US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[Vexx]

Unless, of course, they end up "fixing" that pesky "who gets to vote" problem ... and no, I don't really put anything past them if they get to shrieking loud enough.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by james0246

Whether the Tea Party wins or loses this upcoming election is irrelevant since their stances and opinions will be considered worth less once the minority vote becomes the majority vote in a scant few years. Republican pandering to the Tea Party will essentially disappear as they are deemed less consequential to the elections.

I don't think you are seeing the larger picture here. The tea party is just the front man for corporate interests. Their function is to further the agenda already established 30 years ago. It is based on highly ideological thinking, and this is very dangerous when they are in position to lead, as ideological and practical thinking can often become as incompatible as water and oil.

The ultimate goal of the GOP/tea party/corporations is a state where everything is privatized and deregulated. Reagan set the first stone towards this goal, Bush built upon Reagan's vision and now Romney wants to take it a steep further.

The tea party ideology has always been present even before the tea party was formed. The only difference is that now they feel proud of voicing their opinions on national tv.

[willx]

Originally Posted by james0246

1) I addressed both viewpoints (Aiken's and Mourdock's) in my post. I did not lump them together, I instead argued against both. Whether Mourdock is a zealot, an idiot, or simply ignorant does not make his viewpoint any more acceptable.

This'll be my last post on this issue, cause I feel like there's a lot of repetition going on. Replied to this in longer-form via private message James, but our disagreement is fundamentally around exactly what Mourdock said, didn't say, implied or didn't imply.

As I tried to say earlier, Aiken said something fundamentally nutty. He just doesn't understand basic biology. As for Mourdock, I watched the original Senate debate and I read all the comments and clarifications afterwards. He does not condone rapes of any kind. He does not believe any rapes of any kind are "God's Will." What he does believe is that life starts at fertilization and all life is sacred. No more, no less. (he calls it God's miracle, but I guess that's how he understands the world, poor inarticulate dude wants to be a Senator.. ha!)

Again, I'm pro-choice and wouldn't vote for this guy, but he's not crazy and people keeping making him out to be. His question is a moral dilemma for him, the future life of a child vs. the potential anguish of a mother that had suffered a rape. He falls on the opposite side of me in that debate, but anyone that believes in intelligent political discourse, should fight for his right to present his views and have the body politic vote on it. The rest is a discussion re: Roe v. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton and the constitutionality and validity of it, etc.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by willx

He falls on the opposite side of me in that debate, but anyone that believes in intelligent political discourse, should fight for his right to present his views and have the body politic vote on it.

lol... most of the real intelligent political discourse is happening in somewhere the public cannot see and hear.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by willx

This'll be my last post on this issue, cause I feel like there's a lot of repetition going on. Replied to this in longer-form via private message James, but our disagreement is fundamentally around exactly what Mourdock said, didn't say, implied or didn't imply.

As I tried to say earlier, Aiken said something fundamentally nutty. He just doesn't understand basic biology. As for Mourdock, I watched the original Senate debate and I read all the comments and clarifications afterwards. He does not condone rapes of any kind. He does not believe any rapes of any kind are "God's Will." What he does believe is that life starts at fertilization and all life is sacred. No more, no less. (he calls it God's miracle, but I guess that's how he understands the world, poor inarticulate dude wants to be a Senator.. ha!)

Again, I'm pro-choice and wouldn't vote for this guy, but he's not crazy and people keeping making him out to be. His question is a moral dilemma for him, the future life of a child vs. the potential anguish of a mother that had suffered a rape. He falls on the opposite side of me in that debate, but anyone that believes in intelligent political discourse, should fight for his right to present his views and have the body politic vote on it. The rest is a discussion re: Roe v. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton and the constitutionality and validity of it, etc.

I'll only note that "fertilization" is prior to implantation. By that definition, failure to implant is negligent homicide or manslaughter. Had a period? Fair chance of having committed murder. Also, ectopic pregancies are typically lethal (implantation in the wrong place). He would pass laws basically condemning the woman suffering from that to die as "God's will". The problem with his "belief" is that it actively leads to the imprisonment or death of women because he doesn't f'ing understand how it works which makes his belief and opinion *worthless*.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'll only note that "fertilization" is prior to implantation. By that definition, failure to implant is negligent homicide or manslaughter.

