Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 731164 times)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #600 on: August 23, 2011, 07:40:58 AM »
JDN writes:

"Perry's dealings with Mexico seem to consist of complaining about the border."

Well yeah.  What else is he supposed to do JDN?  Look at Arizona.  They try to take up border security on their own and Brock takes them to court.

Well Gallup has Perry dead even in a poll for PResident with Brock!  He hasn't even gotten off the ground yet and the political assasination attempts by the Democratic party and the MSM so far are failing big time. 
Even Romeny is ahead  :-D


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #601 on: August 23, 2011, 08:45:27 AM »
Who does Huntsman think is our enemy is and how does he propose to defeat them?

He offers a 1:37 video at this link that I find to be a start to that answer: http://www.jon2012.com/blog/Tags/Foreign-Policy  As it can be said about the other candidates, there is no point in the video where he could interject: "I am the candidate who has experience doing that."

He takes Obama's only success, the bin laden kill operation, and suggests all threat should be handled that way.  Gather perfect intelligence without boots on the ground and very sparingly carry out special forces operations at just that moment before real threats attack us inside our borders.  Good luck with that!

Huntsman favored the Iraq surge, influenced by his friendship with John McCain, also favored the Afghan surge as far as we know, but would bring all troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan now regardless of events on the ground.  No contradiction there (sarc).  He opposed the Libyan intervention and has no real comment on 'Arab spring' or 'Chinese winter'.  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/arab-spring-chinese-winter/8601/?single_page=true

That is a coherent foreign policy that would help Republicans win the White House and make the world more secure??  If so, his articulation skills are right up there with W. Bush.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 08:50:19 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Cain 9-9-9 tax plan
« Reply #602 on: August 23, 2011, 09:22:19 AM »
Taxing businesses at 9%, personal at 9% and consumption at 9%: Very interesting! I don't endorse his plan but I would admit that:

a) Cain's plan is the best or only real plan for success now on the table from the candidates, b) it is a significant improvement over his previous blind support for the 'Fair tax' that unrealistically requires and assumes repeal of the 16th amendment, the power to tax income federally at all, and c) his plan, if we could stick to it, would grow us out of this mess.

That said, I think the risk of initiating a new federal tax, a national sales tax, without repealing the federal  income tax, is not worth the risk in this pendulum political environment where radical the pro-tax, anti-wealth liberals will likely take back over once the job growth record again hits 50 consecutive months.

I would rather see them lower the income tax rates on everything, eliminate illogical loopholes and leave the sales tax base to the states who have their own financial challenges.
-----
Pawlenty's plan of lowering capital gains rates to zero was (also) unrealistic - a critical political error that contributed to the fact that no one took his overall proposal seriously.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #603 on: August 23, 2011, 09:25:15 AM »
JDN:

I think you understate what being governor of Texas for 11 years entails in terms of understanding and dealing with Mexico by quite a bit.

Bachman:  thanks for the correction on the committee.  I assume you are right on the time involved and yes it is very little.

Huntsman:  Granted the experience of having been ambassador to China and speaking the language are quite relevant, but exactly what, if anything, has he done/is he responsible for with regard to China other than write ass kissing letters to Baraq?  

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential, Perry v. Romney
« Reply #605 on: August 25, 2011, 08:33:32 AM »
One unmentioned advantage Perry has over Romney is that he could pick a highly qualified, private sector trained northeasterner for his running mate to balance out that he has too much government executive experience and that he is 'too-Texas' for the rest of the nation, he could pick Mitt Romney. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/08/24/who-would-rick-perry-choose-for-vice-president/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #606 on: August 25, 2011, 12:31:23 PM »
"he is 'too-Texas'"

You mean like LBjerk?

For me, Brock is too Hahvood.

The liberals sure think they know what is best for the world don't they.
Never enough pinstripes.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential, Perry v. Romney
« Reply #607 on: August 25, 2011, 02:43:41 PM »
One unmentioned advantage Perry has over Romney is that he could pick a highly qualified, private sector trained northeasterner for his running mate to balance out that he has too much government executive experience and that he is 'too-Texas' for the rest of the nation, he could pick Mitt Romney. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/08/24/who-would-rick-perry-choose-for-vice-president/

I think lots of the rest of America is feeling a bit of Texas.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #608 on: August 25, 2011, 03:03:50 PM »
I see Sen. Rubio as a good choice.  Free enterprise is not only for white people, good for latino vote and great message for where the Rep party wants to be with Latinos, young, telegenic, and great speaker for the American Creed.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #609 on: August 25, 2011, 09:14:28 PM »
The teaser with Rubio is to tempt the Obama team to call a first term Senator unqualified to be Vice President.

Interesting endorsement of Perry by a former adversary. Daily Beast seems like an unusual venue a surprising Perry plug. 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/24/kinky-friedman-rick-perry-s-got-my-vote.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

"he is a good, kindhearted man, and he once sat in on drums with ZZ Top. A guy like that can’t be all bad."
...
"These days, of course, I would support Charlie Sheen over Obama. Obama has done for the economy what pantyhose did for foreplay. "
...
"I agree with Rick that there are already too damn many laws, taxes, regulations, panels, committees, and bureaucrats. While Obama is busy putting the hyphen between “anal” and “retentive” Rick will be rolling up his sleeves and getting to work."  - Kinky Friedman

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
Noonan on Perry
« Reply #610 on: August 26, 2011, 12:22:39 PM »


Rick Perry this week roared away from the pack. Gallup had him the party favorite, with 29% of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents saying they're most likely to support him. Next came Mitt Romney with 17%, Ron Paul with 13%, and Michele Bachmann at 10%. All the rest were single digits except for "no preference," which got 17%.

On top of that, Mr. Perry got the much-coveted Kinky Friedman vote. The political gadfly and musician, who in 2006 ran as an Independent against Mr. Perry, wrote in the Daily Beast that he didn't always like the Texas governor. It had in fact been his plan to, upon death, be cremated and have the ashes thrown in Rick Perry's hair. But now he sees Mr. Perry as "a good, kind-hearted man" with a solid economic record. Mr. Friedman admitted he'd vote for Charlie Sheen before Barack Obama, but asked: Could Perry fix the American economy? "Hell yes."

