Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
The US GOP Primary Results/Prediction thread [UPDATE: Santorum suspends campaign]

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 22 NEXT
 

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:
Just an update, Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina primary very handily. Romney came in second but a fair bit behind him. Santorum got third a fair bit behind Romney and Paul finished fourth.

Well now each candidate except Paul has won a primary which makes Florida all the more important.

I called that Seekster. Romney wasn't going to win South Carolina in a million years. For the people of that state, religion first, everything else a distant second.

Gingrich won't win the overall nomination, not if the GOP has any want for the presidency.

And you are right, Florida's winner will probably be the GOP nod.

Had Gingrich not suddenly exploded in the debates like he did then Romney likely would have won South Carolina. Your assertion that he never would have won it simply has no basis.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Tax policy isnt something that really interests me much. All I can tell you is the current tax system is badly in need of reform. I don't know about Gingrich's tax plan (or if he could even implement it or if this is just another one of those campaign promises that can't be kept because the President does not wield absolute power and cant just change shit without Congress). Suffice it to say that IF I am put into a situation where I am forced to vote for Gingrich, it wont be because of his tax plan.

The problem is, the tax plan matters. It should especially matter for the republicans, who have been bitching and moaning and screaming about government debt and class warfare for the last three years, but it also matters for the everyday man, especially if the strategy they're using is "starve the beast" - that could have a heavy impact on the poor of this country. 15% flat tax raises taxes on those who are in lower income brackets, and cutting off programs like food stamps and welfare for them is even more damaging.

As for shrinking government by starving it of revenue, how is that any worse than growing government by glutting it on revenue for things it doesnt need. Government should eat to live not live to eat.

Uh... How, exactly, are we glutting it on revenue for things we don't need? Who is proposing "growing the government for the sake of growing government"? Nobody!

Yes the tax plan matters, though not much to me.

I remind you that the last two Presidents have grown government, arguably for sensible reasons but they both did grow government when we should be shrinking government. On the other hand Obama recently proposed merging some groups in the bureaucracy so kudos to him on that. Nevertheless government is much larger than it should be and on this issue I think Ron Paul, at least in principle, has it right (though he is much more extreme than I would prefer).

As for who is helping the poor, I refer you to Newt's answer to Juan Williams in the last Fox News debate.

BOOM headshot65:

Also, are you implying that my Aspergers has somehow skewed my sense of morality and purpose. I'd say if anything, it has made them stronger and more focused, cast in concrete to make sure they dont move an inch of where they should be.

i thought we already had the discussion about this. just because you claim to have aspergers does not make it true. there was a thread a little while back, in which you originally made this claim, along with some "evidence" and you were completely shot down

reonhato:

BOOM headshot65:

Also, are you implying that my Aspergers has somehow skewed my sense of morality and purpose. I'd say if anything, it has made them stronger and more focused, cast in concrete to make sure they dont move an inch of where they should be.

i thought we already had the discussion about this. just because you claim to have aspergers does not make it true. there was a thread a little while back, in which you originally made this claim, along with some "evidence" and you were completely shot down

Reo that is insulting. If the man says he has aspergers then on what basis are you challenging that? If anything you need to be the one providing evidence that casts doubt on his claim, not the other way around.

reonhato:

BOOM headshot65:

Also, are you implying that my Aspergers has somehow skewed my sense of morality and purpose. I'd say if anything, it has made them stronger and more focused, cast in concrete to make sure they dont move an inch of where they should be.

i thought we already had the discussion about this. just because you claim to have aspergers does not make it true. there was a thread a little while back, in which you originally made this claim, along with some "evidence" and you were completely shot down

I would like to see this evidence myself because as one who was legitemately diagnosed by a doctor in a psychiatric hospital and a study, I can make my decision.

Also, I love how people always assume Seekster is a Rush Limbaugh Republican fanatic simply because his ideas for policies most of the time agree with the Republican side. Does that make any independent who voted republican the last four elections because he liked their policies more means that they are a Fox News maniac. No, it does not.

Seekster:

reonhato:

BOOM headshot65:

Also, are you implying that my Aspergers has somehow skewed my sense of morality and purpose. I'd say if anything, it has made them stronger and more focused, cast in concrete to make sure they dont move an inch of where they should be.

i thought we already had the discussion about this. just because you claim to have aspergers does not make it true. there was a thread a little while back, in which you originally made this claim, along with some "evidence" and you were completely shot down

Reo that is insulting. If the man says he has aspergers then on what basis are you challenging that? If anything you need to be the one providing evidence that casts doubt on his claim, not the other way around.

heres some posts from him

BOOM headshot65:

Now I will end (for now) with two somewhat off topic things.
1st: To the people who say I am dumb and dont know how the world works. I have Aspergers. While it is on the same spectrum as autism, you must be +2 brackets ABOVE normal intelligence to be considered to have aspergers. So that means my IQ is AT LEAST 170. As for not knowing how the world works. People said the same things to some of the most famous people with aspergers, and they are now...well, famous. Just a short list.
1)Albert Einstien
2)Robin Williams
3)Henry Ford
4)Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson
5)Abraham Lincoln
6)Alexander Graham Bell
7)William Westmoreland
8)Benjamin Franklin
9)Howard Hughes
10)Bill Gates
I will stop with that.

Now for the other note. This video is somewhat old and was made by a comedian, but it still somes up how I view the war on terror and interventionalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ
ps, dont let the patriotism of it choke ya, since it seems it would.

BOOM headshot65:

Actually, from my aspergers, I got:
1) EXTREMELY difficult to lie. I already know you arent going to believe that one. But IF I lie, It will make LITERALLY no sense. But What I have been saying this whole time on here is the "honest to God", "What I believe is right" truth.
2) Cant tell when someone is lying
3) Excellent lingustics
4) Difficulty to make friends
5) Obsession on one subject. First, It was cars and trucks, then trains, then planes, then shipwreaks, then JUST WW2, and now any war America has had so much as one soldier in.
6) Extreme sense of loyalty
7) Extreme sense of caring for others. I would STILL help you out if I met you in real life if you needed it, even after you spitting poison at me.
8) Ability to get into character well. My English teacher likes that one.
9) "Never back down" attitude for things I care about. That would be my country, my girlfriend, and my family, among others.
10) Inability to cuss
11) Sense of knowing when things are right and wrong without having to be told that it is right or wrong
12) Incorruptable...so says my AP government teacher, AP US History teacher, case manager, principal, IPS teacher, All of my english teachers...*rambling on*

now i do not know how much you know about aspergers, but there is a lot of things wrong with what he posted, things that someone with aspergers would never get wrong

reonhato:

Seekster:

reonhato:

i thought we already had the discussion about this. just because you claim to have aspergers does not make it true. there was a thread a little while back, in which you originally made this claim, along with some "evidence" and you were completely shot down

Reo that is insulting. If the man says he has aspergers then on what basis are you challenging that? If anything you need to be the one providing evidence that casts doubt on his claim, not the other way around.

heres some posts from him

BOOM headshot65:

Now I will end (for now) with two somewhat off topic things.
1st: To the people who say I am dumb and dont know how the world works. I have Aspergers. While it is on the same spectrum as autism, you must be +2 brackets ABOVE normal intelligence to be considered to have aspergers. So that means my IQ is AT LEAST 170. As for not knowing how the world works. People said the same things to some of the most famous people with aspergers, and they are now...well, famous. Just a short list.
1)Albert Einstien
2)Robin Williams
3)Henry Ford
4)Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson
5)Abraham Lincoln
6)Alexander Graham Bell
7)William Westmoreland
8)Benjamin Franklin
9)Howard Hughes
10)Bill Gates
I will stop with that.

Now for the other note. This video is somewhat old and was made by a comedian, but it still somes up how I view the war on terror and interventionalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ
ps, dont let the patriotism of it choke ya, since it seems it would.

