Want to know how Republicans and Democrats will run the country? Observe their national conventions.

Shows why a lot of people don't trust Rand Paul any more after he endorsed Romney. Politicians rarely aren't there for their own gains. The Republicans are an "all of the above" party....it's the elites way or the highway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Shows why a lot of people don't trust Rand Paul any more after he endorsed Romney. Politicians rarely aren't there for their own gains. The Republicans are an "all of the above" party....it's the elites way or the highway.

As if there is a difference in how the two parties run.  Democrats are the party of Sarah Jessica Parker, Anna Winthur, and George Clooney.  Elites?  

As for this thread, please.  The Paul protest was utterly pointless.  There was absolutely no upside to it, despite the Paulites and their crying about fairness.  Their guy lost, and they don't like it.  Instead of celebrating the fact that Paul has moved the needle on issues like the Fed and even the gold standard, they engage in childish behavior that can only serve to weaken the only man who actually has a chance to defeat Barack Obama.  Well done.  

Yea I mean it's not like Democrats ever used dubious Senate procedures to pass an unpopular health care reform bill on a party line vote or anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Don't worry, I'll be posting about the Democratic convention when it rolls around.

Yea 'cause in an uncontested primary there will be so many nits to pick.

That is the Republicans motto either my way or no way.  This is sheer crap on their part with this ultimatum they insist on.
 

How would the GOP govern?

Well here's an example : Paul Ryan big on blame short on substance. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2012/_2012_republican_national_convention/paul_ryan_s_speech_in_tampa_revealed_him_to_be_much_more_of_an_attack_dog_than_policy_wonk_.html

But this is typical of the GOP lately. Not a big surprise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Well here's an example : Paul Ryan big on blame short on substance.

Well then, based on Obama's precedence, he's qualified to be President.

As far as the VP being the "attack dog", that's as old as the hills...on both sides. That's Biden's role too. There's nothing new here. Except perhaps in your mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Well here's an example : Paul Ryan big on blame short on substance.

 

Well then, based on Obama's precedence, he's qualified to be President.

 

As far as the VP being the "attack dog", that's as old as the hills...on both sides. That's Biden's role too. There's nothing new here. Except perhaps in your mind.

Well given that I'm not the author of the article it's not just in my mind. And yes it's old as the hills I believe I said as much. We really wish the GOP had a real plan. As for your views on Obama well they're certainly your views. ( wink if I could )

I really believe Obama does have more of a plan than Romney. One that won't leave Seniors out in the cold or short change the less fortunate in this country. Sorry MJ but I really do believe that even if you don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Well given that I'm not the author of the article it's not just in my mind.

So what? You repeatedly say things like that like it means something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

We really wish the GOP had a real plan.

I wish either side did. So far though we know that Obama's "plan" has been a disaster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

As for your views on Obama well they're certainly your views.

Yep. And your views of Ryan are yours. Wow. Look what we just did there. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

( wink if I could )

You can genius (and it takes fewer key strokes): ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I really believe Obama does have more of a plan than Romney. One that won't leave Seniors out in the cold or short change the less fortunate in this country. Sorry MJ but I really do believe that even if you don't.

I have no doubt that you do. Sadly for you, believing doesn't make it true.

We built that.  With a song, too!

One of the themes of the GOP pep rally, built on the inability to understand the English language which some members of the party want to make the official language of the land.

And directly supported by Uncle Sam himself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/steven-cohen-screen-machine_n_1842995.html

- - - -

I'm waiting for them to trot out a business guy who DID build it himself.  Without the safety net of getting your old job back if you fail like Romney had, or being born rich.  Without the help of his mother to raise him (or dad, or dads, or moms, or you know), schools to teach him, hospitals to help him be born and stay healthy .  Yep.  I want to see the guy who fell from an airplane during delivery and landed on a desert island and now is a multi-millionaire.  Oh, wait, the plane doesn't work as it would have been built by somebody else, not the savvy business god that retroactively created the universe.  He has to have spontaneously developed out of thin air, because his mother also would have helped him by carrying him around in her womb, which she is not free to make decisions for, unlike Mitt and his opinion and its difference from the GOP platform.  He can not in any way have benefitted from the efforts of American soldiers, research supported by the government in science, etc etc etc.  Can't have had any help nor received any advice or assistance from anybody, and had to develop everything for his company by himself.  And forget English; somebody spoke that a long time ago.