Mr. Perry's primary virtue for the Republican base is that he means it. He comes across as a natural conservative, Texas Division, who won't be changing his mind about his basic premises any time soon. His professed views don't seem to be an outfit he can put on and take off at will. In this of course he's the anti-Romney. Unlike Ms. Bachmann, he has executive experience, three terms as governor of a state with 25 million people.

His primary flaw appears to be a chesty, quick-draw machismo that might be right for an angry base but wrong for an antsy country. Americans want a president who feels their anger without himself walking around enraged.

View Full Image

Associated Press
 .Mr. Perry's announcement speech on Aug. 13 was strong and smart. Biography: He's the son of tenant farmers from Paint Creek, a town too small to have a zip code, in the Texas plains. The meaning of the biography: The American dream lives on. "You see," he said, "as Americans we're not defined by class, and we will never be told our place. What makes our nation exceptional is that anyone, from any background, can climb the highest of heights." He laced into the incumbent: "Now we're told we're in a recovery. Yeah. But this sure doesn't feel like a recovery to more than 9% of Americans out there who are unemployed, or the 16% of African Americans and 11% of Hispanics in the same position." The recovery is really a "disaster."

Then, stingingly, "[The president's] policies are not only a threat to this economy, so are his appointees a threat. You see he stacked the National Labor Relations Board with antibusiness cronies who want to dictate to a private company, Boeing, where they can build a plant. No president, no president should kill jobs in South Carolina, or any other state for that matter, simply because they chose to go to a right-to-work state." Mr. Perry was speaking in Charleston, so the Boeing reference had local resonance: But what appears to be the Obama administration's attempt to curry favor with unions by stopping a Boeing plant may have national resonance, too.

More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns

click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace
.Mr. Perry's now-famous gaffes, for which he's been roundly criticized, are said to suggest an infelicity of language. But they look more like poor judgement. On Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: "If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion." On the subject of secession: "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that." On President Obama's patriotism—in response to a question from this newspaper's Danny Yadron, who asked Mr. Perry if he was suggesting that Mr. Obama didn't love this country: 'I dunno, you need to ask him.'" On Mr. Obama's lack of military service: "The president had the opportunity to serve his country I'm sure, at some time, and he made the decision that that wasn't what he wanted to do."

The secession reference was off the cuff, not spoken in a speech that had been fully thought through. Still, to refer blithely to secession, even in that context, as anything but tragic—which both it and the potential reasons behind it would be—suggests a lack of reflection, a lack of gravitas, a carelessness. As for Mr. Bernanke, he is an earnest public servant who is either right or wrong in his assumptions and decisions, but certainly not treacherous or treasonous.

Why does this kind of thing matter? Because presidential temperament has never been more important. We can't escape presidents now, they're all over every screen, and they set a tone.

And the nation is roiling and restive. After Mr. Obama was elected, the right became angry, feisty, and created a new and needed party, the tea party. The right was on fire. The next time a Republican wins, and that could be next year, it will be the left that shows real anger, with unemployment high and no jobs available and government spending and services likely to be cut. The left will be on fire. The only thing leashing them now is the fact of Mr. Obama.

So there will be plenty of new angers out there. It probably won't be helpful if the next president is someone likely to add to the drama with a hot temperament or carelessness.

A lesson from the Reagan experience:

In 1980 the American electorate was so disturbed by economic disorder that it took a big leap. The leap was Ronald Reagan, the most conservative president since Calvin Coolidge was elected in 1924. Ronald Reagan was not the moderate in the GOP field, he was not the "establishment candidate." It took a real leap to get to him.

The public was able to make the leap for two big reasons. He represented a conservatism that could be clearly asserted, defended and advanced, and which marked a break from the reigning thinking which had gotten us into trouble. And he was a person of moderate temperament and equability. He was good natured, even-keeled, competent and accomplished. Just because he wanted to do some "radical" things didn't mean he would allow a spirit of radicalism to overtake his personality or essential nature.

And this was important in 1980 because Mr. Carter, at the end of the campaign, tried to paint Mr. Reagan as an angry cowboy with crazy ideas. You don't want that guy with his finger on the button.

It was a serious charge. People would listen, and consider whether there seemed to be truth in it. Then Mr. Reagan would walk out on the TV screen and give a speech or an interview and people would see this benign and serious person and think, "He isn't radical. That's not what radical looks like."

They only lept toward him after they looked.

In 2012, the Republican candidate will be called either mean or dumb, or both. Certainly, his politics will be called mean. And if the candidate is Rick Perry, people will look at him and think: Hmmm, is there something to the charge?

He should keep that in mind as he pops off. If there is a deeper, more reflective person there he'd best show it, sooner rather than later. This is the point where out of the corner of their eye, people are starting to get impressions.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #611 on: August 26, 2011, 10:43:21 PM »
Noonan makes a good point about over the top rhetoric not being helpful but completely misses the the real significance of the point Perry made. 

The others talk in obtuse terms about what they might do in 1 1/2 years depending on what the circumstances might be then. Perry was the first to put anybody on notice that we don't want any more damage done in this country now, especially in the interest artificially propping up the incumbent. 

One thing the Bush-Cheney haters missed last decade was the friendship of Cheney and Greenspan and what role that may have had in him continuing the accommodative monetary policy far longer than they should have, in particular through the 2004 elections.  It wasn't lost on Perry. 

Perry put the Fed on notice that as the possible next President he expects them to do their job protecting the dollar responsibly.  THAT is off limits?  Using strong words that gets everyone's attention is a negative??  How so?  Check the polls on that, lol. 

And then there was secessionism.  The founders and framers were secessionists.  For one thing, secession to gain freedom from tyranny after trying everything else has nothing to do with secession for slavery.  Breaking up the union isn't anybody's first choice.  Freedom is.