BOOM headshot65:

Actually, from my aspergers, I got:
1) EXTREMELY difficult to lie. I already know you arent going to believe that one. But IF I lie, It will make LITERALLY no sense. But What I have been saying this whole time on here is the "honest to God", "What I believe is right" truth.
2) Cant tell when someone is lying
3) Excellent lingustics
4) Difficulty to make friends
5) Obsession on one subject. First, It was cars and trucks, then trains, then planes, then shipwreaks, then JUST WW2, and now any war America has had so much as one soldier in.
6) Extreme sense of loyalty
7) Extreme sense of caring for others. I would STILL help you out if I met you in real life if you needed it, even after you spitting poison at me.
8) Ability to get into character well. My English teacher likes that one.
9) "Never back down" attitude for things I care about. That would be my country, my girlfriend, and my family, among others.
10) Inability to cuss
11) Sense of knowing when things are right and wrong without having to be told that it is right or wrong
12) Incorruptable...so says my AP government teacher, AP US History teacher, case manager, principal, IPS teacher, All of my english teachers...*rambling on*

now i do not know how much you know about aspergers, but there is a lot of things wrong with what he posted, things that someone with aspergers would never get wrong

Nothing about the IQ amount in fact that seems kinda wrong

1: Definitely true
2: Definitely true
3: Never heard that
4: Not obsessions like that. Usually things that are random like trains even though they have never ridden a train or don't like them. Those are just hobbies
6: I don't trust people, simple as that. Don't know about others though
7: I'm a dick, simple as that
8: Depends on the person but social things and acting are pretty bad for those with Aspergers
9: Not enitrely sure
10: No. I've known some worse than kids on XBL
11: Not really. Most don't exactly get morals and ethics as well
12: I'd say they are more easily corruptable because the ones who trust people are easily fooled and manipulated.

My diagnosis as someone who legititematly has it. He does not have it. His social skills seem to be a bit high to have it

I please, I have ADD but I am not an expert in all things ADD.

reonhato:
utter rambling

recruit00:
botched diegnosis

*continually slamming head on desk*

My God. How can I?!...I dont even?!...How will I?!....

RENOHATE....WHAT THE FRICK WILL IT TAKE TO GET YOU TO BELIEVE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT ON EARTH!!! DO I GAIN FROM LYING!!!! Answer me that huh, WHAT!?!?!!? I remembered 1 number wrong! So sue me! Aspergers is a VERY individualized thing. One person can not speak to anyone, and then there are others who are selectively mute. I am more open on here because I cant actually se the person. I know the inner workings of the army and most firearms even though I havent shot a gun in my life and dont even want to get NEAR serving in the army! I am 100% straight here. It is not in my nature to lie about ANYTHING!!! let alone something like this. And I am SICK and Tired of BULLIES like you pushing me around and saying that I dont know a thing! You have NO IDEA who I am and what I know and can do! But I get it, bullies never learn until it is too late.

recruit00:

reonhato:

Seekster:

Reo that is insulting. If the man says he has aspergers then on what basis are you challenging that? If anything you need to be the one providing evidence that casts doubt on his claim, not the other way around.

heres some posts from him

BOOM headshot65:

Now I will end (for now) with two somewhat off topic things.
1st: To the people who say I am dumb and dont know how the world works. I have Aspergers. While it is on the same spectrum as autism, you must be +2 brackets ABOVE normal intelligence to be considered to have aspergers. So that means my IQ is AT LEAST 170. As for not knowing how the world works. People said the same things to some of the most famous people with aspergers, and they are now...well, famous. Just a short list.
1)Albert Einstien
2)Robin Williams
3)Henry Ford
4)Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson
5)Abraham Lincoln
6)Alexander Graham Bell
7)William Westmoreland
8)Benjamin Franklin
9)Howard Hughes
10)Bill Gates
I will stop with that.

Now for the other note. This video is somewhat old and was made by a comedian, but it still somes up how I view the war on terror and interventionalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ
ps, dont let the patriotism of it choke ya, since it seems it would.

BOOM headshot65:

Actually, from my aspergers, I got:
1) EXTREMELY difficult to lie. I already know you arent going to believe that one. But IF I lie, It will make LITERALLY no sense. But What I have been saying this whole time on here is the "honest to God", "What I believe is right" truth.
2) Cant tell when someone is lying
3) Excellent lingustics
4) Difficulty to make friends
5) Obsession on one subject. First, It was cars and trucks, then trains, then planes, then shipwreaks, then JUST WW2, and now any war America has had so much as one soldier in.
6) Extreme sense of loyalty
7) Extreme sense of caring for others. I would STILL help you out if I met you in real life if you needed it, even after you spitting poison at me.
8) Ability to get into character well. My English teacher likes that one.
9) "Never back down" attitude for things I care about. That would be my country, my girlfriend, and my family, among others.
10) Inability to cuss
11) Sense of knowing when things are right and wrong without having to be told that it is right or wrong
12) Incorruptable...so says my AP government teacher, AP US History teacher, case manager, principal, IPS teacher, All of my english teachers...*rambling on*

now i do not know how much you know about aspergers, but there is a lot of things wrong with what he posted, things that someone with aspergers would never get wrong

Nothing about the IQ amount in fact that seems kinda wrong

1: Definitely true
2: Definitely true
3: Never heard that
4: Not obsessions like that. Usually things that are random like trains even though they have never ridden a train or don't like them. Those are just hobbies
6: I don't trust people, simple as that. Don't know about others though
7: I'm a dick, simple as that
8: Depends on the person but social things and acting are pretty bad for those with Aspergers
9: Not enitrely sure
10: No. I've known some worse than kids on XBL
11: Not really. Most don't exactly get morals and ethics as well
12: I'd say they are more easily corruptable because the ones who trust people are easily fooled and manipulated.

My diagnosis as someone who legititematly has it. He does not have it. His social skills seem to be a bit high to have it

actually for number 1, generally people with aspergers find it much easier to lie than normal people, the difficulty is in maintaining the lie, because that is where social skills come in

its not so much that some of the things are wrong, its that some of the things are in direct contradiction to what aspergers is

pyrate pretty much did a good job explaining it in the original thread

pyrate:
As someone that legitimately has been diagnosed with Aspergers, not just looked it up on the internet and claimed that they have it to sound smart, I find it offensive that not only would you lie about having issues with mental health, but you would do so while being so misinformed. The reason I know you have not been diagnosed with Aspergers is simple, you claim to go to school and are going to college. In the US this would be next to impossible with an Aspergers diagnosis as in the US part of the criteria is impairment of day to day functions.

The entire "people with Aspergers have a high IQ" is a myth. It is true that over the general population the average IQ is slightly higher, but there is a reason for this. By definition those with Aspergers are not mentally handicapped, therefore those with IQs below ~70 are excluded.

What is true about Aspergers is that often those with it will have an extreme focus on a specific subject. This means those with Aspergers are sometimes very knowledgeable in specific areas, but this has nothing to do with IQ.

The idea that there are people that tout Aspergers as some advantage because it means they have a high IQ is appalling. It ignores all of the very real implications involved. Real suffers like myself have to deal with under developed social skills, anxiety and depression. Do you remember how during school you are taught the important of eye contact. Well, I cannot remember the last time I made eye contact with someone. I avoid it like the plague, I just cannot do it. I can count the number of people I have made eye contact with on my fingers.

pyrate:

Half of these have nothing to do with Aspergers, some of them even go against it. Excellent linguistics for example (ironically you cannot spell linguistics), goes against Aspergers. While Aspergers typically do not have delayed development of language skills, it is common for language acquisition to be effected.

Extreme sense of caring for others flies in the face of Aspergers as well. One of the key parts of Aspergers is a lack of empathy.

As for lying, it is not hard to lie. In fact the lack of empathy makes it pretty easy to lie. The difficulty comes in maintaining a lie due to limited social skills.

BOOM headshot65:

reonhato:
utter rambling

recruit00:
botched diegnosis

*continually slamming head on desk*

My God. How can I?!...I dont even?!...How will I?!....

RENOHATE....WHAT THE FRICK WILL IT TAKE TO GET YOU TO BELIEVE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT ON EARTH!!! DO I GAIN FROM LYING!!!! Answer me that huh, WHAT!?!?!!? I remembered 1 number wrong! So sue me! Aspergers is a VERY individualized thing. One person can not speak to anyone, and then there are others who are selectively mute. I am more open on here because I cant actually se the person. I know the inner workings of the army and most firearms even though I havent shot a gun in my life and dont even want to get NEAR serving in the army! I am 100% straight here. It is not in my nature to lie about ANYTHING!!! let alone something like this. And I am SICK and Tired of BULLIES like you pushing me around and saying that I dont know a thing. You have NO IDEA who I am and what I know and can do. But I get it, bullies never learn until it is too late.

except it is not an individualized thing, by definition there must be things that are the case for every aspergers sufferer, otherwise it would not be a disorder.

just read pyrates posts again, he does a good job explaining why you are clearly lying.

Gee, this sure is on topic... Oh well might as well throw my two cents in. Claiming one has Aspergers is considered very "in" on the internet, you get a lot of people who seem to think that their lack of social skills automatically means they have Aspergers. The majority of them don't. If you think you have aspergers, go see a mental health specialist of some sort, get an actual diagnosis instead of just saying you have it.