Then they can blab all they want.

But didn't God create the Earth... ?

- - - - 

OK, OK.  It's 3:00am and I couldn't sleep.  Watched parts of the GOP convention and was left speechless for an hour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

I'm waiting for them to trot out a business guy who DID build it himself.  Without the safety net of getting your old job back if you fail like Romney had, or being born rich.  Without the help of his mother to raise him (or dad, or dads, or moms, or you know), schools to teach him, hospitals to help him be born and stay healthy .  Yep.  I want to see the guy who fell from an airplane during delivery and landed on a desert island and now is a multi-millionaire.  Oh, wait, the plane doesn't work as it would have been built by somebody else, not the savvy business god that retroactively created the universe.  He has to have spontaneously developed out of thin air, because his mother also would have helped him by carrying him around in her womb, which she is not free to make decisions for, unlike Mitt and his opinion and its difference from the GOP platform.  He can not in any way have benefitted from the efforts of American soldiers, research supported by the government in science, etc etc etc.  Can't have had any help nor received any advice or assistance from anybody, and had to develop everything for his company by himself.

We've gone over this before, but apparently it needs repeating.

First, no one claims that any individual business person built their businesses by themselves. In fact, Leonard Read explained this very poetically years ago. That you or other liberals and Democrats think that's one anyone is thinking is a straw man.

Second, even assuming the most charitable interpretation of Obama's comment on this subject, it carries with it an erroneous implication (that those building businesses have not paid any taxes that the government collected to build those things) and a fallacy...begging the question basically...that government was or is at all necessary for these things.

Stop defending his foolish and fallacious statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Well given that I'm not the author of the article it's not just in my mind.

 

So what? You repeatedly say things like that like it means something.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

We really wish the GOP had a real plan.

 

I wish either side did. So far though we know that Obama's "plan" has been a disaster.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

As for your views on Obama well they're certainly your views.

 

Yep. And your views of Ryan are yours. Wow. Look what we just did there. :rolleyes:

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

( wink if I could )

 

You can genius (and it takes fewer key strokes): ;-)

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I really believe Obama does have more of a plan than Romney. One that won't leave Seniors out in the cold or short change the less fortunate in this country. Sorry MJ but I really do believe that even if you don't.

 

I have no doubt that you do. Sadly for you, believing doesn't make it true.

The fact that some else has an article about the subject shows you are in error implying that it's only my view.

You view Obama's plan as a disaster. Which part the part?  Where his actions kept us from a full blown Depression? Just show me how anyone ( including Ron Paul ) could have run the country so we would have avoided a depression any other way. Yes please show me how they would have had this all fixed by now so I can have a good laugh. Your dancing around the issue won't make it not true MJ.

MJ's equivalent of Nya, nya, nya!

Ps. Hey genius! Had you taken some time away from your ego you might have noticed I post the winks the way I do to make a point. That the " improvements " to this website aren't really progress at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

The fact that some else has an article about the subject shows you are in error implying that it's only my view.

Right. I keep forgetting..."And I'm not the only one who sees it that way." :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You view Obama's plan as a disaster.

I view Obama's administration and actions as a disaster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Where his actions kept us from a full blown Depression?

I've told you...begging the question is not allowed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Just show me how anyone ( including Ron Paul ) could have run the country so we would have avoided a depression any other way. Yes please show me how they would have had this all fixed by now so I can have a good laugh. Your dancing around the issue won't make it not true MJ.

I don't know that all of the problems could have been fixed entirely by now. However, some of the following actions would have put us in the right direction for long-term recovery, stability and growth (none of which Obama has achieved):

• Income tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts
• Government spending cuts
• No bailouts and put companies, states and cities on notice that there will be no more bailouts
• Deficit reduction (or elimination)
• Reducing corporate government subsidies (e.g., agriculture subsidies)
• Reducing trade barriers and tariffs
• Stopping Fed money expansion (granted this is not specifically in the control of the President or Congress...but it would have helped)

Lovely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYu6bYUXD7Q&feature=player_embedded#!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Ps. Hey genius! Had you taken some time away from your ego you might have noticed I post the winks the way I do to make a point. That the " improvements " to this website aren't really progress at all.