Personally I favor fixing what is wrong, not leaving.  That said, I value freedom of speech and that includes brainstorming among friends about all theoretical ways of not having every decision and choice in your life being ruled by afar.  In a moment of extreme frustration, that discussion might include a mention of secession.

So politically we have a guy talking about extreme measures in the pursuit of  freedom and he is running against a guy in a candid moment that was caught talking about typical white people, clinging to religion and doing some blow.  I can work with that choice and Peggy Noonan can make hers.  A wordsmith she is, but if she would look past the deck chairs she might see the iceberg approaching.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #612 on: August 27, 2011, 05:51:53 AM »
Well said, Doug!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #613 on: August 27, 2011, 08:29:08 AM »
I agree.

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #614 on: August 27, 2011, 08:35:03 AM »
While I agree that Greenspan accommodated monetary policy too long, his actions were hardly "treasonable".  Nor are Bernanke's actions "treasonable"; a very strong and offensive word.  You seem to forget the Fed's two mandates are "to promote sustainable growth AND high levels of employment".  "Protecting the dollar" only applies as it falls within the above.

As for the "mention of succession" I think as a country we tried that once; it didn't work out too well.  I doubt if the idea has any more appeal to the nation than it did back then.

While I have nothing against Perry, I'm looking forward to learning and seeing more of him, he might work on his choice of words; what works in Texas might not work or appeal to the rest of America or on the World's stage.

« Last Edit: August 27, 2011, 09:06:07 AM by JDN »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #615 on: August 27, 2011, 09:35:31 AM »
JDN:

I'd like to suggest that you go back and see what actually was said; your words here misportray things.

Working from memory, what Perry said was that IF Bernanke further damaged the dollar by printing more money for the political purpose of getting Baraq elected, THEN that would be near-treasonous.

THAT is QUITE a bit different from what you just posted.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #616 on: August 27, 2011, 09:44:39 AM »
Republicans must not let MSM and right elistist like the Bush people distract from the task at hand.

Stop worrying and hand wringing about minor issues like ocassional choice of words.

We must have a man/woman who as Doug rightly pointed out can stand right next to Brock and point out where he is lying, where he is wrong and starkly contrast why he is purposely taking this country in a direction that is wrong.

See my post from the Hillsdale college piece that beautifully shows how we are on a path to dismal mediocracy and probably eventiual ruin like in Europe.

JDN wants a paternalisitic security driven economy and welfare state.  I don't.  And I believe most people in America who truly understand what it means don't.

As for the immigrants the legal ones are not the same as the illegal ones.  The ones who are illegal clearly don't give a shit about our laws, our culture, our society.  They are here for jobs, to siphon off money to send back home and get whatever they can in the way of giveaways.  They are tilting the balance in favor of a welfare state.

This may very well be the last stand as the Hillsdale piece suggests.  Soon more than 50% of our population will receiving bribes.

The whole system will come crashing down eventually.


JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #617 on: August 27, 2011, 09:59:33 AM »
JDN:

I'd like to suggest that you go back and see what actually was said; your words here misportray things.

Working from memory, what Perry said was that IF Bernanke further damaged the dollar by printing more money for the political purpose of getting Baraq elected, THEN that would be near-treasonous.

THAT is QUITE a bit different from what you just posted.

And I still disagree; IF Bernanke decides it is in the best interest of America (and he has repeatedly said so) to "print more money"  "to promote sustainable growth AND high levels of employment" that is NOT a "treasonable" action.  Nor were Greenspan's actions "treasonable".  Of course, you can disagree with their actions, but neither were "treasonable".  Such irresponsible language from a potential president seems inappropriate to me as does foolish and perhaps offensive talk of succession.  As I side note, I find it interesting that Bernanke was appointed to be head of the Fed by Republican President Bush and only reappointed by Obama.

That said, as CCP quoted, "We must have a man/woman who as Doug rightly pointed out can stand right next to Brock and point out where he is lying, where he is wrong and starkly contrast why he is purposely taking this country in a direction that is wrong." 

Nothing wrong with that.  But language is important.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #618 on: August 27, 2011, 10:15:15 AM »
Yes language is important.  That is why you should not misportray this:

"what Perry said was that IF Bernanke further damaged the dollar by printing more money for the political purpose of getting Baraq elected, THEN that would be near-treasonous."

I would rather he not have put things like that, mostly because some people  :wink: will be determined to misportray it.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #619 on: August 27, 2011, 10:26:23 AM »
"I would rather he not have put things like that, mostly because some people   will be determined to misportray it."

Exactly.  The main reason it is important so as not to give political adversaries fodder.

In a side note  but related, it has been interesting to see Bushies like Rove become adversaries.  I ask who elected him?

He damaged O'Donnel and now Perry. 

I saw Jeb Bush on Fox again.  He is definitely NOT the Republican this country needs.   He sounded like the appearer of the past not like I sounded last week. 

His families political "accomodating", if you will, has in retrospect, clearly helped lead us into the mess we are in now.

We don't need niceness.  We need someone who can express and explain the urgency/emergency we are in and give us a clear path out without appeasement.

No appeasement.  Respectful ok.  But strict and clear.  If we can't stop it here it is probably over.  As Doug also pointed out, here we are in the wrost economic crises in a lifetime and Brock still has a 50/50 chance of winning.  If that doesn't make it clear what we are up against (the welfare state) than nothing will.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
correction
« Reply #620 on: August 27, 2011, 10:28:18 AM »
"He sounded like the appearer"

should have been appeaSer.  Sorry.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #621 on: August 27, 2011, 04:31:48 PM »
Looks to me like Rove cannot bring down Perry.  Rove, like Newt, was the genius for a time, but he was not the genius when he left power.  I like to read him and listen to him for his electoral insights, but he wields no direct power.  The openness of the feud and differences between the Bush and Perry camps is exactly what Perry needs for his separation from the past.  If Perry was a Bush prodigy groomed and advanced by Bush Rove Cheney, he would not even be considered.  He is a bit too rough around the edges for Peggy Noonan types and that makes him anti-establishment, which in this moment is a huge positive.

