• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Stuff Republicans say.

technomage

technomage

Finding my own way
Daemon Sophic said:
Which is to say, since he was halfway intellingent, he got crushed in the primaries. :facepalm:
Click to expand...
True. With the polarization of the Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012, they could not advance a candidate that had any chance in the general election.

Will they learn that lesson, and offer someone at least halfway sane in 2016? Currently, Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan seem to be making all the headlines. The very prospect terrifies me.

The Republican primary looks to be a bloodbath.

ETA: Oh, and let's not forget Rand Paul and his "Atlas Shrugged" platform. :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
Monk Of Reason

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Revoltingest said:
Aye, the election process is some bizarro world version of Darwinism.
My nightmare is named "First Husband Bill Clinton".
Click to expand...

This is Miss. President and her husband Mr.President. They would be the first ever to be able to do this. Do you fear the start of a Dynasty?

Though one of the few reasons why I would actually support Hillary was her old push for Socialized Medicine in the Canadian style back during her husband's presidency. Though it was slandered so bad that it never had a chance. Then the scandal took place and all hell broke loose. But she was the only one that seemed to push for anything I would want healthcare wise in the history of our politicians. At least that I can recall.

Though my guess is that she has changed her tune since to that of Obamacare and bitters the taste for me.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Monk Of Reason said:
This is Miss. President and her husband Mr.President. They would be the first ever to be able to do this. Do you fear the start of a Dynasty?
Click to expand...
I fear the status quo...& some of the less pleasant variations on it.

Though one of the few reasons why I would actually support Hillary was her old push for Socialized Medicine in the Canadian style back during her husband's presidency. Though it was slandered so bad that it never had a chance.
Click to expand...
It was a rigid system with jail time for those who sought private care.

Then the scandal took place and all hell broke loose. But she was the only one that seemed to push for anything I would want healthcare wise in the history of our politicians. At least that I can recall.
Click to expand...
That glorious scandal arrived in the nick of time.

Hillary is John McCain but without the great legs.
 
Monk Of Reason

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Revoltingest said:
It was a rigid system with jail time for those who sought private care.
Click to expand...
This was one of the many go-to fabrications or out right lies meant to perforate the movement. You also may have hears that there would be a 30% increase in taxes, or that people would die in the waiting room because the hospitals would be so over flooded that no one could get care in time.

Unless you were really savvy with sorting through news back in the days before the internet made such information easily accessible its highly probable that you weren't as informed as we would all like to believe ourselves to be. This is, again, nothing against you but it simply shows how effective the propaganda is without some sort of easily accessed fact checking system. Gotta love the interweb.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
technomage said:
Probably not, although considering the amount of hogwash that was promoted about "Hillarycare," it's likely that you got in touch with some bad information. It happens, and both sides of the aisle do it.
Click to expand...
It would derail the thread if we were each to research our claims, debunk your "bad information",
& argue about it all here. Fortunately, it matters naught. Hillarycare supporters & opponents
won't change their positions as a result of rehashing that very old argument. Moreover, the
Is-Hillary-suitable-as-prez? question is a much larger issue than health care policy.
 
Last edited:
technomage

technomage

Finding my own way
Revoltingest said:
It would derail the thread if we were each to research our claims, debunk your "bad information", & argue about it all here.
Click to expand...

Eh, I generally strive to do my fact-checking before I post. Easier that way. ;)

Moreover, the Is-Hillary-suitable-as-prez? question is a much larger issue than health care policy.
Click to expand...
OK, so here's a question. Not looking at any specific _person_--how do you define or decide that someone is "suitable-as-prez"?
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
technomage said:
Eh, I generally strive to do my fact-checking before I post. Easier that way. ;)
Click to expand...
But I notice no evidence in your objection. Really, I don't demand any. Some conversations are better if we don't obsess over it. Now, if the thread were specifically about Hillarycare, we'd both be googling her. Let's not google Hillary.

OK, so here's a question. Not looking at any specific _person_--how do you define or decide that someone is "suitable-as-prez"?
Click to expand...
Oh, so much interesting territory here, but it would derail the thread to cover it.
However, just for you....there's a spanking new thread to discuss it!

Btw, I keep reading "technomage" as "technomange".
Stop that!
 
Last edited:
Daemon Sophic

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
O'Reilly Previews 2014 Elections With Fact-Free Comparison About Economy | Blog | Media Matters for America
Standard Fox pap. But what irks and amuses me is the part about having to go back to the Clinton era in order to see job growth as good as it is now.
O'Rielly's spew is just towing the line for normal Republican lies. They mess things up, blame the Dems for doing what the Pugs are doing (but the Dems ar not). Then the Dems come in, fix everything, with the long-term outlook in mind (ie. not slapping on bandaids). But the Pugs get into office and prance about saying "Look! See how masterful we are at governing!?".
Truth be told, I was concerned near the end of the 2012 campaign, because I saw the past about to repeat itself. Romney was proclaiming that if he got into office, he would create so many millions of jobs, and save the economy. :rolleyes: Yet if one actually knew the truth, you knew that the (unbiased) economists had already made it clear that given the stimulus and the ACA, and other changes Obama had gotten through, then the economy was already headed for so many millions of jobs opening up. Duh! I was concerned that Romney would win, and reap all the glory for Obama's (and Dems) insights, while carving out even more costly benefits for the aristocracy. Thank goodness the Republicans lost.
Of course they still control the press. :rolleyes:
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
And Obama had to pick up the pieces left behind by the previous administration, which were many and catastrophic, but Murdock's groupies either don't have the intelligence and/or honesty to admit we've come a long way, albeit painfully slow.

Not so much with Romney, but if McCain had been elected in 2008, we could have economically bottomed out, and this possibility has been agreed upon by many economists who realize how close we were from an economic collapse, such as Paulson, Greenspan, Bernanke, and others admitted. McCain admitted that he is not good in the area of economics, and a closed-door meeting with top Republicans and Democrats in September of 2008 when our economy was in a freefall, had it that he was moot, Bush left the meeting in anger, Obama took over the meeting, and one of the Republicans who was unnamed said he was going to vote for Obama. This latter part came out after the election was over, so it's not at all likely that it was partisan propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top