A miscarriage doesn't have to be anyone's fault.

And at least he isn't one of those guys who say "embryos are children and deserve to live! Except when their father is a rapist."

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'll only note that "fertilization" is prior to implantation. By that definition, failure to implant is negligent homicide or manslaughter. Had a period? Fair chance of having committed murder. Also, ectopic pregancies are typically lethal (implantation in the wrong place). He would pass laws basically condemning the woman suffering from that to die as "God's will". The problem with his "belief" is that it actively leads to the imprisonment or death of women because he doesn't f'ing understand how it works which makes his belief and opinion *worthless*.

It makes me remember I got yesterday the same debate with a girl against abortion. Saying that any cells whatever small it is can be considered as a life.
I answered that we men, must have done gorrible genocide seeing our biological needs.

She nearly slapped me... She didn't like the joke.

[Vexx]

Frankly, the book such people that invoke religion keep waving doesn't actually have anything about abortion in it. There is a passage or two about "on the first breath". Back then the breath and the soul were theoretically the "same thing".

Just another "doesn't read own book, uses book as ventriloquist dummy" situation - debate may be impossible.

Look, I can argue the other side, particularly in regard to the time when the nervous system is active and getting sensory inputs -- some moral dilemmas can be constructed there. But the arguments being presented by specific members of the GOP are extreme, lack any substantive rationale, and they intend to impose their "religious assertions" into law, or rather they *are* imposing them. I consider that a personal threat to every woman I know.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Frankly, the book such people that invoke religion keep waving doesn't actually have anything about abortion in it. There is a passage or two about "on the first breath". Back then the breath and the soul were theoretically the "same thing".

Just another "doesn't read own book, uses book as ventriloquist dummy" situation - debate may be impossible.

Untill they re-write it completely to match their own set of values. That day, it will not be pretty...

Georgia store offers gun raffle tickets to voters
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-24-17-48-26
A (illegal) way to boost republican voting ?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Untill they re-write it completely to match their own set of values. That day, it will not be pretty...

Georgia store offers gun raffle tickets to voters
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-24-17-48-26
A (illegal) way to boost republican voting ?

You jest ... they don't: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

The Conservative Bible Project is a project utilizing the "best of the public" to render God's word into modern English without liberal translation distortions.[1] A Colbert Report interview featured this project.[2] We completed a first draft of our translation of the New Testament on April 23, 2010.
Already our translators have identified numerous pro-abortion distortions that omit or twist clear references to the unborn child.
Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.

And sadly, no this isn't a "Colbert" or an Onion joke ... Conservapedia a serious massive delusionary bubble of insanity :P

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Vexx

You jest ... they don't: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project



And sadly, no this isn't a "Colbert" or an Onion joke ... Conservapedia a serious massive delusionary bubble of insanity :P

Heh. That's much more fun to read than Liberapedia.

[totoum]

Originally Posted by Solace

Heh. That's much more fun to read than Liberapedia.

I'm not sure,the harry potter article on conservapedia is pretty standard "HP will make your kid want to become a dark magician" stuff. The liberapedia article is more creative

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Solace

Heh. That's much more fun to read than Liberapedia.

If I remember correctly, Liberapedia was started to lampoon Conservapedia and it kind of got a "life of its own".

[ganbaru]

Obama epithet raises ire of Romney campaign
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89O1OP20121025

An article in the latest edition of Rolling Stone recounts how the magazine's executive editor, Eric Bates, offered Obama some words of encouragement from his 6-year-old daughter at the end of an October 11 interview in the Oval Office.

Grinning, Obama was quoted as saying: "I do very well, by the way, in that demographic. Ages six to 12? I'm a killer."

"Thought about lowering the voting age?" Bates joked.

"You know, kids have good instincts," Obama said, according to an advance copy of the wide-ranging interview to be published on Friday. "They look at the other guy and say, 'Well, that's a bullshitter, I can tell.'"

Is it me or ''Bullshitter'' is still too polite to use for Romney or it's the right word ?