Words: I can't follow a discussion about the importance of words that goes on to ignore their precise meanings.  'Almost treasonous' means not treasonous because treason has a specific meaning and 'almost' means some element of that is missing.  Obama and Bernancke have pursued policies that brought epidemic levels of unemployment, inflation impending, debt beyond wildest imagination, generational theft, destruction of our productive capability, deprivation of our citizens and industries of the energy necessary to succeed -  they have caused as much economic carnage in this country as any enemy ever has in any direct attack.  They are one discovered email or FBI taped meeting away from us finding out it was intentional or conducted in collusion with some enemy of the United States.  The damage is our worst enemy's dream come true; a felony except for missing the proof of intention. Almost treasonous is as accurate as any description I have seen.

Was Noonan up in arms when Obama said 'enemy' for political opponent, when Biden called Republicans 'terrorists', when the left called intensive questioning 'torture' or when the entire left said 'lied about WMD' which means knowingly and intentional when it was neither.  They tried to try their predecessors as war criminals, then tell us to talk nice, don't say something strong but absolutely true that could be misportrayed.  If the sides were reversed they would fall off their desks to hear conservatives even say 'nearly lied' if a different administration turned out to be partly wrong about WMD.

The central policies and direction of Obama and of the left are known to be anti-growth economic policies.  They are adding regulations daily to an already strangulation level of regulatory burden.  They have accelerated spending and borrowing on steroids.  They added two dozen new taxes through Obamacare and want other taxes to go up.  Where we have racial unrest they doubled black unemployment.  They continue to put up roadblocks to producing energy at home while praising and funding the same projects in Brazil.  All these moves are known to kill jobs and they did.  It kills off investment.  It enriches the people who bet against our economy like the buyers of gold.  The only close model for it is the Great Depression and in fact the more that FDR's policies made things worse and prolonged the carnage, the more power he acquired.

Bernancke is complicit in it all.  They don't spend a trillion and half more than they take in if he doesn't provide the money.  Housing didn't go up where it did if he didn't fund it.  Gold and oil don't get bid up to those levels if he didn't monetize it.  Where did that money go?  They say high energy prices helped some in Texas.  Maybe so.  Try also looking at places like Putin's Russia.  Our failed policies enrich him and expand his power and influence.  Also Chavez, Libya, Iran, all of OPEC etc.

People look at all the unemployment and wealth destruction and think the words used to describe it all are the problem??  Good grief.

I say stop the destruction and then stop the harsh words.  Instead President Obama is gearing up for another round of desruction - after this brief intermission to silence the critics.

"what works in Texas might not work..."

Looks like it IS working.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2011, 04:38:36 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
What Perry Really Said About Secession
« Reply #622 on: August 28, 2011, 08:20:30 AM »
http://factcheck.org/2011/08/what-perry-really-said-about-secession/

What Perry Really Said About Secession



August 23, 2011

 



The Obama team falsely suggests Texas Gov. Rick Perry advocated secession. Perry's actual remarks have been mischaracterized. Perry entertained a reporter's question about secession after a tea party rally in 2009, and warned that "if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that?" But he's made clear all along that "we've got a great union" and there is "no reason to dissolve it."
 
Perry has carelessly commented that Texas has a unique right to secede from the union, having once been an independent republic. That's a myth, historians say. But Perry never advocated secession.
 
Perry Never Advocated Secession
 
Perry has been dogged by mischaracterizations of his secession comments ever since he made them. But with Perry recently declaring himself a Republican candidate for president, those attacks have been ramped up by opponents trying to marginalize his candidacy by dismissing Perry as the guy who once talked about Texas seceding from the union.
 
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Aug. 21, Robert Gibbs, a former White House spokesman and now an adviser for the Obama reelection campaign, was asked about Perry's thinly veiled suggestion that President Barack Obama didn't love his country.
 

Gibbs, Aug 21: Well, two things come to mind. Rick Perry is the governor who, two years ago, openly talked about whether or not Texas should leave the union. So I think for Rick Perry to, at one point, talk about secession from the union as early as–or as far back as only 2009, I think it's good that he's professed his love for this country. But I'll be honest with you, Savannah, I think the American people are tired of the politics where, if you and I don't agree on something, I question your love of country and your patriotism.
 
A week earlier, White House spokesman Jay Carney took a similar jab, when he was asked by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd what he thought about Perry's comment that it would be "treasonous" for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to print more money.
 

Carney, Aug. 16: We may disagree with our political opponents, but we certainly think they’re all patriots — even those who wanted to secede from the union.
 
Perry's secession comments came after a tea party event in April 2009. They quickly went viral on the Internet and touched off a firestorm of media scrutiny.
 
Here's the full exchange, which you can watch here, with Associated Press reporter Kelley Shannon:
 

Shannon: Some have associated you with the idea of secession or sovereignty for your state. …
 
Perry: I think there’s a lot of different scenarios. Texas is a unique place. When we came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.
 
You know, my hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There is absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that? But Texas is a very unique place and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.
 
Some Perry critics have also pointed to another statement from Perry, this time to a group of tech bloggers taking a tour of his Capitol offices the month before the tea party interview. At one point, according to audio posted on YouTube, Perry tells the group, "When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic. We were a stand-alone nation. And one of the deals was, we can leave any time we want. … So we're kind of thinking about that again."
 
The line was met with laughter, suggesting it was not meant as a serious position statement.
 
"You do that and I'll move in!" someone is heard to joke back, to more laughter.
 
Some may question the prudence of Perry entertaining the suggestion of secession, or talking too loosely about such a radical idea, but any fair-minded reading of Perry's fuller quote, and its context, makes clear that Perry was not advocating for Texas to secede. And Perry has repeatedly said since then that he did not, and does not, advocate secession.
 