And honestly, to me it just seems like he is trying to pat himself on the back (listing people who did great things that may or may not have had aspergers) and claim that he is super smart (I'm calling bullshit on having a 170 IQ). Its like pointing at my social anxiety, lack of friends (I consider one person to be my close friend ZOMG!!! I must have Aspergers even worse than you), above average IQ (137), my issues with empathizing with people (This is a characteristic), and saying that I have aspergers. I don't, I may have other mental disorders, but its not aspergers.

BOOM headshot65:

reonhato:

except it is not an individualized thing, by definition there must be things that are the case for every aspergers sufferer, otherwise it would not be a disorder.

just read pyrates posts again, he does a good job explaining why you are clearly lying.

Oh, ok jackass, lets look:

"Aspergers=/=high IQ": Maybe it is different in Kansas. Maybe it is a local thing. All I know is that the pyscologist at the local university, MY case manager, and MY IPS teacher have ALL said that to be classified with Aspergers, you must have an above average IQ!

"Underdeveloped social skills": As I said, I have that. I only have 5 close friends includeing my girlfriend, and I normally have a hard time talking to people unless it is about what I am interested in. All of my friends are interested in the same things as me. If they werent, they most likely wouldnt be my friends.

"Lacking Empathy": WE...DO...NOT....LACK....EMPATHY!!!! We just need to be taught what it is, and considering my parents have been driving it into me since I was born, I know what empathy is.

"Screwy language": The same people also told me that people with Aspergers are sometimes called "Little Einsteins" because they understand words faster than normal.

And you never answered my question: WHAT..DO...I...GAIN...FROM...LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!

see heres the thing. you do not need to have above average IQ to be diagnosed, as it has already been mentioned, it is a myth that aspergers = high IQ, so that instantly discredits those 3 people.

you cannot be taught empathy, just like you cannot be taught how to be happy. you can be taught what it is, you cannot be taught how to feel it.

understand words faster... huh? i have no idea what you actually mean. either you mean they develop language better, which simply is not the case, or they actually process someone speaking to them better, which is not the case, in fact aspergers is often linked to PLI, or pragmatic language impairment and as pyrate said, language acquisition is commonly effected.

i have also never ever heard of aspergers sufferers being called little einsteins, again it is a myth that aspergers makes you highly intelligent.

personally i think it is the abnormal and intense interest in specific areas that give rise to the seemingly high number of successful people with aspergers. repetative and extremely focused behaviour obviously means they become very good at what they choose to do.

as for why you choose to lie about it, i have no idea, i cannot read your mind. i can only assume it has something to do with the fact that for some reason it is seen as cool, but as pyrate has pointed out, for a large majority of people with aspergers it is not "cool" and often results in a struggle just to live a half normal day to day life.

reonhato:

BOOM headshot65:

reonhato:

except it is not an individualized thing, by definition there must be things that are the case for every aspergers sufferer, otherwise it would not be a disorder.

just read pyrates posts again, he does a good job explaining why you are clearly lying.

Oh, ok jackass, lets look:

"Aspergers=/=high IQ": Maybe it is different in Kansas. Maybe it is a local thing. All I know is that the pyscologist at the local university, MY case manager, and MY IPS teacher have ALL said that to be classified with Aspergers, you must have an above average IQ!

"Underdeveloped social skills": As I said, I have that. I only have 5 close friends includeing my girlfriend, and I normally have a hard time talking to people unless it is about what I am interested in. All of my friends are interested in the same things as me. If they werent, they most likely wouldnt be my friends.

"Lacking Empathy": WE...DO...NOT....LACK....EMPATHY!!!! We just need to be taught what it is, and considering my parents have been driving it into me since I was born, I know what empathy is.

"Screwy language": The same people also told me that people with Aspergers are sometimes called "Little Einsteins" because they understand words faster than normal.

And you never answered my question: WHAT..DO...I...GAIN...FROM...LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!

see heres the thing. you do not need to have above average IQ to be diagnosed, as it has already been mentioned, it is a myth that aspergers = high IQ, so that instantly discredits those 3 people.

you cannot be taught empathy, just like you cannot be taught how to be happy. you can be taught what it is, you cannot be taught how to feel it.

understand words faster... huh? i have no idea what you actually mean. either you mean they develop language better, which simply is not the case, or they actually process someone speaking to them better, which is not the case, in fact aspergers is often linked to PLI, or pragmatic language impairment and as pyrate said, language acquisition is commonly effected.

i have also never ever heard of aspergers sufferers being called little einsteins, again it is a myth that aspergers makes you highly intelligent.

personally i think it is the abnormal and intense interest in specific areas that give rise to the seemingly high number of successful people with aspergers. repetative and extremely focused behaviour obviously means they become very good at what they choose to do.

as for why you choose to lie about it, i have no idea, i cannot read your mind. i can only assume it has something to do with the fact that for some reason it is seen as cool, but as pyrate has pointed out, for a large majority of people with aspergers it is not "cool" and often results in a struggle just to live a half normal day to day life.

As for the Little Einsteins thing, it is believed that Asperger said himself that those diagnosed are like "little Einsteins". As for Boom, after his response to me and Reonhato, I refuse to argue any further with a response like that.

Actually on topic, I feel that if Newt would win the nomination, not only would Obama would win, but I know I would not vote for a Republican in my first election because that guy is the closest to what all those crazy "far left liberals" and why they call Republicans fascists.

I am actually surprised that Gingrich managed to win - however he may have handled himself in the debates, the baggage about his ex-wife (/wives?) and the whole "open marriage" thing, I thought, would sink him with the traditional conservative base, particularly with the whole "family values" and leading the charge on Clinton.

This is becoming very interesting. As a Brit, I am not too invested in the outcome, and find some aspects of your politics very strange (why so many debates/polls to select the candidate?) compared to the way things work here in Britain. I think I would prefer Obama, but that might be because my country has bad memories of Bush (mostly via proxy thanks to his insufferable lapdog political ally Tony Blair, and the tanking of "US-Global" relations) and so the current crop of Republican candidates, particularly as they seem more to the right of Bush and we thought he was a tad crazy, don't particularly appeal.

So long as Santorum eventually drops out, I don't think we across the pond will mind *too* much, Gingrich and Romney seem relatively similar to international eyes (both holding inconsistent positions and having baggage, be it ethical violations or Mormonism for a seemingly-Christian party) even if it is quite likely that we would almost unanimously prefer Obama.

Now to dive off-topic for a few moments - most of you will want to stop reading here.

reonhato:

SNIP

recruit00:
SNIP 2: Revenge of the SNIP

I'm thinking you might have missed this, in your "debate" with Boom...

BOOM headshot65:
Actually, from my aspergers, I got:
10) Inability to cuss

And yet...

BOOM headshot65:
"But, the Ogalala" is crap

BOOM headshot65:
wait a second, where the HELL!!! did you get 33,176 from?!?!

BOOM headshot65:
his political view freak me the hell out!

BOOM headshot65:
We DID screw up in the opening stages of the war.

BOOM headshot65:
we really got our crap together

BOOM headshot65:
Oh, ok jackass, lets look:

Make of that what you will (all quotes solely from the last 2 pages of this thread alone).

Superbeast:
I am actually surprised that Gingrich managed to win - however he may have handled himself in the debates, the baggage about his ex-wife (/wives?) and the whole "open marriage" thing, I thought, would sink him with the traditional conservative base, particularly with the whole "family values" and leading the charge on Clinton.

If the current GOP base can be summed up in one word it's "rage." Mitt Romney, for all his faults, embody's cold and rational thinking. Nest Gingrich, on the other hand, manages to put up the guise of an intellectual and an outraged outsider (The first one being somewhat dubious since his congressional career started and the last one being the exact opposite of the truth) and feeds into that sense of outrage the base if feeling. In short, Gingrich is connecting where Romney is not.

Superbeast:
This is becoming very interesting. As a Brit, I am not too invested in the outcome, and find some aspects of your politics very strange (why so many debates/polls to select the candidate?) compared to the way things work here in Britain. I think I would prefer Obama, but that might be because my country has bad memories of Bush (mostly via proxy thanks to his insufferable lapdog political ally Tony Blair, and the tanking of "US-Global" relations) and so the current crop of Republican candidates, particularly as they seem more to the right of Bush and we thought he was a tad crazy, don't particularly appeal.

To tie in another thread, it's probably good evidence that a fluid election date reduces the length of campaigns.

Superbeast:
So long as Santorum eventually drops out, I don't think we across the pond will mind *too* much, Gingrich and Romney seem relatively similar to international eyes (both holding inconsistent positions and having baggage, be it ethical violations or Mormonism for a seemingly-Christian party) even if it is quite likely that we would almost unanimously prefer Obama.