I know what your point is. Make it somewhere where it will cause the site owners to notice and make a change. Doing it here looks stupid.

Small vendors, small business people, banned from GOP convention.

Mitt is to talk about his ideas for job creation...

The irony.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/08/30/kcbs-exclusive-small-vendors-barred-from-republican-national-convention-by-romney-campaign/

- - -

and a Bain-owned business filed for bankruptcy???

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

The fact that some else has an article about the subject shows you are in error implying that it's only my view.

 

Right. I keep forgetting..."And I'm not the only one who sees it that way." :rolleyes:

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You view Obama's plan as a disaster.

 

I view Obama's administration and actions as a disaster.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Where his actions kept us from a full blown Depression?

 

I've told you...begging the question is not allowed.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Just show me how anyone ( including Ron Paul ) could have run the country so we would have avoided a depression any other way. Yes please show me how they would have had this all fixed by now so I can have a good laugh. Your dancing around the issue won't make it not true MJ.

 

I don't know that all of the problems could have been fixed entirely by now. However, some of the following actions would have put us in the right direction for long-term recovery, stability and growth (none of which Obama has achieved):

 

• Income tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts
• Government spending cuts
• No bailouts and put companies, states and cities on notice that there will be no more bailouts
• Deficit reduction (or elimination)
• Reducing corporate government subsidies (e.g., agriculture subsidies)
• Reducing trade barriers and tariffs
• Stopping Fed money expansion (granted this is not specifically in the control of the President or Congress...but it would have helped)

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Ps. Hey genius! Had you taken some time away from your ego you might have noticed I post the winks the way I do to make a point. That the " improvements " to this website aren't really progress at all.

 

I know what your point is. Make it somewhere where it will cause the site owners to notice and make a change. Doing it here looks stupid.

Sorry but I have to laugh at you thinking this list ( in this debacle we're in right now that became apparent in the previous Republican administration ) you've made would result in better times. More than likely some of them ( like letting major companies to fail ) would have resulted in a great depression.

Also I only brought up the fact that I'm not the only one who thinks Paul Ryan and the GOP as a whole is a shill master is the fact that you implied that " it was only in my mind " which it obviously wasn't. And I might take this moment to comment on the fact that most of the time you bring up something to portray it as if I'm the only one who thinks this way is patiently false. Obviously I'm not and just of obviously it's important to you as well. Otherwise you wouldn't keep bringing it up. ( Wink if I could )

Which brings me to another point and that is lots of things you say appear to others as stupid ( like suggesting letting big corporations fail would be a good thing for this country ).

Oh one more thing MJ. I don't give a shit what you label as " Begging the question ".

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Sorry but I have to laugh at you thinking this list ( in this debacle we're in right now that became apparent in the previous Republican administration ) you've made would result in better times.

Laugh all you want. However, that doesn't make a rational, logical, fact-base argument against them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

More than likely some of them ( like letting major companies to fail ) would have resulted in a great depression.

It's good to see you've bought into the propaganda of fear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Also I only brought up the fact that I'm not the only one who thinks Paul Ryan and the GOP as a whole is a shill master is the fact that you implied that " it was only in my mind " which it obviously wasn't. And I might take this moment to comment on the fact that most of the time you bring up something to portray it as if I'm the only one who thinks this way is patiently false. Obviously I'm not and just of obviously it's important to you as well. Otherwise you wouldn't keep bringing it up. ( Wink if I could )

I wasn't implying that. You inferred it. Either way though, it doesn't really matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Which brings me to another point and that is lots of things you say appear to others as stupid ( like suggesting letting big corporations fail would be a good thing for this country ).

That may well be. But it doesn't make it so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Oh one more thing MJ. I don't give a shit what you label as " Begging the question ".

If you wish to stop seeing what you say pointed out as fallacies, stop using the fallacies. Simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Sorry but I have to laugh at you thinking this list ( in this debacle we're in right now that became apparent in the previous Republican administration ) you've made would result in better times.

 

Laugh all you want. However, that doesn't make a rational, logical, fact-base argument against them.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

More than likely some of them ( like letting major companies to fail ) would have resulted in a great depression.

 

It's good to see you've bought into the propaganda of fear.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Also I only brought up the fact that I'm not the only one who thinks Paul Ryan and the GOP as a whole is a shill master is the fact that you implied that " it was only in my mind " which it obviously wasn't. And I might take this moment to comment on the fact that most of the time you bring up something to portray it as if I'm the only one who thinks this way is patiently false. Obviously I'm not and just of obviously it's important to you as well. Otherwise you wouldn't keep bringing it up. ( Wink if I could )

 

I wasn't implying that. You inferred it. Either way though, it doesn't really matter.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Which brings me to another point and that is lots of things you say appear to others as stupid ( like suggesting letting big corporations fail would be a good thing for this country ).

 

That may well be. But it doesn't make it so.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Oh one more thing MJ. I don't give a shit what you label as " Begging the question ".

 

If you wish to stop seeing what you say pointed out as fallacies, stop using the fallacies. Simple.

So says an advocate of anarchy. Nuff said. ( Wink if I could )

Also these are only fallacies in the minds of people who think like you. You know the minority. And just because they're in the minority doesn't make them right. ( wink if I could )

Ps. Oh! And best of all :

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So says an advocate of anarchy. Nuff said.

Is that like a counter argument of some kind?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Also these are only fallacies in the minds of people who think like you.

Actually, no. These things are pretty objectively defined. When you claim that what Obama did prevented a depression you are doing what's called begging the question. It means you are assuming the point without providing evidence to support or prove this claim. This isn't a matter of opinion. You'll do better the sooner you realize this and stop doing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So says an advocate of anarchy. Nuff said.

 

Is that like a counter argument of some kind?!

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Also these are only fallacies in the minds of people who think like you.

 

Actually, no. These things are pretty objectively defined. When you claim that what Obama did prevented a depression you are doing what's called begging the question. It means you are assuming the point without providing evidence to support or prove this claim. This isn't a matter of opinion. You'll do better the sooner you realize this and stop doing it.

Actually MJ this may surprise you but most people don't look at anarchists as rational people.

Also once again ( Begging the question as you label it ). Using that logic your assuming that letting big corporations fail wouldn't drive us into a depression begging the question as you have no proof of that either. However I do have economists ( that you don't like yes we already know ) that say that would be a certainty. Begging the question as you label it :  I Still don't give a shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Actually MJ this may surprise you but most people don't look at anarchists as rational people.

So?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Also once again ( Begging the question as you label it ). Still don't give a shit.

I know. You've said so. You've gone on record now as saying that you don't give a shit that you're regularly using fallacies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Actually MJ this may surprise you but most people don't look at anarchists as rational people.

 

So?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Also once again ( Begging the question as you label it ). Still don't give a shit.

 

I know. You've said so. You've gone on record now as saying that you don't give a shit that you're regularly using fallacies.

The world according to MJ. You should write a book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

So you feel justified that the Republicans changed their own rules on the spot to deliberately disenfranchise and alienate duly elected delegates from their own party. Got it.

 

If these are the kinds of people you want in government, you deserve the government you get.

Cut the sanctimony and false outrage.  Mitt Romney was and is the nominee.  No amount of procedural bullshit was going to change that.  The entire delegate selection system and primary/caucus system is a nightmare anyway.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

No. You should be outraged at the behavior of the leadership of your party. Stop making excuses. Stop trying to justify your support for evil actions.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, as MJ would say.  I'm not outraged, because Romney was the nominee regardless of whatever useless, nonsensical rules were "broken."  Paul was cheated of nothing.  In fact, he got more delegates than he was supposed to because folks like you showed up at delegate selection meetings and tried to hijack the will of electorate through technicalities.  And if--God forbid--it actually had worked, you'd be defending it as "part of the process."   I mean, who is shitting who here, jazz?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

You are missing the point. It's not about who was the nominee or wasn't. Duly elected delegates were disenfranchised and alienated by their own party. They were afraid to let Ron Paul and his supporters have any kind of voice or influence at the convention, and they acted on that fear.

 

If the leadership of your party can ignore their own rules when it suits them, they can and will ignore the Constitution when it suits them. I want no part of it.

First of all...bullshit.  They sat 2 out of 3 delegations.  Secondly, bullshit. The Ron Paul folks have had a pretty significant impact on the platform.  They've "moved the needle" on several issues, such as the Gold Standard and auditing the Fed.  Third, bullshit.  You can't possibly be suggesting that the GOP not following "rules" which in this case have no impact on the nomination means anything about how that nominee will govern.  Come on.  You should focus on the fact that both parties have insanely stupid and nearly-byzantine systems for picking their nominees.  Caucuses?  Multiple primaries?  Faithless delegates?  That's the problem.  

And please, enlighten me with how you'd feel if Paul's little delegate coup d'etat had worked and he had somehow been nominated over the guy that got hundreds of thousands more votes.  Because right now, you seem like you'd have no problem with it.  

So you have no problems with the false vote on the rule change?  If the rules aren't convenient, ignore them or change them without due process?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

So you have no problems with the false vote on the rule change?  If the rules aren't convenient, ignore them or change them without due process?  

 

I have no problem with it because the "false vote on the rule change" had absolutely nothing to do with, well, anything that mattered.  They could have refused to seat anyone that had a Ron Paul button on, and it still wouldn't have mattered.  Romney was the nominee, which is what the entire convention was about.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

You are STILL missing the point.

 

But keep supporting your corrupt party and see how that works out for you.

I love how you are perfectly fine with the "corruption" as long as it potentially benefits your candidate.  You defended Ron Paul's attempt to steal Romney delegates under a technicality.  In fact, you PARTICIPATED personally in said effort, defending it all the way as some sort of democratic right-of-passage.  And now you're pissed, screaming about corruption and "the process."   Further, you've then got the balls to tell me that I support a corrupt process, despite the fact that I've told you I think both parties nominations processes are complete shit.  I mean, for f**k's sake. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

I have no problem with it because the "false vote on the rule change" had absolutely nothing to do with, well, anything that mattered.  They could have refused to seat anyone that had a Ron Paul button on, and it still wouldn't have mattered.  Romney was the nominee, which is what the entire convention was about.  

If not for the rule that was just changed, you never would have had your precious Saint Reagan.  So yes, look the other way because in your view the issue didn't matter--but this sets a terrible precedent (or, really, perpetuates one because similar voice-vote fraud has been going on in Michigan for the last couple years).  If you don't like the rules or don't consider the issue important enough, you get to ignore the rules.  Yeah, that's fucking scary shit.

The motherfucking vote was a scripted charade.  The "ayes have it" was already on the teleprompter waiting to be read no matter what the true outcome.  This flies against all the principles of a democracy.  AND YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT!  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Please calm down. Ron Paul's supporters tried to work within an already corrupt system and play by its rules. The party leadership decided to ignore and change the rules when they didn't like the outcome. This is an established fact. The corruption begins and ends with the GOP leadership, NOT the Ron Paul supporters.

 

And yes, whether you believe it or not, you do indeed support a corrupt process and system. I don't see you disassociating yourself from the GOP like I and many others have and continue to do.

 

You openly acknowledge that both major parties' nomination processes are so terrible, yet you continue to support one of them. Why?

LOL.    Exactly.  See, it's OK to disenfranchise voters because it's just the way the process works.  But a dog and pony show of a vote that can't possibly affect the outcome of the nomination, well...now that's a scandal.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

 

If not for the rule that was just changed, you never would have had your precious Saint Reagan.  

 

 

Oh boy.  You are confusing the tactics of Reagan supporters in 1976 with the outcome of the 1980 primaries.  

Of course it was scripted.  It's a convention...almost everything is scripted.  And no, I don't give a shit because it had no impact whatsoever on the nomination of the guy who won the most votes and thereby delegates.  It's that "principle of democracy" that I care about.  

Without Reagan forcing the brokered convention, he would not have had the political clout to succeed in 1980.  Your political party had rules.  They also had a process for changing the rules.  They ignored both.

Hell, your candidate should FUCKING LOVE WHAT RON PAUL DID.  He found every loophole possible for his own personal gain.  Sound familiar?  Romney's taxes?  You have no problem with finding every goddamn loophole in the tax code and shortchanging America as a result.  Why the problem with loopholes here?  Oh wait, because it's inconvenient to your guy.  What a fucking sack of hypocrites.