[sikvod00]

Top Romney surrogate and professional race-baiting troll John Sununu accuses Colin Powell of endorsing President Obama because they are both black.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...up.php?ref=fpb

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Obama epithet raises ire of Romney campaign
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89O1OP20121025

Is it me or ''Bullshitter'' is still too polite to use for Romney or it's the right word ?

I got alot of other harsh words that would make would make a sailor blush but we got alot of young folks here, so I will keep those to myself and besides, when you got stuff like this going on like his staff pulling out the race card or "rape" issue. I am trying to figure out why so many ppl want to have Romney as President. Oh btw U.S Ecomony was up during the third quarter and jobless claim and unemployment is down.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by sikvod00

Top Romney surrogate and professional race-baiting troll John Sununu accuses Colin Powell of endorsing President Obama because they are both black.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...up.php?ref=fpb

He's going to have to add Condi to the list. What I'm not sure is just how dust-for-brains Sununu is going to paint all the other Reagan and Bush Administration officials as "black" who have thumbs downed Romney.

[ganbaru]

^ For thoses he will either think of them as traitor or simply forgot them, never including them in his (abscence of) logic.

U.S. Economy Grew at 2% Rate in 3rd Quarter
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/bu...d-quarter.html

[Lost Cause]

You might find this interesting:


Examiner.com
by Christopher Collins
October 25, 2012

Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.

The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.

Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.

Klein explained that everyone knew what was happening in Benghazi from the CIA to the National Security Agency and that there’s intelligence cables that have not been released.

Wilkow asked, “If everybody knew this including the White House, who would have given the order to go in and save the ambassador?”

Klein, “The President...he should have given the order to use the rapid reaction force..."

Wilkow, “Not Petraeus?”

Klein, “Well it has to come from the president.”

Wilkow also asked Klein about Valerie Jarrett who’s the Senior Advisor to Obama and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, and her role in this cover-up.

Klein said, “We don’t know but we can only assume that every action that the president takes, and he said so, he is on the record saying “I don’t take any actions without passing it by Valerie Jarrett”... so we have to assume that Valerie Jarrett whose also by the way, hooked into the Chicago campaign line...she has a direct line to David Axlerod, was a part of this whole cover-up in the White House.”

This latest news comes on the heels when the Paulding County Republican Examiner reported that former CIA officer, Clare Lopez was a guest on the Glenn Beck TV on Monday evening and told Beck, “They let our ambassador and others die. In real time, watching it happen, and they didn't do anything about it.”

[Vexx]

It all sounds awful until we start looking up these folks and their actual resumes and credentials ... then the flags go up.

Clare Lopez is a former CIA operations officer and long-standing conservative activist who has worked for a number of hawkish policy institutes. She is a senior fellow at the neoconservative Center for Security Policy (CSP), led by Frank Gaffney; is the vice president of the Intelligence Summit; and serves on the advisory board of the Clarion Fund, a controversial film production and distribution company that is tied to rightwing groups in Israel and the United States.

Then there's Glenn Beck ... right. And Wilkow is another talk radio host aligned with Beck (took over for him) and such.

As for Ed Klein:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10...d-klein/190734

Originally Posted by mediamatters

According to Klein, Clinton knowingly and falsely accepted responsibility for Benghazi security in order to cover for President Obama so that he might stand a better chance at reelection. Clinton was also fully aware that there are secret State Department cables showing that, in taking responsibility for Benghazi, she was not telling the truth, and that these cables will soon see the light of day. This calculated effort to cover up the alleged truth about Benghazi under the assumption that the truth will eventually be exposed is, per Klein's telling, all part of a plan to make Clinton seem presidential. Because if there's anything that screams "leadership," it's complicity in a cover-up.
This makes absolutely no sense. None whatsoever.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Klein has been criticized for his biography of Hillary Clinton, titled, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, which was released on June 21, 2005.[2] Politico criticized the book for "serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes [that] don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life." [3]. The book was attacked not only by liberals, but by conservatives as well. John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post, “Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn’t have to suffer through another word.” In National Review James Geraghty wrote, “Folks, there are plenty of arguments against Hillary Clinton, her policies, her views, her proposals, and her philosophies. This stuff ain’t it. Nobody on the right, left, or center ought to stoop to this level.”[1]

On balance --- reeks of desperation and almost tin-foil hat level sources. Klein has spent much of his career stalking Ms. Clinton.