I expect Santorum to drop out within the next few days. The result will be a long and brutal fight between the establishment pick who the base despises (Romney) and the base pick who the establishment despises (Gingrich), assuming Gingrich can get enough funding to survive the next few contests.

Seekster:
I remind you that the last two Presidents have grown government, arguably for sensible reasons but they both did grow government when we should be shrinking government.

K, where do we cut? The only things I can think of are big business subsidies (oil companies are ridiculously profitable; they don't need more benefits for fucking our planet) and the military, but the government isn't going for it.

As for who is helping the poor, I refer you to Newt's answer to Juan Williams in the last Fox News debate.

Link? I'm morbidly curious to hear Newt "poor kids should work as janitors" Gingrich's take in the issue, but not curious enough to look it up myself. :V

Stagnant:

Seekster:
I remind you that the last two Presidents have grown government, arguably for sensible reasons but they both did grow government when we should be shrinking government.

K, where do we cut? The only things I can think of are big business subsidies (oil companies are ridiculously profitable; they don't need more benefits for fucking our planet) and the military, but the government isn't going for it.

As for who is helping the poor, I refer you to Newt's answer to Juan Williams in the last Fox News debate.

Link? I'm morbidly curious to hear Newt "poor kids should work as janitors" Gingrich's take in the issue, but not curious enough to look it up myself. :V

We already cut a larger hunk out of the military than we probably should have. So next we need to look at reforming social security (though I leave that to the experts as to the details) and getting rid of, merging, or shrinking federal departments with little to no function that justifies their existence. The Department of Education is a good place to start, either cut it or shrink it down to some board who is in charge of forming some kind of general standard of education for the state education departments to follow. The EPA also needs to be cut or merged into some other department. All of these on their own wont save all that much but it adds up. Also getting rid of some subsidies for businesses that quite frankly don't need subsidies would not be a bad idea.

As for the reference I made the Newt and Juan Williams:

Ok this is breaking my own rule about posting videos (actually I suppose technically it isnt because I only object to posting videos as a replacement for making your own argument and this isnt that) but anyway the entire video is 4 minutes long and in the first half Gingrich explains more about what his ideas are for giving students the opportunity to do work at school such as light janitorial work, working in the front office, cafeteria, or library for a couple of hours a day and talks about how his daughter started off working in positions like that when she was in school. Also he mentions a lot of people have emailed him saying that they too started off doing some light part-time work in school and were happy to have had the opportunity (something I personally was able to do as well though I didnt and wouldnt email Gingrich even though I agree with him on this particular idea).

The part of the video you want starts at about 2:20.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c1-22w2G7M

I do love how the audience boos Juan Williams for trying to imply that Gingrich is racist (of all his problems I don't think racism is one of them). Even more though I and virtually every other Conservative in this country LOVED Gingrich's answer because it is plainly states what most of us believe. It is answers like that which are the reason Gingrich won South Carolina.

If you want to skip right to the key moment in the video see 3:50

"I believe that every American from every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness and if that makes liberals unhappy I am going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job learn how to get a better job and learn someday to own the job."
-Newt Gingrich

You see its comments like that which gets Conservatives fired up because not only is it a direct and unapologetic statement of Conservative values it also destroys the hated stereotype that somehow Conservatives are the ones who don't want to help poor people.

BOOM headshot65:

"Aspergers=/=high IQ": Maybe it is different in Kansas. Maybe it is a local thing. All I know is that the pyscologist at the local university, MY case manager, and MY IPS teacher have ALL said that to be classified with Aspergers, you must have an above average IQ!

That's not quite how it works.

The distribution of intelligence is roughly the same in people with Aspergers as it is in the non-Aspergers population. However, diagnoses of Aspergers are not given to people with severely subnormal intelligence, because it can't be adequately distinguished from severely subnormal intelligence. It is because people with very low IQ and Aspergers cannot be so diagnosed that average intelligence of people diagnosed with Aspergers is higher than the general population.

Thus the only sure thing you can know about someone's intelligence if they were diagnosed with Aspergers is that they score over 70 on an IQ test.

* * *

Incidentally, I'm not sure what '2+ brackets above average intelligence' means. You might mean two standard deviations, but even then, it's not going to be anything close to 170. IQ 170 puts you in the most intelligent 0.01% of the population. Although this is moot, because as explained above, it's just not true anyway.

Seekster:

The part of the video you want starts at about 2:20.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c1-22w2G7M

I do love how the audience boos Juan Williams for trying to imply that Gingrich is racist (of all his problems I don't think racism is one of them). Even more though I and virtually every other Conservative in this country LOVED Gingrich's answer because it is plainly states what most of us believe. It is answers like that which are the reason Gingrich won South Carolina.

It wasn't racism. It was race-baiting, where a politician uses phrases and inflection to pander to the racial anxiety of the audience. Note how he stressed "Juan" when responding to Williams' question and that alone prompted a small response (which does not help when Williams is black) as did the always-racially charged statement "put them back in their place" and variants thereof. Gingrich's comments about food stamps and a "lack of work ethic" of the urban poor also play into a negative racial stereotype of blacks. Portraying the president as foreign and "unAmerican" is another manifestation of this. It's a plea to the xenophobia of the Republican base (sometimes referred to as "soft racism" or racial anxiety: no overt "bring back segregation," but still a serious discomfort with non-whites with authority or power) and blends well with the rhetoric about China and immigration by those who don't have hands-on experience with the subjects.

Seekster:

"I believe that every American from every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness and if that makes liberals unhappy I am going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job learn how to get a better job and learn someday to own the job."
-Newt Gingrich

You see its comments like that which gets Conservatives fired up because not only is it a direct and unapologetic statement of Conservative values it also destroys the hated stereotype that somehow Conservatives are the ones who don't want to help poor people.

See, those aren't conservative values, those are basic western-civilization values that can be traced back to protestant England. The defining division between American liberals and conservatives isn't "what is your work ethic?," it's "what do you do with the people who don't make it? How do you help the owner of the 90% of businesses who fail within their first year not end up starving in the street? What do you do to the town that has 1/3rd of their workforce unemployed because the plant that employed them was shuttered?" The conservative response has simply been "let them starve" and have pursued policies to that end under the guise of "small government" and "free markets." The liberal response is "make sure the person can survive so that he can come back and try again later."

These profound misunderstandings of the basic driving force behind economic and welfare policies serve only to demonize the poor, the destitute, and any policies that aid them. Your country is in a worse-off place fiscally and economically now because you have this massive permanent underclass with no substantial political representation or aid. They can't support families even working two jobs without government assistance. Family planning and birth control, which could dramatically reduce the needs of the urban poor. Drug treatment programs rather than jail time could reduce prison costs substantially. In a striving for principles, you abandon half of your population to the wolves of poverty. No country can claim moral superiority when there is so much suffering among their people.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:

The part of the video you want starts at about 2:20.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c1-22w2G7M

I do love how the audience boos Juan Williams for trying to imply that Gingrich is racist (of all his problems I don't think racism is one of them). Even more though I and virtually every other Conservative in this country LOVED Gingrich's answer because it is plainly states what most of us believe. It is answers like that which are the reason Gingrich won South Carolina.

It wasn't racism. It was race-baiting, where a politician uses phrases and inflection to pander to the racial anxiety of the audience. Note how he stressed "Juan" when responding to Williams' question and that alone prompted a small response (which does not help when Williams is black) as did the always-racially charged statement "put them back in their place" and variants thereof. Gingrich's comments about food stamps and a "lack of work ethic" of the urban poor also play into a negative racial stereotype of blacks. Portraying the president as foreign and "unAmerican" is another manifestation of this. It's a plea to the xenophobia of the Republican base (sometimes referred to as "soft racism" or racial anxiety: no overt "bring back segregation," but still a serious discomfort with non-whites with authority or power) and blends well with the rhetoric about China and immigration by those who don't have hands-on experience with the subjects.

Wha?

Um, the man's name is Juan. I don't think its significant that Newt said Juan. If I recall most of the time in the debates the candidates address the moderators by their first name.

Where did the "put them back in their place" line come from. If it was in the video I must have missed it.

The Republican base is less friendly towards African-Americans I will give you that, but this has more to do with the fact that African-Americans tend to vote for Democrats overwhelmingly. In other words its basically the same reason why the Democrat base hates Mormons or Evangelicals. I would also remind you that there are very strong pieces of anecdotal evidence that show the Republican base has absolutely no problem with black people who they actually agree with politically. Also, you will find no more xenophobia in the Republican base than you will find in the Democrat base, perhaps different kinds of xenophobia but xenophobia nonetheless.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:

"I believe that every American from every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness and if that makes liberals unhappy I am going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job learn how to get a better job and learn someday to own the job."
-Newt Gingrich

You see its comments like that which gets Conservatives fired up because not only is it a direct and unapologetic statement of Conservative values it also destroys the hated stereotype that somehow Conservatives are the ones who don't want to help poor people.

