100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Are Republicans at war with reality? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Are Republicans at war with reality?
August 12, 2011|By John Avlon, CNN Contributor So here's what I learned watching Thursday night's Republican debate: States' rights should rule the day, unless you're gay. Small government is the rule unless a rapist impregnates his victim. Loyalty oaths should be the new normal. Ten-to-one spending cuts to tax increases is an ideologically unacceptable compromise. And refusing to raise the debt ceiling is a stand for fiscal responsibility even if it were to trigger an immediate default. The action onstage in Ames, Iowa, on Thursday night provided a portrait of a grand old party that seems increasingly at war with reality itself. Responsible governance and philosophic consistency were endangered species in this political arena. Advertisement Ads by Google 2012 Economic Meltdown?See Weidemer's worring charts and get a free copy of Aftershock. www.newsmax.com Balanced Budget PollVote In Our Poll. Do You Support A Balanced Budget Amendment? Finance.Townhall.com Not that there weren't notable highlights among the low moments. Mitt Romney appeared positively presidential next to the seven dwarfs who stood beside him. The consummate salesman bobbed and weaved to avoid answering any awkward questions directly, but in the end no one laid a glove on the de facto front-runner. Jon Huntsman had a respectable, if subdued debut. He did not pander to the lowest common denominator. He did not flip or flop. And he rightfully criticized the pathetic attempts to recast the threat of debt-ceiling default into a badge of political courage and deficit reduction. Michele Bachmann again proved that she is a talented debater, but her preferred tactic is simply to keep repeating baseless statements as if the rhythms of her words would provide the underlying logic. They don't. Tim Pawlenty needed a breakout performance and a knockout punch. Instead, he got mired in a Minnesota-nice-defying back-and-forth with Bachmann that only made him seem small. And given that he had two months to practice his "Obamney-care" comeback against Romney for his Massachusetts health care program, Pawlenty's pushback fell flat. This was not the game changer "T-Paw" needed before Saturday's straw poll. Newt Gingrich succeeded in at least briefly reminding people he was running for president, though he spent much of his time complaining about legitimate questions like why his entire senior staff fired their candidate. That isn't a process story -- it is a question of competence, judgment and substance. The most memorable policy pronouncement he made was to assert the need for a national loyalty oath. But seriously, he's not in favor of a suffocating big government nanny state. Ron Paul again asserted himself as the most intellectually influential member of the modern GOP. Somewhere Robert A. Taft was smiling at the applause that neo-isolationism received from the heartland crowd. Auditing the Fed is also a new normal. Foreign policies defended by conservatives under George W. Bush now seem broadly controversial because they are carried out under Obama. Rick Santorum's frustration at not being in the first tier of candidates remains clear, even as he rushes to defend the rights of gays against Islamists in Iran but would treat them as second-class citizens here in America. Likewise, a new anti-abortion standard was asserted, putting doctors in jail for performing abortions in addition to his opposition to abortion even in the case of rape and incest. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-12/opinion/avlon.gop.debate_1_debt-ceiling-straw-poll-oaths/2?_s=PM:OPINION The answer to the rhetorical question of the title of this article of course is YES! They definitely are perfect example of "you can't see the forest through the trees" or "you can't see the whole picture because you are too close to it".   
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are Republicans at war with reality? August 12, 2011|By John Avlon, CNN Contributor So here's what I learned watching Thursday night's Republican debate: States' rights should rule the day, unless you're gay. Small government is the rule unless a rapist impregnates his victim. Loyalty oaths should be the new normal. Ten-to-one spending cuts to tax increases is an ideologically unacceptable compromise. And refusing to raise the debt ceiling is a stand for fiscal responsibility even if it were to trigger an immediate default. The action onstage in Ames, Iowa, on Thursday night provided a portrait of a grand old party that seems increasingly at war with reality itself. Responsible governance and philosophic consistency were endangered species in this political arena. Advertisement Ads by Google 2012 Economic Meltdown?See Weidemer's worring charts and get a free copy of Aftershock. www.newsmax.com Balanced Budget PollVote In Our Poll. Do You Support A Balanced Budget Amendment? Finance.Townhall.com Not that there weren't notable highlights among the low moments. Mitt Romney appeared positively presidential next to the seven dwarfs who stood beside him. The consummate salesman bobbed and weaved to avoid answering any awkward questions directly, but in the end no one laid a glove on the de facto front-runner. Jon Huntsman had a respectable, if subdued debut. He did not pander to the lowest common denominator. He did not flip or flop. And he rightfully criticized the pathetic attempts to recast the threat of debt-ceiling default into a badge of political courage and deficit reduction. Michele Bachmann again proved that she is a talented debater, but her preferred tactic is simply to keep repeating baseless statements as if the rhythms of her words would provide the underlying logic. They don't. Tim Pawlenty needed a breakout performance and a knockout punch. Instead, he got mired in a Minnesota-nice-defying back-and-forth with Bachmann that only made him seem small. And given that he had two months to practice his "Obamney-care" comeback against Romney for his Massachusetts health care program, Pawlenty's pushback fell flat. This was not the game changer "T-Paw" needed before Saturday's straw