222074 Bullies, 4143 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 61 to 70 of 103
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 891011 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. JohnnyCache is offline
    JohnnyCache's Avatar

    All Out of Bubblegum

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,473

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 11:27am

    supporting memberforum leader
     Style: MMA

    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by daddykata View Post
    The peace thing is bullshit liberal fantasy that all right-wingers are warmongers.

    Paul does have a tendency to talk over people's heads, which is his biggest problem: he's not an effective communicator of ideas.
    This is "so libertarian" - dude, the problem isn't that paul is just so super smart people don't get it. The problem is that his political destination is horse-****. The political vision of libertarians is untenable and false.
    There's no choice but to confront you, to engage you, to erase you. I've gone to great lengths to expand my threshold of pain. I will use my mistakes against you. There's no other choice.
  2. submessenger is offline
    submessenger's Avatar

    Transmaniacon MC

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,601

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 11:37am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCache View Post
    This is "so libertarian" - dude, the problem isn't that paul is just so super smart people don't get it. The problem is that his political destination is horse-****. The political vision of libertarians is untenable and false.
    I think you mistake me for a Paul supporter. I am not.
  3. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 11:37am

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Res Judicata View Post
    In my lifetime, we have had three presidents who did not get elected for a second term: (1) Gerald Ford (special case); (2) Jimmy Carter; and (3) George HW Bush. We have had two two-term Presidents who were reelected with relative ease (Reagan (landslide) and Clinton (FU Perot)), and one who was reelected by a hair (GWB). Getting reelected is no easy feat, especially with a down economy (Ford, Carter, GHWB).
    Ford was never elected to a first term, so we can scratch that entirely. Indeed, he wasn't even part of Nixon's 1972 ticket—he wasn't even elected Veep. He replaced Agnew after Agnew resigned. That isn't merely a special case, that's actually a case so far removed from even the idea of re-election it has to be put aside entirely. You're also a bit younger than me: in my lifetime Nixon was elected to a second term.

    Carter is a special case, as he had a significant primary challenge from Ted Kennedy. This wasn't a major factor in Reagan's landslide of course, but it did demonstrate more or less the same problem Romney has already—the people taking organizational responsibility for the party on the ground didn't like their actual choice all that much.

    And so you are left with one, and even Bush 41 was a special case as you note, as 1992 had a strong third-party candidate in Ross Perot, who generally leeched votes from right-tending independents and independent-minded Republicans.

    So scratch one historically unique circumstance that cannot even remotely be counted as re-election, and two special cases, what do you have? Incumbents winning. Bush 43's second election was a tight one, but his performance improved from 2000.

    So yes, when there are major disasters like an unelected VP taking office, and major interventions by mercurial billionaires, things can happen. So, which billionaire is going to run and siphon votes from Obama's left flank?
  4. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 11:38am

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by daddykata View Post
    You said:
    Which, by induction, means that Republicans desire a war candidate (whatever that is), and by extension, that Republicans desire war. Is that not what you meant?
    So you admit to two explicit stretches of my straightforward and accurate claim to come up with your strawman version of my claim. Pathetic.
  5. submessenger is offline
    submessenger's Avatar

    Transmaniacon MC

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,601

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 12:08pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    So you admit to two explicit stretches of my straightforward and accurate claim to come up with your strawman version of my claim. Pathetic.
    Your claim that Paul's failure as a candidate is because:
    there's just no desire for a peace candidate among the Republicans
    How exactly is my interpretation a stretch? What did you mean by this?
  6. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,775

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 12:15pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by daddykata View Post
    Your claim that Paul's failure as a candidate is because:
    How exactly is my interpretation a stretch? What did you mean by this?
    You read that weird, like we all do at times, and then made a completely subjective assessment of his point without asking for clarification. Now that you quoted that specific part, that irritated you, I see where you screwed up.
  7. submessenger is offline
    submessenger's Avatar

    Transmaniacon MC

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,601

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 12:27pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    You read that weird, like we all do at times, and then made a completely subjective assessment of his point without asking for clarification. Now that you quoted that specific part, that irritated you, I see where you screwed up.
    If he'd said "Dr. Paul never got any action as there's just no desire for an appeasement candidate among the Republicans," I wouldn't have blinked.
  8. JohnnyCache is offline
    JohnnyCache's Avatar