See, those aren't conservative values, those are basic western-civilization values that can be traced back to protestant England. The defining division between American liberals and conservatives isn't "what is your work ethic?," it's "what do you do with the people who don't make it? How do you help the owner of the 90% of businesses who fail within their first year not end up starving in the street? What do you do to the town that has 1/3rd of their workforce unemployed because the plant that employed them was shuttered?" The conservative response has simply been "let them starve" and have pursued policies to that end under the guise of "small government" and "free markets." The liberal response is "make sure the person can survive so that he can come back and try again later."

These profound misunderstandings of the basic driving force behind economic and welfare policies serve only to demonize the poor, the destitute, and any policies that aid them. Your country is in a worse-off place fiscally and economically now because you have this massive permanent underclass with no substantial political representation or aid. They can't support families even working two jobs without government assistance. Family planning and birth control, which could dramatically reduce the needs of the urban poor. Drug treatment programs rather than jail time could reduce prison costs substantially. In a striving for principles, you abandon half of your population to the wolves of poverty. No country can claim moral superiority when there is so much suffering among their people.

Those are conservative values, that doesnt mean they can't also be western values. Limited government is both a conservative and a libertarian value for example.

"The defining division between American liberals and conservatives isn't "what is your work ethic?," it's "what do you do with the people who don't make it? How do you help the owner of the 90% of businesses who fail within their first year not end up starving in the street? What do you do to the town that has 1/3rd of their workforce unemployed because the plant that employed them was shuttered?""

In short:

The Liberal view is to help the people who are down on their luck.

The Conservative view is to help the people who are down on their luck to help themselves.

Your idea that Conservatives have no compassion for poor people and just want them to starve is not only insulting, it directly contradicts the fact of the matter and it contradicts Newt's comment which is what started off this conversation.

"Your country?" Ok I don't normally pull this card but in this case it is very much relevant. Americans are not Europeans, we do not trust our government to solve all our problems (and many would contend government cannot solve all of our problems). On a side note, you are slightly exaggerating the plight of the poor in America but thats beside the point.

Superbeast:
I am actually surprised that Gingrich managed to win - however he may have handled himself in the debates, the baggage about his ex-wife (/wives?) and the whole "open marriage" thing, I thought, would sink him with the traditional conservative base, particularly with the whole "family values" and leading the charge on Clinton.

This is becoming very interesting. As a Brit, I am not too invested in the outcome, and find some aspects of your politics very strange (why so many debates/polls to select the candidate?) compared to the way things work here in Britain. I think I would prefer Obama, but that might be because my country has bad memories of Bush (mostly via proxy thanks to his insufferable lapdog political ally Tony Blair, and the tanking of "US-Global" relations) and so the current crop of Republican candidates, particularly as they seem more to the right of Bush and we thought he was a tad crazy, don't particularly appeal.

So long as Santorum eventually drops out, I don't think we across the pond will mind *too* much, Gingrich and Romney seem relatively similar to international eyes (both holding inconsistent positions and having baggage, be it ethical violations or Mormonism for a seemingly-Christian party) even if it is quite likely that we would almost unanimously prefer Obama.

Now to dive off-topic for a few moments - most of you will want to stop reading here.

reonhato:

SNIP

recruit00:
SNIP 2: Revenge of the SNIP

I'm thinking you might have missed this, in your "debate" with Boom...

BOOM headshot65:
Actually, from my aspergers, I got:
10) Inability to cuss

And yet...

BOOM headshot65:
"But, the Ogalala" is crap

BOOM headshot65:
wait a second, where the HELL!!! did you get 33,176 from?!?!

BOOM headshot65:
his political view freak me the hell out!

BOOM headshot65:
We DID screw up in the opening stages of the war.

BOOM headshot65:
we really got our crap together

BOOM headshot65:
Oh, ok jackass, lets look:

Make of that what you will (all quotes solely from the last 2 pages of this thread alone).

im an aussie, cussing does not exist to me, its easy for me to miss

Seekster:
Those are conservative values, that doesnt mean they can't also be western values.

No, you misunderstand. The problem is not that they're not conservative values. The problem is that they're also liberal values. And libertarian values. And the values of essentially any reasonable person in the western world. Attempting to push them onto conservatives, as if to say, "These are ours", is ludicrous. Even more ridiculous is the directly implied statement involved: "The liberals don't believe in these values". You merely implied it heavily through your wording; Gingrich actively and shamelessly drew the connection in his speech.

In short:

The Liberal view is to help the people who are down on their luck.

The Conservative view is to help the people who are down on their luck to help themselves.

Except that, regardless of how often you tout that slogan, it doesn't change the fact that if that's genuinely the goal of the Republican party, then they are not only failing miserably, but failing miserably while looking like they're doing everything in their power to transfer more wealth and power to the richest of Americans.

Look, I'm sorry, but if you're still enchanted with this "big government scares off business", then you need to get out of La-La Land and look at everywhere else in Europe. Because that's all I can really see in terms of explanation. I'm reminded of yet another great cartoon:
image
How, exactly, are they helping the poor help themselves? Tax cuts? Don't work, we know that now. Raising taxes on low-income families while slashing them on the rich, creating a massive budget deficit in the process? Holy shit, that's the exact opposite of helping them to help themselves! Seriously, what have the republicans done to make the situation better for the poor, even just in terms of helping them help themselves?

I'm aware that removing welfare institutions is a part of the process - it's silly to leave the support structure up when the arch is already standing - but right now, it looks like Gingrich and co. are trying to tear down the support before the keystone is laid. Just taking away welfare, food stamps, and social security is not going to lead to a more mobile, well-off middle class - it's going to lead to a hell of a lot more desperate and starving individuals.

Don't get me wrong, your so-called "conservative solution" (which most liberals would be far more enthralled about than the so-called "liberal solution") is perfect! But here's the thing: if we knew how to help people help themselves, we'd be doing it already. However, the consequence of not directly helping people and failing to help them help themselves is not something we should take lightly, and no proposal has seen fit to solve the problem to begin with.

Your idea that Conservatives have no compassion for poor people and just want them to starve is not only insulting, it directly contradicts the fact of the matter and it contradicts Newt's comment which is what started off this conversation.

You know how actions speak louder than words? I somehow can't shake the feeling that Gingrich is not being entirely ingenuous here....

"Your country?" Ok I don't normally pull this card but in this case it is very much relevant. Americans are not Europeans, we do not trust our government to solve all our problems (and many would contend government cannot solve all of our problems).

And you push it too far in that direction, and become irrationally afraid of big government and all that entails, ignoring that it works incredibly well for most of the rest of the first world. Once again, your failure to look outside your own borders is a crucial misstep. It would show you so many things, from the fact that the existence of anthropogenic global warming is somehow only an issue of strong debate in the USA, that evolution is even a topic of debate is only present in the USA, and that big government and modern economic theories that involve government intervention in the market can and often do work. But you don't. You stay cooped up in the USA, ignoring as the rest of the world sails by in climate protection, education, and economic recovery.

reonhato:

BOOM headshot65:

reonhato:

except it is not an individualized thing, by definition there must be things that are the case for every aspergers sufferer, otherwise it would not be a disorder.

just read pyrates posts again, he does a good job explaining why you are clearly lying.

Oh, ok jackass, lets look:

"Aspergers=/=high IQ": Maybe it is different in Kansas. Maybe it is a local thing. All I know is that the pyscologist at the local university, MY case manager, and MY IPS teacher have ALL said that to be classified with Aspergers, you must have an above average IQ!

"Underdeveloped social skills": As I said, I have that. I only have 5 close friends includeing my girlfriend, and I normally have a hard time talking to people unless it is about what I am interested in. All of my friends are interested in the same things as me. If they werent, they most likely wouldnt be my friends.

"Lacking Empathy": WE...DO...NOT....LACK....EMPATHY!!!! We just need to be taught what it is, and considering my parents have been driving it into me since I was born, I know what empathy is.

"Screwy language": The same people also told me that people with Aspergers are sometimes called "Little Einsteins" because they understand words faster than normal.