poll. Newt Gingrich succeeded in at least briefly reminding people he was running for president, though he spent much of his time complaining about legitimate questions like why his entire senior staff fired their candidate. That isn't a process story -- it is a question of competence, judgment and substance. The most memorable policy pronouncement he made was to assert the need for a national loyalty oath. But seriously, he's not in favor of a suffocating big government nanny state. Ron Paul again asserted himself as the most intellectually influential member of the modern GOP. Somewhere Robert A. Taft was smiling at the applause that neo-isolationism received from the heartland crowd. Auditing the Fed is also a new normal. Foreign policies defended by conservatives under George W. Bush now seem broadly controversial because they are carried out under Obama. Rick Santorum's frustration at not being in the first tier of candidates remains clear, even as he rushes to defend the rights of gays against Islamists in Iran but would treat them as second-class citizens here in America. Likewise, a new anti-abortion standard was asserted, putting doctors in jail for performing abortions in addition to his opposition to abortion even in the case of rape and incest. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-12/opinion/avlon.gop.debate_1_debt-ceiling-straw-poll-oaths/2?_s=PM:OPINION The answer to the rhetorical question of the title of this article of course is YES! They definitely are perfect example of "you can't see the forest through the trees" or "you can't see the whole picture because you are too close to it". they are almost as bad as someone that thinks increasing your debt to fix an existing debt problem is a good idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are Republicans at war with reality? August 12, 2011|By John Avlon, CNN Contributor So here's what I learned watching Thursday night's Republican debate: States' rights should rule the day, unless you're gay. Small government is the rule unless a rapist impregnates his victim. Loyalty oaths should be the new normal. Ten-to-one spending cuts to tax increases is an ideologically unacceptable compromise. And refusing to raise the debt ceiling is a stand for fiscal responsibility even if it were to trigger an immediate default. The action onstage in Ames, Iowa, on Thursday night provided a portrait of a grand old party that seems increasingly at war with reality itself. Responsible governance and philosophic consistency were endangered species in this political arena. Advertisement Ads by Google 2012 Economic Meltdown?See Weidemer's worring charts and get a free copy of Aftershock. www.newsmax.com Balanced Budget PollVote In Our Poll. Do You Support A Balanced Budget Amendment? Finance.Townhall.com Not that there weren't notable highlights among the low moments. Mitt Romney appeared positively presidential next to the seven dwarfs who stood beside him. The consummate salesman bobbed and weaved to avoid answering any awkward questions directly, but in the end no one laid a glove on the de facto front-runner. Jon Huntsman had a respectable, if subdued debut. He did not pander to the lowest common denominator. He did not flip or flop. And he rightfully criticized the pathetic attempts to recast the threat of debt-ceiling default into a badge of political courage and deficit reduction. Michele Bachmann again proved that she is a talented debater, but her preferred tactic is simply to keep repeating baseless statements as if the rhythms of her words would provide the underlying logic. They don't. Tim Pawlenty needed a breakout performance and a knockout punch. Instead, he got mired in a Minnesota-nice-defying back-and-forth with Bachmann that only made him seem small. And given that he had two months to practice his "Obamney-care" comeback against Romney for his Massachusetts health care program, Pawlenty's pushback fell flat. This was not the game changer "T-Paw" needed before Saturday's straw poll. Newt Gingrich succeeded in at least briefly reminding people he was running for president, though he spent much of his time complaining about legitimate questions like why his entire senior staff fired their candidate. That isn't a process story -- it is a question of competence, judgment and substance. The most memorable policy pronouncement he made was to assert the need for a national loyalty oath. But seriously, he's not in favor of a suffocating big government nanny state. Ron Paul again asserted himself as the most intellectually influential member of the modern GOP. Somewhere Robert A. Taft was smiling at the applause that neo-isolationism received from the heartland crowd. Auditing the Fed is also a new normal. Foreign policies defended by conservatives under George W. Bush now seem broadly controversial because they are carried out under Obama. Rick Santorum's frustration at not being in the first tier of candidates remains clear, even as he rushes to defend the rights of gays against Islamists in Iran but would treat them as second-class citizens here in America. Likewise, a new anti-abortion standard was asserted, putting doctors in jail for performing abortions in addition to his opposition to abortion even in the case of rape and incest. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-12/opinion/avlon.gop.debate_1_debt-ceiling-straw-poll-oaths/2?_s=PM:OPINION The answer to the rhetorical question of the title of this article of course is YES! They definitely are perfect example of "you can't see the forest through the trees" or "you can't see the whole picture because you are too close to it". they are almost as bad as someone that thinks increasing your debt to fix an existing debt problem is a good idea. That is were the republican "dont tax the rich and wage war" has left this country, broken down and broke on the side of the road. Americans would have to be total morons to vote for the same policies that got us here. All that is left to steal is grandmas and grandpas social security and medicaid. How about we raise taxes on those who can afford it the most and not have to eat cat food to pay for their meds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup broke down and broke on the side of the road.
And all the republicans have to say is we should go back to using horses and buggys. Except of course for all those folks driving past us in BMWs and Lexuses. They need subsidies so they can buy more gas. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 08/15/11 10:54 AM
|
|
Ron Paul again asserted himself as the most intellectually influential member of the modern GOP. Somewhere Robert A. Taft was smiling at the applause that neo-isolationism received from the heartland crowd. Auditing the Fed is also a new normal. Foreign policies defended by conservatives under George W. Bush now seem broadly controversial because they are carried out under Obama. Out of touch, show me where RP supported Bush's foreign policies. YOU CANT, he DIDN'T. Neo-isolationism . . . what is that? Non-interference is not isolationism. Free trade requires open trade which cannot live under isolationism and is his main economic platform. The author of this article is out of touch with reality at least as far as Paul is concerned, I couldn't care less about the other candidates. Americans would have to be total morons to vote for the same policies that got us here Thats right, but that does not mean vote Democrat. It means vote Ron Paul the only real choice that is not just more of the same status qua.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where is robin hood when you need him
the republicans are taking from the poor and giving to the rich. That is when they tear them selves away from their tea parties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are almost as bad as someone that thinks increasing your debt to fix an existing debt problem is a good idea. If we had a true debt crisis, this might not be complete nonsense. The deficit hawks of today have bought so thoroughly into the Koch Brother-financed Corporate hysteria that they ignore history. Today's debt is no where close to where we were at the end of WWII. Keynesian economics got us into an awfully robust period after that, but I guess those guys, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, were all just crazy, looney, Marxist-Leftist-Communist Dictators. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are almost as bad as someone that thinks increasing your debt to fix an existing debt problem is a good idea. If we had a true debt crisis, this might not be complete nonsense. The deficit hawks of today have bought so thoroughly into the Koch Brother-financed Corporate hysteria that they ignore history. Today's debt is no where close to where we were at the end of WWII. Keynesian economics got us into an awfully robust period after that, but I guess those guys, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, were all just crazy, looney, Marxist-Leftist-Communist Dictators. You also had a trade surplus. That means you had the potential for robust economic growth not to mention the fact that our competition was in ruins. You also did not have massive unfunded liabilities. I doubt they were paying in excess of $250 billion per year in Medicaid costs. Comparing these two periods is complete nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Paul again asserted himself as the most intellectually influential member of the modern GOP. Somewhere Robert A. Taft was smiling at the applause that neo-isolationism received from the heartland crowd. Auditing the Fed is also a new normal. Foreign policies defended by conservatives under George W. Bush now seem broadly controversial because they are carried out under Obama. Out of touch, show me where RP supported Bush's foreign policies. YOU CANT, he DIDN'T. Neo-isolationism . . . what is that? Non-interference is not isolationism. Free trade requires open trade which cannot live under isolationism and is his main economic platform. The author of this article is out of touch with reality at least as far as Paul is concerned, I couldn't care less about the other candidates. Americans would have to be total morons to vote for the same policies that got us here Thats right, but that does not mean vote Democrat. It means vote Ron Paul the only real choice that is not just more of the same status qua. I am all for takeing down the fed but I am also for universal healthcare being our for profit health plans are killing us, literaly and financialy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You also had a trade surplus. That means you had the potential for robust economic growth not to mention the fact that our competition was in ruins. And yet we continued to have robust economic growth up to Reagan. You also did not have massive unfunded liabilities. Like the GI Bill of rights? I doubt they were paying in excess of $250 billion per year in Medicaid costs. Easily fixed and managable! Revenues were sufficient to keep the economy charging ahead until Reagan. Which, of course, is the problem we have today. Every objective criterion has demonstrated in bright red numbers that we have a revenue crisis. Any moron who has at least a kindergarten understanding of economics knows that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You also had a trade surplus. That means you had the potential for robust economic growth not to mention the fact that our competition was in ruins. And yet we continued to have robust economic growth up to Reagan. You also did not have massive unfunded liabilities. Like the GI Bill of rights? I doubt they were paying in excess of $250 billion per year in Medicaid costs. Easily fixed and managable! Revenues were sufficient to keep the economy charging ahead until Reagan. Which, of course, is the problem we have today. Every objective criterion has demonstrated in bright red numbers that we have a revenue crisis. Any moron who has at least a kindergarten understanding of economics knows that. Oh yes.. Where the f**K are you going to raise $1.4 trillion in revenue mr economic genius? You gonna pull it out of your a$$? That seems to be where your opinions come from. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where the f**K are you going to raise $1.4 trillion in revenue mr economic genius? Gosh. I guess we don't have to do it all in one year, but then, that's really not the big question, is it? The big question is, "why would the crazies want to make it even worst by continuing the intransigence on raising revenues"? Unless that was the whole idea all along? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, the mudslinging when we don't agree! I feel like I'm at a tea bagger rally!
|
|
|
|
|