Asked about his comments in a Newsweek interview a year later, Perry told Evan Smith of the Texas Tribune, "I said that we live in an incredibly wonderful country, and I see absolutely no reason for that to ever happen. But I do understand people's concern and anger about what this administration is doing from an economic standpoint–in particular, the long-term debt that's being created for not only them but for future generations."
 
Can Texas Opt Out?

So Perry has been wrongly portrayed as a secession advocate. But he is wrong when he claims Texas has some unique arrangement that would allow it to secede at will.
 
Perry's comments suggest the deal was part of the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States, which was approved March 1, 1845. But the document neither talks about nor conveys any such right to secede.
 
“That’s a myth and not based on any historical reality,” said Walter L. Buenger, a professor of history at Texas A&M University and author of the book “Secession and the Union in Texas,” in an interview with FactCheck.org.
 
And then there's the matter of the Civil War.
 
“Among scholars, the consensus is that the Civil War settled all these issues," Harvey Tucker, professor in the political science department at Texas A&M, told us. "Texas does not have the right to secede.”
 
Buenger also pointed to a Supreme Court case in 1869, Texas v. White, in which the court ruled that unilateral secession by any state was unconstitutional.
 
“On all counts, this is a total fabrication,” Buenger said. “And it reflects poorly on our state that our governor would insist on this.”
 
The Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States does talk about allowing Texas to split into five states (four new states plus the State of Texas). But that's different than secession.
 
And it'll never happen, Tucker said, joking that “we can’t afford to dilute our football talent that way.”
 
“There is no doubt whatsoever that Texas does not have a reserved right to secede," said Sanford Levinson, professor of government at the School of Law at the University of Texas at Austin, in an exchange of emails with FactCheck.org. "One could argue that the state does have a reserved right to split into five separate states (and thus get a total of ten senators), but, interestingly enough, not even Tom DeLay suggested that.”
 
– Robert Farley

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #623 on: August 28, 2011, 04:04:51 PM »
So he said "almost treasonous", which means not treasonous, and he said he doesn't favor secession.  You'd think media attacks would be aimed at the misportrayers instead of the misportrayed.  Unless the deception is intentional.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
Ron Paul interviewed by Chris Wallace
« Reply #624 on: August 29, 2011, 06:18:23 PM »
Too bad he is so tone deaf to reality on foreign affairs (not to say he is 100% wrong on everything, indeed occasionally some of his criticisms are well-founded but on the whole on foreign affairs he is a one note melody.)  That said, this is the best interview I've seen him give.  Chris Wallace- no easy touch!- seems to be increasing his respect for RP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yzbmU2W4C8
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 06:29:43 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Dick Morris: Perry v Romney on economy/jobs
« Reply #625 on: August 30, 2011, 12:55:09 PM »
PERRY VS. ROMNEY ON ECONOMY
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann08.30.201130 8 84Share125Share
Now here comes Rick Perry challenging Mitt Romney’s record on job creation. The stats are definitely in his favor. Between June of ’09 and June of ’11, 50% of the net new jobs created in the United States were in Texas, making Texas number one in job growth by a loooooooooong shot.

Under Romney, Massachusetts’ record was terrible by comparison. The Bay State ranked 47th in job growth with employment rising less than one percent from ’03 to ’07 – his years in office (during which US job growth was 5 percent).

Governor Perry clearly did better than Governor Romney at creating jobs. But it is not two governors who will square off over the issue, it is two men with two lifetimes of experience to look at.

Ever since President Clinton drummed the concept of net job creation into our heads with his mounting claims of the millions of jobs “I created,” we have become accustomed to monitoring this figure as evidence of executive economic skill. But, in this case, Romney can point to a lifetime of actually creating jobs while Governor Perry can only cite his role in presiding over their creation as head of state.

It’s quite a difference. Perry’s Texas has had historically low taxes for decades and is one of only a handful of states without an income tax. In 1970, for example, Texas had 11 million people and Michigan had 10 million. Now Texas has 25 million while Michigan cannot find jobs for its current population of 11 million. The credit for Texas’ low taxes belongs not just to Perry, but to Governors George W. Bush and Bill Clements before him. (And even a nod is due Governor Ann Richards in between).

The job creation record is partially due to a surge in oil demand (one quarter of the new Texas jobs are in the energy sector) and some of the new jobs are due to the efforts of former Governor (and client) Mark White in getting the chip research industry to locate in Austin in the 80s.

Romney has actually, personally, financially created tens of thousands of jobs. His record of buying companies, fixing them up, selling off the unprofitable parts, obtaining financing to grow the money-making parts is invaluable in helping us to get out of the current job creation funk.

Any good Republican president will hold down taxes and block new regulations. But it may take a businessman with Romney’s skill set to dig down into the bureaucracy and understand precisely how bank regulation or EPA controls stop job creation. Romney needs to make the case that we need more than broad brush policy strokes to get the job machine running again. It is not enough to have been a good driver of the economic engine. You need to be a mechanic who knows how it works.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
The imcomparable classiness of His Glibness
« Reply #626 on: August 31, 2011, 10:42:27 AM »
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 -- 12:41 PM EDT
-----

President Obama to Address Congress on Jobs and Economy on Sept. 7

President Obama is requesting a joint session of Congress for next Wednesday — at 8 p.m., exactly the same time as the scheduled Republican presidential debate, as it happens — to give a much anticipated speech outlining his proposals to boost employment and the economy.

In a letter to the leaders of both houses of Congress on Wednesday, Mr. Obama said it is his “intention to lay out a series of bipartisan proposals that the Congress can take immediately to continue to rebuild the American economy by strengthening small businesses, helping Americans get back to work, and putting more money in the paychecks of the middle class and working Americans.”

That Mr. Obama was going to make his speech next week was expected. But it is remarkable that he would choose to do so in such an elevated setting, and at the same time that Republican candidates for president will be laying out their own vision for how to get the country out of the economic doldrums.