And you never answered my question: WHAT..DO...I...GAIN...FROM...LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!

see heres the thing. you do not need to have above average IQ to be diagnosed, as it has already been mentioned, it is a myth that aspergers = high IQ, so that instantly discredits those 3 people.

you cannot be taught empathy, just like you cannot be taught how to be happy. you can be taught what it is, you cannot be taught how to feel it.

understand words faster... huh? i have no idea what you actually mean. either you mean they develop language better, which simply is not the case, or they actually process someone speaking to them better, which is not the case, in fact aspergers is often linked to PLI, or pragmatic language impairment and as pyrate said, language acquisition is commonly effected.

i have also never ever heard of aspergers sufferers being called little einsteins, again it is a myth that aspergers makes you highly intelligent.

personally i think it is the abnormal and intense interest in specific areas that give rise to the seemingly high number of successful people with aspergers. repetative and extremely focused behaviour obviously means they become very good at what they choose to do.

as for why you choose to lie about it, i have no idea, i cannot read your mind. i can only assume it has something to do with the fact that for some reason it is seen as cool, but as pyrate has pointed out, for a large majority of people with aspergers it is not "cool" and often results in a struggle just to live a half normal day to day life.

^^^THIS^^^ (at the risk of going way off topic)

Asperger's is no freaking advantage. It has made my life a living hell, and I would wish it away in an instant. I had no friends for 13 years. I flapped my arms when I got excited. I got kicked out of the Air Force for it, since the TIs thought I was making fun of them. I couldn't keep minimum wage jobs, and would always be fired for "unspecified reasons" or "he doesn't fit well here".

I get SSI for it. My obsession with sports has helped me join Oregon Sports News as a contributor. But I would never use it as an excuse for anything, and certainly not brag about it. I want it gone.

Agema:
That's not quite how it works.

The distribution of intelligence is roughly the same in people with Aspergers as it is in the non-Aspergers population. However, diagnoses of Aspergers are not given to people with severely subnormal intelligence, because it can't be adequately distinguished from severely subnormal intelligence. It is because people with very low IQ and Aspergers cannot be so diagnosed that average intelligence of people diagnosed with Aspergers is higher than the general population.

Thus the only sure thing you can know about someone's intelligence if they were diagnosed with Aspergers is that they score over 70 on an IQ test.

* * *

Incidentally, I'm not sure what '2+ brackets above average intelligence' means. You might mean two standard deviations, but even then, it's not going to be anything close to 170. IQ 170 puts you in the most intelligent 0.01% of the population. Although this is moot, because as explained above, it's just not true anyway.

I remembered a number wrong, ok. I remembered 150 as the median IQ for some reason, but it is really 100. As for what "2+ brackets above average intelligence" I was told that IQ is divided up into 10 point brackets, with 100 being normal. People With autism are -2 below (so lower than 80) while people with High-Functining Autism and Aspergers are in the +2 above (so at least 120, not the 170 I remembered wrong).

And I dont see me having Aspergers as a disadvantage. I dont care if people believe me or not. I am who I am BECAUSE of my aspergers. You say it makes life hell. Mine was, and then people who cared about me did everything they could to help me adapt and get by. I would still be hiding in some corner in the back of the room if it wasnt for my teachers, case manager, and parents. It has allowed me to look at the world in different ways than normal people can. You call it a curse. I call it a blessing. I will never be cured of aspergers, and frankly, I dont want to be if it means I have to change who I am. If you dont like it, tough.

Back on topic: So, Gingrich has south carolina, Romney has new hampshire, Santorum has Iowa, and Ron Paul is losing any steam he had? Stop the press! This race is starting to get interesting.

Little article from CNN, from a former aide to G.W. Bush about Gingrich.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/opinion/frum-gingrich-enthusiasm/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Most telling thing in there is the graph, where viewers asked how much they favored or unfavored Gingrich.

CNN: 28% for 58% against
PPP: 26% for 60% against
FOX NEWS: 27% for 56% against

When Fox News viewers don't like you, and you're GOP, you might have an issue.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Those are conservative values, that doesnt mean they can't also be western values.

No, you misunderstand. The problem is not that they're not conservative values. The problem is that they're also liberal values. And libertarian values. And the values of essentially any reasonable person in the western world. Attempting to push them onto conservatives, as if to say, "These are ours", is ludicrous. Even more ridiculous is the directly implied statement involved: "The liberals don't believe in these values". You merely implied it heavily through your wording; Gingrich actively and shamelessly drew the connection in his speech.

Oh yes I agree actually, saying that liberals do not support helping the poor is just as ridiculous as saying conservatives don't. The only difference is what the best way to help the poor is.

Those values are conservative values but they are not ONLY conservative values. I hope that clears things up.

Gingrich is a politician, he is going to be shameless. Its no different than Obama and other Democrats implying or even outright proclaiming that Republicans don't believe in helping poor people. Its political pandering.

I give liberals the benefit of the doubt that they actually do mean well...trouble with liberals is good intentions don't solve problems.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
In short:

The Liberal view is to help the people who are down on their luck.

The Conservative view is to help the people who are down on their luck to help themselves.

Except that, regardless of how often you tout that slogan, it doesn't change the fact that if that's genuinely the goal of the Republican party, then they are not only failing miserably, but failing miserably while looking like they're doing everything in their power to transfer more wealth and power to the richest of Americans.

The Republican party fails miserably at a number of things and I wont dispute that they arent doing as good a job as they can to improve things like education and job creation. The only good news for the Republican party in that regard is the Democrats have likewise failed to improve things significantly in either area.

Stagnant:
Look, I'm sorry, but if you're still enchanted with this "big government scares off business", then you need to get out of La-La Land and look at everywhere else in Europe. Because that's all I can really see in terms of explanation. I'm reminded of yet another great cartoon:
image
How, exactly, are they helping the poor help themselves? Tax cuts? Don't work, we know that now. Raising taxes on low-income families while slashing them on the rich, creating a massive budget deficit in the process? Holy shit, that's the exact opposite of helping them to help themselves! Seriously, what have the republicans done to make the situation better for the poor, even just in terms of helping them help themselves?

An amusing cartoon but like most cartoons its a work of fiction made to entertain through a parody of fact. Both Romney and Gingrich (and I believe Santorum, though probably not Paul) support a "repeal and replace" policy towards Obamacare.

Tax cuts don't work as well as advertised but I suppose its important to ask what the goals of tax cuts are.

Raising taxes on low-income families? I sense you are being misleading here. Low income families do not really pay income taxes so you must be talking about something else.

The Republican party can't create a debt this big on its own, if the Democrats want to argue that they did then they should stop being so modest. It took decades of mismanagement to create our current debt situation.

Stagnant:
I'm aware that removing welfare institutions is a part of the process - it's silly to leave the support structure up when the arch is already standing - but right now, it looks like Gingrich and co. are trying to tear down the support before the keystone is laid. Just taking away welfare, food stamps, and social security is not going to lead to a more mobile, well-off middle class - it's going to lead to a hell of a lot more desperate and starving individuals.

Don't get me wrong, your so-called "conservative solution" (which most liberals would be far more enthralled about than the so-called "liberal solution") is perfect! But here's the thing: if we knew how to help people help themselves, we'd be doing it already. However, the consequence of not directly helping people and failing to help them help themselves is not something we should take lightly, and no proposal has seen fit to solve the problem to begin with.

First of all very few people on the right are seriously in favor of getting rid of social security all together. The ship as sort of sailed on that one and it has become to engrained in our society to get rid of and really properly managed and reformed periodically its not a bad program.

As for food stamps, my understanding is that ideally you want to ween people off food stamps to make them less reliant on it.

At least two things are required to give people the ability to help themselves (at least two meaning there may be others but I think these two are the critical ones).

1. Sound Education

2. A means of supporting yourself (which usually means, a job).

I do not believe it is the job of the federal government to provide these things outright but rather to create an environment in which these things can be readily obtained (also sufficient healthcare should be obtainable). An exception is public education which I am a strong supporter of though I will say we need to be teaching things like economics and classes on personal finances at the High School level at least. Teaching such things at the college level is way too late and many people do not go to college anyway. As for the best way to create jobs, well that debate is ongoing right now. Gingrich outlined this clearly in his statement:

"I believe that every American from every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness and if that makes liberals unhappy I am going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job learn how to get a better job and learn someday to own the job."
-Newt Gingrich

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Your idea that Conservatives have no compassion for poor people and just want them to starve is not only insulting, it directly contradicts the fact of the matter and it contradicts Newt's comment which is what started off this conversation.

You know how actions speak louder than words? I somehow can't shake the feeling that Gingrich is not being entirely ingenuous here....

As I said, tax plans are not something that I focus on beyond the general principles. It is worth noting that if you are planning on using the private sector to drive your economy, taxing them heavily is probably not the best way to encourage them. It is also worth noting that the rich are also the ones who can most able to either move and/or hire an accountant who can take advantage of loopholes. Simply through observation I can make the following statements about taxes in America.

