney and got a moderate. Republicans will vote for a conservative in Romney and would, at least in a theoretical sense, get a moderate.

But barring an economic meltdown, Romney will get spanked just like all the other RINO nominees McCain, Dole and Bush 1.

Tiger,

Not that is matters, but of all the GOP candidates this year, IYHO which one was the most conservative? Which one? And don't answer my question, with a question. I am conducting an important political experiment here and you are my guinea pig.

aTm wrote:First off, hate to burst your bubble, but Romney has a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning.

McCain had a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning. That was because modertes were sick of Republican presidents following the 2008 financial crisis (a crisis caused ENTIRELY by the people of this country being irreponsible about what they could realistically afford in housing, just don't put them on the spot about that.) McCain only made matters worse for himself when he selected the brain-dead woman to be his running mate. All she did was energize the rightwing base (that was voting for McCain anyway) all-the-while alienating every single moderate voter.

Romney will NOT duplicate that mistake. Lesson learned.

His running mate is a critical choice for moderates. He will choose a competant one.

I'm only 32 but every presidential election I've been around to see, it's been declared by both sides to be the most significant, most important election of our lifetimes, and that the differences between the two candidates could not be more stark. It's how you energize your base. Tell them that the other side is completely evil and doesn't have a single valid idea and that the country will be forever ruined if you don't vote Obama/Romney in 2012.

Tick-

What IB is trying to tell you is that that Mitt Romney's principles depend on what level of government he's trying to win office in. It's dangerous to let the national govt. make your healthcare decisions for you; not so with the state government.

You don't want some know-nothing govt bureaucrat making your healthcare decisions for you, do you? I mean, some state employee, yeah, that's cool. But a Federal employee?? OUTRAGEOUS TYRANNY

Dr. Strangelove wrote:I'm only 32 but every presidential election I've been around to see, it's been declared by both sides to be the most significant, most important election of our lifetimes, and that the differences between the two candidates could not be more stark. It's how you energize your base. Tell them that the other side is completely evil and doesn't have a single valid idea and that the country will be forever ruined if you don't vote Obama/Romney in 2012.

I understand what you are saying, but our spending problem is damning our children with debt. That is what makes this current election just a wee bit different than 2004 or even 2008 (before we know what we were getting.) Our current President is too much of a liberal pussy to do anything about the debt (other than borrow more), so fuck him.

Here is another good reason for voting for Romney, establishment Republicans do not like his immigration policy. The college basketball reference would have been better if Ann had referred to Kentucky.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-05-01.html

First Wife Ann wrote:Democrats look at immigration as a way to increase their voter rolls, and Republicans look at immigration as a way to get cheap labor for big business. Any Americans who disagree with our all-Third World immigration flow are called "racists."

This is why Democrats and establishment Republicans are desperate to talk Mitt Romney into flip-flopping on his immigration positions. He's with Americans.

In a novel thought, Romney proposes that we grant citizenship to people who would make America a better place, repeatedly saying that he would like to "staple a green card" to the diplomas of foreigners who receive Ph.D.s in math or the hard sciences. He may be the first national politician in two generations who thinks we should use legal immigration to get our average up.

It would be as if the University of North Carolina recruited only the top basketball players in the county, instead of -- out of fairness -- taking players of all skill levels, and their relatives. What? They do that? Way to go, Carolina!

Romney is also one of the few politicians who acknowledge the danger of creating magnets for more illegal aliens streaming across the border.

During a primary debate last September, Romney said simply: "Of course we build a fence, and of course we do not give in-state tuition credits to people who come here illegally. That only attracts people to come here and take advantage of America's great beneficence." (These are the positions he took and enforced as governor of one of the most liberal states in the country.)

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Tick-

What IB is trying to tell you is that that Mitt Romney's principles depend on what level of government he's trying to win office in. It's dangerous to let the national govt. make your healthcare decisions for you; not so with the state government.

You don't want some know-nothing govt bureaucrat making your healthcare decisions for you, do you? I mean, some state employee, yeah, that's cool. But a Federal employee?? OUTRAGEOUS TYRANNY

That is not what I am saying.

I am saying that Massachusetts is a state. Federalism gives Massachusetts the right to create state laws (unique to its own citizens of that state) that allow it to "self-lobotomize." People of that state that don't like those laws, can move to another state. And the citizens of Massachusetts that stay, if they are really pissed off about Romneycare, they can elect state representatives to get rid of it.

I'm not moving to another country. With Obamacare, I'm fucked everywhere, in every state.

More to the point, Obamacare is in direct violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW that mandates I purchase anything. Only a State Government can create a purchase mandate which is why some states mandate I purchase auto insurance even if I DON'T own a car! Romneycare is NOT in violation of the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment is only valid at the Federal level.

State governments and state legislatures have more power to create laws than Federal legislators. That is by design, a product of Federalism. Federalism says that if I rape a woman in Texas I might get the death penalty, but do that in Massachusetts, and I get 5 years in MCI Walpole, Federalism. I know you are only 32, but I think you might find it interesting that a state government can do much, MUCH MORE than just forcing you to buy something. A state government can form its own state sponsored RELIGION!!!! The US Constitution prohibits the Federal government from doing that, but technically a state can do that, yes it can. (What a state can't do, is force anyone in that state to worship in that religion as that would be in violation of the US Constitution.)

Romney has a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning


I love it when delusional people think like this.

Toemeesleather wrote:Romney has a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning


I love it when delusional people think like this.

The problem I have with that comment, is it is ignoring the reasons why Obama won and McCain lost. There are some legitimate reasons why McCain lost Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Florida, Ohio, and New Hampshire (states Romney will not lose.) 2008 is not 2012 and Obama isn't nearly as popular today as GWB was in May of 2004.

Not that is matters, but of all the GOP candidates this year, IYHO which one was the most conservative? Which one? And don't answer my question, with a question. I am conducting an important political experiment here and you are my guinea pig.

The most conservative candidate was the non-Romney - you know, the one that 60+% of Republicans voted for in the primaries/caucuses.

Professor Tiger wrote:

Not that is matters, but of all the GOP candidates this year, IYHO which one was the most conservative? Which one? And don't answer my question, with a question. I am conducting an important political experiment here and you are my guinea pig.

The most conservative candidate was the non-Romney - you know, the one that 60+% of Republicans voted for in the primaries/caucuses.

STOP BEING AN ASSHOLE!

When you have 5 people running for the GOP nomination and one of them gets 40% of the vote (and the other 4 chop the rest) it doesn't mean that 60% of the GOP voters think that Romney is not the most conservative, NOR does it mean that they refuse to vote for the man in the general election. Stop listening to MSDNC and CNN talking points, it makes you ignorant.

Don't be a douche. Answer the fucking question.

I'll answer the question...Santorum and Bachmann were unquestionably more conservative on social issues than Romney. Bachmann was well to his right on economic policy as well. Probably also Herman Cain. Dr. Ron Paul was certainly a stronger believer in free markets.

So in the end, much like McCain, the R's chose the most blandly moderate candidate that was available.