Read More:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/obama-seeks-joint-session-for-jobs-speech/?emc=na

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #627 on: August 31, 2011, 11:13:57 AM »
Spokesman Carney says the organizers of the debate are free to "adjust the timing of their debate".
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0811/a_question_of_timing_370151e1-8b24-4482-800c-1c43a65c1485.html

Obvious from the reaction that this petty move was intentional.  If Boehner accepts this I will support a new Speaker to work with the new President. 

How do spell Chutzpah?  I guess he did promise audacity.

Same guy would not allow a debate change that conflicted with the national emergency of the 2008 financial crisis.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
VDH
« Reply #628 on: September 01, 2011, 06:22:24 AM »


What should we not expect during next summer's presidential campaign, given what was put off-limits in 2008 and later?

There is much talk about what some are perceiving as the fringe religiosity of possible Republican primary candidates such as Michele Bachman and Rick Perry. But the media established the precedent four years ago that no candidate can be held responsible for his church. Barack Obama's pastor of more than 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was an unapologetic racist and anti-Semite, and a raving conspiracy theorist whose parishioners gave him standing ovations for his hate-filled "G-d damn America" rants.

Prior education and college preparation should not be 2012 issues either. Recent articles have referred to a leaked Texas A&M undergraduate transcript of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, showing some dismal grades and thus apparent proof that Perry was not much of a past student -- or current thinker. But in this regard, Obama has never released either his Occidental or Columbia transcripts. In response, the media in 2008 shrugged and chose not to pursue the matter the way it had with the C-grade records of George W. Bush, Al Gore and John Kerry. Apparently Obama has established another wise precedent that long-ago college transcripts, like churchgoing, are irrelevant.

Civility is off the table, too. Candidate Obama once called sitting president Bush "unpatriotic" for borrowing $4 trillion in eight years -- a sum he matched in less than three. He advised Latinos to "punish our enemies" and mocked opponents for wanting to put "alligators and moats" on the border. Obama's advisors reportedly promised to "Kill Romney." So civility is out the window, and 2012 will once again be a typically American no-holds-barred slugfest of anything goes from both sides.

Public campaign financing won't come up either. Both sides will raise obscene amounts of money. You see, in 2008, Obama set another election precedent: He was the first president in the history of public campaign financing laws to shun federal money and oversight in the general election, largely because he wanted -- and got -- a record level of private cash, much of it from Wall Street.

The old bogeyman George W. Bush won't matter much either by 2012. Since 2008, Obama has blamed Bush for chronic high unemployment, record annual deficits, massive national debt, the erratic stock market, credit downgrading, a continuing housing slump and near nonexistent growth. But even the president's supporters confess that Obama finally now "owns" the economy, especially given the newly elected president's boast in early 2009 that if he didn't fix things in three years, he would not deserve re-election.

In the 2008 campaign, Obama derided the war on terror as either ineffective or unconstitutional. That issue in 2012 will be ancient history, too, since President Obama has simply embraced all the major Bush-Cheney antiterrorism protocols and wars, and expanded many of them, from renditions to Predator drone targeted assassinations to a third war in Libya. Obama's campaign commercials will highlight the commander in chief who ordered the successful hit on bin Laden, not the civil libertarian who closed Guantanamo Bay as promised.

A supposedly do-nothing Congress that thwarted Obama -- like an earlier Republican one that had blocked "Give 'em Hell" Harry Truman -- won't come up much either. Remember, Obama had large majorities in both the House and Senate until January 2011. That's how he rammed through everything from Obamacare to trillion-dollar subsidies along strictly partisan majority votes. The "do-nothing" Congress of Obama's first two years that failed to pass alien amnesty and cap-and-trade legislation and failed to grow the economy was controlled by his fellow Democrats. Even now, the loud but largely still impotent Republicans only control one-half of one-third of the U.S. government.

So if we know what won't be campaign issues, what exactly will be?

The economy. If the current bleak picture stays the same or gets worse, Obama will be forced to argue, as did incumbent Herbert Hoover in 1932, that after four years his borrow/print/spend remedies still have not kicked in. And so he will claim that he needs eight years, not four, for Keynesian economics to finally work. Good luck with that silly argument.

But should things improve somewhat over the next year, then Obama will insist that his spending tonic is at last working, and he deserves another term to further nurse the recovering economy.

It is that simple: Almost every campaign issue other than the economy either will be off the table or irrelevant -- thanks largely to the past protocols of Barack Obama himself.

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #629 on: September 01, 2011, 09:05:05 AM »
Doug, some time ago you acknowledged Huntsman is qualified, but wanted to know specifically what his position was on various issues.  I agreed
while I happen to like Huntsman, the details are important. 

Well, it seems he is trying to be specific. Whether you agree (I think you will on most items) or disagree, it's good to see it all laid out. In detail.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/jon-huntsman-jobs-plan.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #630 on: September 01, 2011, 09:24:51 AM »
Thanks for that JDN, I heard on one of the FOX shows that Huntsman had the misfortune to announce his plan on a day when something else sucked the oxygen from the room , , , and given his polling number of 1% he doesn't get much oxygen to begin with.  :lol:

As I read the plan my reaction is "Not bad!" thought I didn't really care for the Simpson-Bowles Commission stuff.   

That said Huntsman simply is not the man to lead the charge against Bankruptcy Baraq.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential - Huntsman
« Reply #631 on: September 01, 2011, 10:34:26 AM »
JDN,  First,. must note the humor that the LA Times headline says 'Straightforward and common sense'.  If the Perry plan is identical I expect a different headline even though presumably they are only quoting the candidate.  There is zero chance that the LA Times will be endorsing this plan over Obama in 2012.  (Happy to being proven wrong!)

I agree with all the economic points made in the article about his plan.  I still have foreign policy questions for him but this plan pretty much locks in my vote for him IF he is nominated.  Real tax reform, repealing Obamacare and reining in the EPA at least clarify for us why he ruins as a Republican.  Strange that for 2 1/1 months close observers weren't clear on that until now.  It would seem to me that, like what Romney went through in 2008, Huntsman now feels a need to reach rightward.  Instead of looking for contradictions, I would like to say welcome.  Is JDN reaching rightward too or will you now look for a different centrist moderate?  :-)

Note that the LA Times skipped this one:

Eliminate The Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends In Order To Eliminate The Double Taxation On Investment. Capital gains and dividend taxes amount to a double-taxation on individuals who choose to invest. Because dollars invested had to first be earned, they have already been subject to the income tax. Taxing these same dollars again when capital gains are realized serves to deter productive and much-needed investment in our economy.
http://www.jon2012.com/

Pawlenty had that proposal too and maybe this vidicates himeven though his plan went by largely unnoticed.  I think the reasoning is largely true but unrealistic; it goes too far though I like the way he is thinking.  Locking in current rates or calling for another small, permanent decrease would be a huge victory over the prospects investors have faced constantly since the Pelosi-Reid-Obama electoral takeover of Nov. 2006.

As these economic plans begin to look similar, it will come down to who can win and who will actually get these things done.  That will come down to who can persuasively articulate why these things NEED to be done.  Posting them with solid reasons as he did on his position statement is a start.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
WSJ likes Huntsman's economic plan
« Reply #632 on: September 02, 2011, 01:14:35 PM »


Republican Presidential candidate and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman is lagging in the polls, but the economic agenda he rolled out this week may start getting him more attention. And deservedly so.

The heart of the plan lowers all tax rates on individuals and businesses. Mr. Huntsman would create three personal income tax rates—8%, 14% and 23%—and pay for this in a "revenue-neutral" way by eliminating "all deductions and credits." This tracks with the proposals of the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission and others for a flatter, more efficient tax system.

That means economically inefficient tax carve outs for mortgage interest, municipal bonds, child credits and green energy subsidies would at last be closed. The double tax on capital gains and dividends would be expunged as would the Alternative Minimum Tax. The corporate tax rate falls to 25% from 35%, and American businesses would be taxed on a territorial system to encourage firms to return capital parked in overseas operations.

Mr. Huntsman would repeal two of President Obama's most economically debilitating creations, ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law. Mr. Huntsman has it right when he says, "Dodd-Frank perpetuates 'too big to fail' by codifying a regime that incentivizes firms to become too big to fail." He'd also repeal a Bush-era regulatory mistake, the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules, which have added millions of dollars of costs to businesses with little positive effect.

Mr. Huntsman says he'd also bring to heel the hyper-regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and the National Labor Relations Board, all of which are suppressing job-creation. The Huntsman energy policy promises to block impediments to producing oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska (see editorial above), while encouraging the safe deployment of fracking for natural gas in the states. Mr. Huntsman dabbled with green energy subsidies as Governor when those were the political fashion, but perhaps he's learned watching the failures of the last two years.

Mr. Huntsman's proposal is as impressive as any to date in the GOP Presidential field, and certainly better than what we've seen from the front-runners. Perhaps Mr. Huntsman should be asked to give the Republican response to the President's jobs speech next week. The two views of what makes an economy grow could not be more different.


JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #633 on: September 02, 2011, 02:40:27 PM »
Doing business with China is like playing pool or cards with a guy named after a geographical feature. You damn well better know what you are doing.

Having lived in China and Taiwan, knowing the players, and being able to speak Mandarin puts Huntsman one up IMHO.

I like, as I've expressed, Huntsman.  He's straightforward, logical, and somehow more believable and than the remaining candidates.
I'ld vote for him and I think a lot of independents and even democrats who are tired of the situation would vote for him.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #634 on: September 02, 2011, 07:25:55 PM »
And in the debates Baraq would whip out his ass-kissing letters to Baraq, , ,

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #635 on: September 02, 2011, 07:33:08 PM »
And in the debates Baraq would whip out his ass-kissing letters to Baraq, , ,

Hell, those letters would make for a great commercial for him.

prentice crawford

  • Guest
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #636 on: September 02, 2011, 07:44:11 PM »
And in the debates Baraq would whip out his ass-kissing letters to Baraq, , ,

Hell, those letters would make for a great commercial for him.
Woof,
 And that's also why so many Dem's and lib Independents would vote for him, he's a lib too. If Hillary put an R by her name it would be the same. :-P
                              P.C.

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #637 on: September 02, 2011, 08:27:02 PM »
And in the debates Baraq would whip out his ass-kissing letters to Baraq, , ,

Hell, those letters would make for a great commercial for him.
Woof,
 And that's also why so many Dem's and lib Independents would vote for him, he's a lib too. If Hillary put an R by her name it would be the same. :-P
                              P.C.

Huntsman served his country; he served his President.  I'm not sure that is all bad.  And no, he didn't diss his boss; not to smart and it doesn't show any class.  Frankly, I respect him more for that.  Robert Gates served Bush and Obama; he too is a class act and I don't think any less of him for whom he served or didn't serve. 

As for being a "lib", well, have you even looked at his record as REPUBLICAN governor of Utah?  He did a great job.

Or did you read Crafty's post from the WSJ?  They love his CONSERVATIVE fiscal plan.

Besides that he's experienced, bright, pragmatic, and realistic. 

His only problem as Crafty points out is that if he doesn't get out of the (low) single digit ratings in the poll he will be history
like Pawlenty.  But he's got the personal money to hang around and see what happens. 

As someone else posted, what has Perry done?  He inherited low taxes, oil, etc.  And he's really not too bright.  At least
Romney has accomplished something (see previous post).  I'm not a fan of Romney, but he's not bad.  I miss Pawlenty.  Newt is the brightest best qualified remaining, but he's shot himself in the foot, or is it his own balls?  In contrast, Huntsman is a class act.

Don't count Huntsman out yet.  And as a country, we would be lucky to have him as President.

prentice crawford

  • Guest
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #638 on: September 02, 2011, 09:31:36 PM »
Woof,
 If Perry or Bachmann isn't the nominee for the Republican's, I'll vote for Obama. At least I know what to expect from him and it will be better than getting stabbed in the back by these "snake in the grass" lib's with R's by their name's. :-P Which, by the way, is why I stopped giving any money directly to the RNC and the Congressional champaign general funds; I want to make sure none of my contributions goes to help re-elect someone like Olympia Snowe. For any of you Conservative's out there, please contribute directly to the canidate you want to see in office and send a message to the Party leadership that we don't support Liberal, Progressive ideas regardless of Party lines.
                                  P.C.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 10:52:51 PM by prentice crawford »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #639 on: September 03, 2011, 07:36:21 AM »
"As someone else posted, what has Perry done?  He inherited low taxes, oil, etc.  And he's really not too bright."

Wow. JDN parroting leftist talking points, who would have expected this? Perry has actually done things, unlike the affirmative action baby you voted for. There is much more reason to question Buraq "57 states, Austrian language, corpse-man" Obama's intelligence than Perry's.

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #640 on: September 03, 2011, 07:52:56 AM »
It was CCP quoting Dick Morris,

"It’s quite a difference. Perry’s Texas has had historically low taxes for decades and is one of only a handful of states without an income tax. In 1970, for example, Texas had 11 million people and Michigan had 10 million. Now Texas has 25 million while Michigan cannot find jobs for its current population of 11 million. The credit for Texas’ low taxes belongs not just to Perry, but to Governors George W. Bush and Bill Clements before him. (And even a nod is due Governor Ann Richards in between).

The job creation record is partially due to a surge in oil demand (one quarter of the new Texas jobs are in the energy sector) and some of the new jobs are due to the efforts of former Governor (and client) Mark White in getting the chip research industry to locate in Austin in the 80s."

The point was "What has Perry actually done"?  And the answer was, "Very little".    CCP's article praised Romney. 

Obama too has done a lot.  You just might not agree with what he has done.   :-D

As for comparing Obama academic (IQ) intelligence and accomplishment to Perry, you must be kidding. 

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #641 on: September 03, 2011, 08:01:01 AM »
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU[/youtube]

Yes, his raw intellect is impressive. Breathtaking, isn't it, JDN?


Why are his academic records a state secret?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #642 on: September 03, 2011, 08:08:32 AM »
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr7zhnctF4c[/youtube]

Wow, he is smart, isn't he, JDN?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #643 on: September 03, 2011, 08:10:04 AM »
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws&feature=related[/youtube]

How many of the 57-58 states do you think he'll lose in 2012?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #644 on: September 03, 2011, 08:13:57 AM »
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlkK65y_-T4[/youtube]

I'm the pre-si-dent?  :?

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #645 on: September 03, 2011, 08:53:19 AM »
 :? :? :?

You must be kidding right?

Admitted to Occidental College (happens to be nearby my place); an excellent college.
Transferred and Graduated from Columbia; a superb school (ask Crafty).
Then, Admitted and Graduated with Magna Cum Laude Honors from Harvard Law School.
Head of the Law Review at Harvard Law School
Professor for 10 years at Chicago University Law School.

Yeah, I guess I would say "his raw intellect is impressive. Breathtaking"    :-D


That said, "raw intellect" and wisdom and street smarts are all different.  I also happen to live close to Cal Tech,
one of if not the most intellectually gifted schools in America.  High School Valedictorians are often rejected; near
perfect or perfect SAT scores especially in the math section are the norm, not the exception.  A genius IQ doesn't even
stand out. That said, few of them rise to higher management levels.




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #646 on: September 03, 2011, 09:15:26 AM »
Admitted to Occidental College (happens to be nearby my place); an excellent college. Affirmative Action
Transferred and Graduated from Columbia; a superb school (ask Crafty). Again, Affirmative Action, not merit (talking about Buraq, not Crafty)Then, Admitted and Graduated with Magna Cum Laude Honors from Harvard Law School. Again,  Affirmative Action
Head of the Law Review at Harvard Law School Where he published nothing, because he got the job because he was black, not because he was smart. Which is pretty much how he became president.
Professor for 10 years at Chicago University Law School. Make-work Affirmative Action/Chicago graft political payoff job.

The only thing dumber than Obama is someone who voted for him.

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #647 on: September 03, 2011, 10:09:36 AM »
Professor at the University of Chicago Law School for 10 years....
He was offered tenure, but turned it down.  That's not a;
"Make-work Affirmative Action/Chicago graft political payoff job."   :?

You said, "The only thing dumber than Obama is someone who voted for him."

I suppose you voted for McCain?

His class rank at the Navel Academy was 894 out of 899.

And oh yeah, and how did he even get in to the Naval Academy? 
"Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy....."    :-D

The only one dumber than McCain is Palin (who he chose for his VP).  She's off the charts (on the low end).   :evil:

ps  I liked and respected McCain.  If he had chosen a better VP I would have voted for him. 



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #648 on: September 03, 2011, 11:34:16 AM »
McCain was a war hero.

What awards did Obama win? Order of the golden coke spoon? The Jermiah Wright hate sermon good attendance award?

Let's compare Alaska under Palin to your crashing 3rd world cesspool of a state. Underwater on your McMansion yet?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72293
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #649 on: September 03, 2011, 11:57:36 AM »
PC:  You surprise me man  :-o :-o :-o

GM, JDN:  While I'm willing to not place much importance on screw-ups on the campaign trail (it is a humanly exhausting experience) I do find credibility in the notion that affirmative action in conjunction with progressive "teamwork" explains more than a little of Baraq's resume and I think it a fair point to note just how much of it we don't really know.   More to the point, apart from my profound differences on the merits of the issues, I'm not seeing that much proof of intelligence in his performance as President, unless one subscribes, as I confess I am sometimes tempted to do, to the idea of him as some sort of agent of malevolent forces.

Concerning Columbia, I am no longer particularly proud of that.  On the whole I find the institution riddled with offensive levels of anti-Americanism.