1. A progressive system of income tax (income mind you) is as fair a system as any if you are going to have an income tax but keep in mind that the wealthiest people often do not make most of their money from income.

2. Tax loopholes need to be closed.

3. The tax system as a whole needs to be reformed and simplified.

4. You can debate all day about whether the Bush tax cuts worked but they did not work as advertised (kind of like the stimulus plans of both Bush and Obama). Cutting taxes to encourage a certain behavior like hiring should work in theory but it did not work as well as one would think. As such if you are going to propose more tax cuts try making them conditional. In other words, instead of cutting taxes and saying "there you go, now use that money to expand and hire people" you should go "if you expand and hire people you wont have to pay as much in related taxes."

Stagnant:

Seekster:
"Your country?" Ok I don't normally pull this card but in this case it is very much relevant. Americans are not Europeans, we do not trust our government to solve all our problems (and many would contend government cannot solve all of our problems).

And you push it too far in that direction, and become irrationally afraid of big government and all that entails, ignoring that it works incredibly well for most of the rest of the first world. Once again, your failure to look outside your own borders is a crucial misstep. It would show you so many things, from the fact that the existence of anthropogenic global warming is somehow only an issue of strong debate in the USA, that evolution is even a topic of debate is only present in the USA, and that big government and modern economic theories that involve government intervention in the market can and often do work. But you don't. You stay cooped up in the USA, ignoring as the rest of the world sails by in climate protection, education, and economic recovery.

Europe is working incredibly well? Germany and some other countries sure but all of Europe? (I know you didnt say Europe but lets face it that is what you meant for the most part).

America looks outside of its borders...a few years ago we looked outside our borders for weapons of mass destruction. Never found them and everyone got pissed at us so we went back into our borders (sorry I couldnt resist the joke).

The idea that legalized prostitution is something that is debated in Europe and that there is very little debate on abortion in Europe is enough for Americans to decide not to follow Europe's example (at least not on most things).

Of course we stay cooped up in the USA, every time we try and visit other countries they get mad at us and demand we withdraw (oh I did it again).

Seriously though we are working on economic recovery, education reforms, and ways to protect the environment without sacrificing our economy in the process. We will do these things but we will do these things our way. Europe does things its way (and yes I know its not a single country but its easier to talk about it in the singular tense) and America does things its own way. We disagree on the best ways to do things but the domestic policy of a country is not something another country should normally bother to intervene in (unless flagrant and obvious human rights violations are involved). In short, you do things your way, we will do things our way, and we will get along fine.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Little article from CNN, from a former aide to G.W. Bush about Gingrich.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/opinion/frum-gingrich-enthusiasm/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Most telling thing in there is the graph, where viewers asked how much they favored or unfavored Gingrich.

CNN: 28% for 58% against
PPP: 26% for 60% against
FOX NEWS: 27% for 56% against

When Fox News viewers don't like you, and you're GOP, you might have an issue.

Even Fox News opts for standard polling procedure. They're not polling viewers, they're polling the general electorate.

The "establishment" wing of the GOP realizes that a Gingrich nomination would be a suicide run in the general election. These numbers aren't new by any measure. Expect many of them to try and take down Gingrich before Super Tuesday in March where he could get a massive number of delegates and potentially win the nomination.

The Gentleman:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Little article from CNN, from a former aide to G.W. Bush about Gingrich.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/opinion/frum-gingrich-enthusiasm/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Most telling thing in there is the graph, where viewers asked how much they favored or unfavored Gingrich.

CNN: 28% for 58% against
PPP: 26% for 60% against
FOX NEWS: 27% for 56% against

When Fox News viewers don't like you, and you're GOP, you might have an issue.

Even Fox News opts for standard polling procedure. They're not polling viewers, they're polling the general electorate.

The "establishment" wing of the GOP realizes that a Gingrich nomination would be a suicide run in the general election. These numbers aren't new by any measure. Expect many of them to try and take down Gingrich before Super Tuesday in March where he could get a massive number of delegates and potentially win the nomination.

Think of Gingrich's current wave of support as a temporary measure designed to remind Romney that he cant just take the Conservatives for granted.

Seekster:

The Gentleman:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Little article from CNN, from a former aide to G.W. Bush about Gingrich.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/opinion/frum-gingrich-enthusiasm/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Most telling thing in there is the graph, where viewers asked how much they favored or unfavored Gingrich.

CNN: 28% for 58% against
PPP: 26% for 60% against
FOX NEWS: 27% for 56% against

When Fox News viewers don't like you, and you're GOP, you might have an issue.

Even Fox News opts for standard polling procedure. They're not polling viewers, they're polling the general electorate.

The "establishment" wing of the GOP realizes that a Gingrich nomination would be a suicide run in the general election. These numbers aren't new by any measure. Expect many of them to try and take down Gingrich before Super Tuesday in March where he could get a massive number of delegates and potentially win the nomination.

Think of Gingrich's current wave of support as a temporary measure designed to remind Romney that he cant just take the Conservatives for granted.

Had we been talking about the December Gingrich "bump," I would agree with you, but he just jumped to second place with his South Carolina delegates and speaks to the angry passion that dominates the conservative base at the moment. Gingrich may come in a close second, tie, or even win Florida, after which it would be very hard to back out and endorse Mitt Romney, and that's if he was a rational politician (this is Newt we're talking about. His ego could warm and sustain him through drought, famine, and the next ice age). The base could potentially view it as a massive betrayal and opt to sit out or vote third party is there is an serious contender such as Paul or some other well-known politician.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:

The Gentleman:

Even Fox News opts for standard polling procedure. They're not polling viewers, they're polling the general electorate.

The "establishment" wing of the GOP realizes that a Gingrich nomination would be a suicide run in the general election. These numbers aren't new by any measure. Expect many of them to try and take down Gingrich before Super Tuesday in March where he could get a massive number of delegates and potentially win the nomination.

Think of Gingrich's current wave of support as a temporary measure designed to remind Romney that he cant just take the Conservatives for granted.

Had we been talking about the December Gingrich "bump," I would agree with you, but he just jumped to second place with his South Carolina delegates and speaks to the angry passion that dominates the conservative base at the moment. Gingrich may come in a close second, tie, or even win Florida, after which it would be very hard to back out and endorse Mitt Romney, and that's if he was a rational politician (this is Newt we're talking about. His ego could warm and sustain him through drought, famine, and the next ice age). The base could potentially view it as a massive betrayal and opt to sit out or vote third party is there is an serious contender such as Paul or some other well-known politician.

If Gingrich has a landslide win in Florida then yeah thats bad for Romney, keep in mind though that nearly all of the Primaries in Feburary are going to be hard for Newt though. Plus there is a LOT of baggage about Newt that hasnt even been touched yet.

Seekster:

The Gentleman:

Had we been talking about the December Gingrich "bump," I would agree with you, but he just jumped to second place with his South Carolina delegates and speaks to the angry passion that dominates the conservative base at the moment. Gingrich may come in a close second, tie, or even win Florida, after which it would be very hard to back out and endorse Mitt Romney, and that's if he was a rational politician (this is Newt we're talking about. His ego could warm and sustain him through drought, famine, and the next ice age). The base could potentially view it as a massive betrayal and opt to sit out or vote third party is there is an serious contender such as Paul or some other well-known politician.

If Gingrich has a landslide win in Florida then yeah thats bad for Romney, keep in mind though that nearly all of the Primaries in Feburary are going to be hard for Newt though. Plus there is a LOT of baggage about Newt that hasnt even been touched yet.

Here's the problem though, it has to come from a source that is not a traditional news source (where he can bash the "liberal media") or from the Romney campaign (where he can bash Romney for "resorting to dirty tactics because he doesn't have a leg to stand on"). We just saw last week how he turned a very serious accusation about his marriage from a glass jaw to his greatest strength.

The NBC debate just ended. In a few hours, the highlight reals should be up and I'll post them.

Seekster:
Oh yes I agree actually, saying that liberals do not support helping the poor is just as ridiculous as saying conservatives don't.

I'm just going to shake my head and laugh at this, okay?

The only difference is what the best way to help the poor is.

Those values are conservative values but they are not ONLY conservative values. I hope that clears things up.

Why call them that in the first place, though? Why not just come right out and say, "These are ubiquitous western values"? I mean, "Don't murder people" is clearly a liberal value; "don't steal" is as well. But you don't hear me calling them that, because claiming something to be a liberal value strongly implies that it is only a liberal value.

Gingrich is a politician, he is going to be shameless. Its no different than Obama and other Democrats implying or even outright proclaiming that Republicans don't believe in helping poor people. Its political pandering.