    All Out of Bubblegum

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,473

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 12:30pm

    supporting memberforum leader
     Style: MMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by daddykata View Post
    I think you mistake me for a Paul supporter. I am not.
    Not the point. You implied the issue is he's going over people heads, it's not. Well, maybe it is, on a case by case basis, but what's holding paul back is the people that actually understand him aren't as impressed as the people who say they understand him and the problem is the rest of us don't.
    There's no choice but to confront you, to engage you, to erase you. I've gone to great lengths to expand my threshold of pain. I will use my mistakes against you. There's no other choice.
  9. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 12:33pm

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by daddykata View Post
    Your claim that Paul's failure as a candidate is because:
    How exactly is my interpretation a stretch? What did you mean by this?
    I'm sorry, is your defense literally going to be that you're too stupid to understand that when you say "by extension" you're by definition making a stretch? That these words are near-synonyms?

    Very well—from now on, I will assume that you are a moron and integrate that into my remarks to you.

    Does not liking a peace candidate (a term used by Paul supporters incidentally) necessarily mean liking a war candidate? Of course not, you drooling simpleton. If you'd paid attention at any point since, oh, 1988, this would be obvious to you, in the same way it is obvious to institutionalized retards who live all day in their own ****.

    One can decide to like a "peace through strength" candidate—Bush 41, for example. Which means an emphasis on a willingness to intervene, and to build up a military capable of multiple interventions, without actually saying the w-word. Bush 41 was very keen on the UN-backed coalition as a figleaf for his interventions as well. "We're all doing it!" Just a bunch of nerds teaming up against the neighborhood bully.

    One can decide to like a "humanitarian intervention" candidate—Clinton, for example. To the folks having their apartment buildings bombed to pieces and homes shot up, there is little difference between a "humanitarian intervention" and a "war" of course, but for the Democrats, this was a soothing balm. They could pretend to be cowboys in a world full of hostile Indians again. Plus, it was surely all NATO's doing—we have to be nice to NATO, right? (A chimpanzee can see a certain number of similarities between Bush 41 and Clinton, btw. Can you?)

    One can also like a "war on terror" candidate, like Bush 43 in 2004. Wars on terror aren't real wars, of course, as nobody will feel a thing. Have a tax rebate! Go shopping! We're just engaging in self-defense, after all! Pre-emptive self-defense, sure, but...and plus there's a coalition again! Of the willing! Did you forget about Poland? Don't forget about Poland!

    One can be a "You break it, you bought it" candidate, a la Kerry. Surely we can bomb all those hospitals back into good repair, yes? Who could possibly see Iraq as an occupied country? Iraqis! Pfft, those people don't even vote in the US. So the war was a terrible, wasteful, bloody, bad thing and the only way to get out of this hole is to keep digging so we don't look like fags! Hop into my swiftboat of dreams and let us sail to victory! Uhm, I mean feeling very sorry for continuing to shoot you.

    One can be the "Not that war, this one!" candidate, a la Dean and Obama among the Democrats. Both were "against" Iraq when it turned out to be rough sledding, but were happy to continue along in Afghanistan. Dean even rattled a saber at Saudi Arabia, because Michael Moore gave him permission to.

    The opposite of being a peace candidate isn't being a war candidate, it's being a media-friendly soundbite candidate who certainly won't close military bases or cut spending too much or cancel some pork-laden R&D projects, and who certainly sees the world like one big game of Risk. And that's what people want. That's why the Republicans didn't vote for Paul.
  10. submessenger is offline
    submessenger's Avatar

    Transmaniacon MC

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,601

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 12:34pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCache View Post
    Not the point. You implied the issue is he's going over people heads, it's not. Well, maybe it is, on a case by case basis, but what's holding paul back is the people that actually understand him aren't as impressed as the people who say they understand him and the problem is the rest of us don't.
    I was merely agreeing with Riv on that point so it would be off the table. I should have just chopped it out of the quote. I don't disagree with your analysis, here.
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 891011 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.