Actions speak a hell of a lot louder than words, and again: how have the republicans even been trying? When I look, I see deregulation of the big corporate players, raised taxes on low-income families, railing against our social safety nets, and demonizing any attempt for the poor to help their stance as "class warfare". It's not no different, because Obama has a point. At best, the republicans are trying to help the poor and are simply misguided to the point where their actions lose all semblance of sense. More realistically, they don't really give a damn.

I give liberals the benefit of the doubt that they actually do mean well...trouble with liberals is good intentions don't solve problems.

No, their policies tend to though.

The Republican party fails miserably at a number of things and I wont dispute that they arent doing as good a job as they can to improve things like education and job creation. The only good news for the Republican party in that regard is the Democrats have likewise failed to improve things significantly in either area.

That's neither an excuse for failing so miserably at their stated values nor actually true. The Obama stimulus plan pulled us out of a big fat rut; Clinton's sound economic policies gave us a surplus for the first time in decades. Bush gave us massive declines, huge deficits, and No Child Left Behind. Need I say more?

Tax cuts don't work as well as advertised but I suppose its important to ask what the goals of tax cuts are.

Indeed; you tell me.

Raising taxes on low-income families? I sense you are being misleading here. Low income families do not really pay income taxes so you must be talking about something else.

No, I'm really talking about raising the effective federal income tax rate on low-income families. This is something that the vast majority of republican tax plans do, usually while simultaneously slashing taxes on the rich and lowering revenue overall. Part of why I don't fucking trust the republican party for an instant when it claims to be looking out for the poor.

The Republican party can't create a debt this big on its own, if the Democrats want to argue that they did then they should stop being so modest. It took decades of mismanagement to create our current debt situation.

Yeah, it's a good thing that Bush Jr. had 8 years, eh? I'm looking for a chart that depicts 1990-2012, but can't find one... It's not exactly flattering, though: Clinton gets us into the black, then Bush Jr. plunges us back into the red with absolute record speed. And while it does get worse for a short while with Obama (largely because of the implementation of Bush policies that were absolutely necessary and the stimulus bill), almost immediately afterwards, the deficit starts to sink, slowly but surely.

Stagnant:
First of all very few people on the right are seriously in favor of getting rid of social security all together. The ship as sort of sailed on that one and it has become to engrained in our society to get rid of and really properly managed and reformed periodically its not a bad program.

Yes, they simply want to break it in half. That's soooo much better.

As for food stamps, my understanding is that ideally you want to ween people off food stamps to make them less reliant on it.

Ah, so "stop giving the tiger free food and it'll learn to hunt"-style mentality? Yeah, I'd love to see how well that works in this country.

At least two things are required to give people the ability to help themselves (at least two meaning there may be others but I think these two are the critical ones).

1. Sound Education

2. A means of supporting yourself (which usually means, a job).

I do not believe it is the job of the federal government to provide these things outright but rather to create an environment in which these things can be readily obtained (also sufficient healthcare should be obtainable). An exception is public education which I am a strong supporter of though I will say we need to be teaching things like economics and classes on personal finances at the High School level at least. Teaching such things at the college level is way too late and many people do not go to college anyway. As for the best way to create jobs, well that debate is ongoing right now.

Not really to the extent you think it is. This idea that government spending cannot create jobs is entirely contrived and, quite frankly, ridiculous. The idea that cutting away government create jobs is equally ridiculous.

Gingrich outlined this clearly in his statement:

"I believe that every American from every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness and if that makes liberals unhappy I am going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job learn how to get a better job and learn someday to own the job."
-Newt Gingrich

And again: actions speak louder than words. Gingrich is full of shit.

Stagnant:
You know how actions speak louder than words? I somehow can't shake the feeling that Gingrich is not being entirely ingenuous here....

As I said, tax plans are not something that I focus on beyond the general principles.

Makes sense; they tend to make your party of choice look absolutely despicable.

It is worth noting that if you are planning on using the private sector to drive your economy, taxing them heavily is probably not the best way to encourage them.

Notice how Gingrich's plan raises taxes on the part of the private sector which can afford it least?

It is also worth noting that the rich are also the ones who can most able to either move and/or hire an accountant who can take advantage of loopholes. Simply through observation I can make the following statements about taxes in America.

This is a given... But they can still do this regardless of how low you make it.

1. A progressive system of income tax (income mind you) is as fair a system as any if you are going to have an income tax but keep in mind that the wealthiest people often do not make most of their money from income.

2. Tax loopholes need to be closed.

3. The tax system as a whole needs to be reformed and simplified.

Agreed.

4. You can debate all day about whether the Bush tax cuts worked but they did not work as advertised (kind of like the stimulus plans of both Bush and Obama). Cutting taxes to encourage a certain behavior like hiring should work in theory but it did not work as well as one would think.

Actually... that ship sailed. What Bush Jr's attempts at a reverse Robin Hood did better than almost anything else was basically end this debate, with the following very clear answer: "Tax cuts on the rich do not create jobs".

As such if you are going to propose more tax cuts try making them conditional. In other words, instead of cutting taxes and saying "there you go, now use that money to expand and hire people" you should go "if you expand and hire people you wont have to pay as much in related taxes."

Oh, this I'll definitely agree on.

Stagnant:
And you push it too far in that direction, and become irrationally afraid of big government and all that entails, ignoring that it works incredibly well for most of the rest of the first world. Once again, your failure to look outside your own borders is a crucial misstep. It would show you so many things, from the fact that the existence of anthropogenic global warming is somehow only an issue of strong debate in the USA, that evolution is even a topic of debate is only present in the USA, and that big government and modern economic theories that involve government intervention in the market can and often do work. But you don't. You stay cooped up in the USA, ignoring as the rest of the world sails by in climate protection, education, and economic recovery.

Europe is working incredibly well? Germany and some other countries sure but all of Europe? (I know you didnt say Europe but lets face it that is what you meant for the most part).

France, Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland... Most of the countries that people pay attention to other than Italy, Spain, and Greece.

America looks outside of its borders...a few years ago we looked outside our borders for weapons of mass destruction. Never found them and everyone got pissed at us so we went back into our borders (sorry I couldnt resist the joke).

...Actually, the sad irony is that this whole fiasco could've been avoided if you guys had listened to the UN.

The idea that legalized prostitution is something that is debated in Europe and that there is very little debate on abortion in Europe is enough for Americans to decide not to follow Europe's example (at least not on most things).

As a conservative, I'm shocked that you don't support legal prostitution. Why should any free transaction between people of services be illegal? And abortion... Well, yeah. That's another thing where the USA is disgustingly behind the curve.

Of course we stay cooped up in the USA, every time we try and visit other countries they get mad at us and demand we withdraw (oh I did it again).

Instead of invading, you guys need to fucking LISTEN.

Seriously though we are working on economic recovery, education reforms, and ways to protect the environment without sacrificing our economy in the process. We will do these things but we will do these things our way. Europe does things its way (and yes I know its not a single country but its easier to talk about it in the singular tense) and America does things its own way. We disagree on the best ways to do things but the domestic policy of a country is not something another country should normally bother to intervene in (unless flagrant and obvious human rights violations are involved). In short, you do things your way, we will do things our way, and we will get along fine.

Welp, good luck with that.

The Gentleman:
Here's the full NBC Debate from earlier today.

Here's some highlights.

As I expected, Romney is going to start opening up Gingrich's bags one at a time until the man is buried in his old baggage. This debate wasnt very high profile but the next one will be and we should expect more of this.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:

The Gentleman:

Had we been talking about the December Gingrich "bump," I would agree with you, but he just jumped to second place with his South Carolina delegates and speaks to the angry passion that dominates the conservative base at the moment. Gingrich may come in a close second, tie, or even win Florida, after which it would be very hard to back out and endorse Mitt Romney, and that's if he was a rational politician (this is Newt we're talking about. His ego could warm and sustain him through drought, famine, and the next ice age). The base could potentially view it as a massive betrayal and opt to sit out or vote third party is there is an serious contender such as Paul or some other well-known politician.

If Gingrich has a landslide win in Florida then yeah thats bad for Romney, keep in mind though that nearly all of the Primaries in Feburary are going to be hard for Newt though. Plus there is a LOT of baggage about Newt that hasnt even been touched yet.

Here's the problem though, it has to come from a source that is not a traditional news source (where he can bash the "liberal media") or from the Romney campaign (where he can bash Romney for "resorting to dirty tactics because he doesn't have a leg to stand on"). We just saw last week how he turned a very serious accusation about his marriage from a glass jaw to his greatest strength.

The NBC debate just ended. In a few hours, the highlight reals should be up and I'll post them.

They will come from Romney and his supporters, that is trustworthy enough.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked