Political Roundtable Quasar of Mayhem part III

[hands11]

It's absurd to put "Ron Paul" and "dictator" in the same sentence.

nate33, on the other hand...

A man that can get things done.

I would vote for Cartman or Nate

[nate33]

Yes. I will accept all votes for Benevolent Dictator of the United States.

[hands11]

Nah, the straw that broke the camel's back was Cain's utter inability to answer any foreign policy questions. It finally dawned on the Republican electorate that Cain simply wasn't a viable candidate. They liked his personality, but once they looked carefully enough at the substance of his positions, they realized there was no substance.

I say the straw that broke his back was time. It was inevitable. Just like all the other predictions I made about this cast of candidates.

Cain was a nice distraction and the next flavor of the mouth as they look for someone not named Mitt, but its get getting down to the nitty gritty.

Had he had no sex stuff, he would have faded anyway. What came out of his mouth was the deciding factor. What I find hypocritical is this. Had Cain been a Dem.. talking Dem speak in the manner and style he talked R speak ...... with that hat, and the style he speaks, the Rs would be going nuts.

9-9-9

This guy was always a joke and the joke he was playing was on the R electorate by taking their money. He is laughing all the way to the bank.

I predict there will be a 3rd party candidate this go around. These R primaries have been a disaster. A logical conclusion to the TPs gaining seats last cycle. People liked the idea of them because they were an organized group that gave voice to our frustration about Government debt. But the sold people a bill of goods. That problem isnt simply spending. And watching them govern or lack there of, has been an eye opener.

At the end of the day, someone has to be more appealing then what we have. If nothing less, this has been entertainment while the global economic machine continues to try to unwind from being a huge equity bubble that was run up by and for the top 1%

At some point the simple solutions of just cut taxes, blow people up, and dont spend any money will give way to the fact that people need to govern and it needs to work for at least 80% of the people are for more then a 2 year window. We need a 20 year solution that is sound in invests for the next generations.

The funny things about Newt is this. Had he not been dismissed so early because of what he said about the Paul Ryan plan, he would have been given a closer look a long time ago and by now he would be out running like Perry is. Opps. My bad. Newt said we are not allowed to use his video recorded words against him. But that video still does exist and I expect Mitt to use it.

These guys .. and women.. are about to so bloody themselves there will be nothing but stumps left when they are done. And Huntsman and Paul who still have clean hands.

[hands11]

Well, McCain was a smart honest guy and once he got the nomination he was forced to sell out. So I'd kinda like Ron Paul to not get the nomination so I won't be disillusioned with him.

If the economy is still in the tank next year you could put a warm muffin up against Obama and win. So why not go with Romney, who I think would make a good pres?

In the end, it will have less to do with the economy and more to do with who is better choice with more supporters.

Americans that are even paying a little attention to what is going on in the world can see that the problem in global, a result failed idea dating back 30 years, and it has to do with what is going on in congress more then it has to do with the President we have. In the end, someone has to be better then what we have. For me, that is a better House and Senate. That is what would help the most. Supporting policies that always favor the top 1% over the middle class is what has been going wrong.

But if you are looking at this weak line up of Rs, I still say it comes down to Paul and Huntsman with Newt staying in it because he can debate well. Well and Mitt because he has been running for 8 years or more. But Newt is going to get nailed for being all over the issues depending on who was paying him. He has been on the wrong side of core R issues way to often to not get slammed. Paul and Huntsman are the only two politicians with clean hands. And Rick maybe. Newt is just as much a flip flopper as Willard.

Newt will stick around for a while because he will take shots. But he will be taking a lot of them also both from Dems and from Reps.

There will be a 3rd party and the Rs vote will get divided which makes sense. It is a divided constituency.

[popper]

I think I'm going to lose my mind. Is this really true?


Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military
By Pete Winn
December 1, 2011
Subscribe to Pete Winn's posts


(CNSNews.com) – (Updated) The Senate on Thursday evening voted 93-7 to approve a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, it also repeals the military ban on sex with animals--or bestiality.

[montestewart]

I think I'm going to lose my mind. Is this really true?


Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military
By Pete Winn
December 1, 2011
Subscribe to Pete Winn's posts


(CNSNews.com) – (Updated) The Senate on Thursday evening voted 93-7 to approve a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, it also repeals the military ban on sex with animals--or bestiality.

You can have sex with animals in today's army? Yahoo! Where do I sign up?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

It's an excellent point. Paul might make in ideal dictator, but I don't see how he could govern effectively in this political climate. But you have to hand it to the guy for sticking to his principals and trying to expose hypocrisy. Look at this absolute hatchet job he does on Newt:

It's absurd to put "Ron Paul" and "dictator" in the same sentence. There hasn't been a politician more committed to individual liberty in the last 50 years.

Nate, that wasn't a shot, it was a compliment. I was saying that Paul's a smart guy with some good idea(l)s and if he had unilateral authority to make changes, he could probably help the country. The reality though is that appears to be too rigid in his principals (not a bad thing in a vaccum) to be an effective governor (small g).

In my own ideal world, Ron Paul would be President and Barack Obama would be the VP who has his confidence and counsel. Obama IMO is way sharper than the masses give him credit, but he's such a pragmatist that he appears not to take that strong of a stand on most things. He likes small victories and compromise. Paul wants total upheaval of hypocrisy and waste in government.

I don't think Obama has the stones to cut military spending. I think he's hated by most military. Paul OTOH would make deep cuts. He has credibility and experience as a Vietnam era vetera, but IMO Paul won't be fooled or manipulated by the military industrial complex the way Obama appears to have been. Paul would really battle harder to get troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think he want any parts of wars with Iran, Pakistan, or Libya, either.

[dobrojim]

Clearly the most attractive thing about Paul is his
willingness to flatly state the need for certain
things which most objective people would agree
need to change. Outspending the rest of the world
combined on military expenditures of which a
significant part is garrisoning the planet. But I
fear that even he would not be able to stand up
to the status quo in this area. The thinking that
the DoD and the rest of the national security apparatus
should be in effect a massive jobs program
in spite of the economic inefficiency this results in,
is going to be extremely hard for Congress, where this
actually happens, to change.

[hands11]

Wow. Im watching the Cain press conference.

Looks like this guy is actually going to double down. He has the wife with him and everything.

Can't say I am really surprised. He can't go out on the news that has come out about him. He needs to repair his name some in order to make money when this is over.

As for the people in the crowd ... just goes to show how stupid the electorate really is. As I have said many time over, don't blame the government, blame the people for being suckers.

All this aside. I feel sorry for his wife. As I did Hilary. At least Hillary knew what she was dealing with and she had political aspirations. But this guy dragging his wife up there to stand behind his lies is just disgraceful. This is not going to go away the way he is dealing with it.

Oh, wait. He has a plan B. Oh wow. He is suspending his campaign.

Ah, so now he isn't running but he isn't going away.

Here is plan B - The Cain solutions ... something.. I couldnt even understand what he said.

Oh. cainssolitions.com is what he said. Go to the web site. The splash screen is donate now. lol

Ok, I get it. It is what I said all along. He wants to be a Sarah Palin. He wants a voice and PR so he can make money but he doesn't want to be held accountable by actual votes. This guy is such a total joke. Come on Rs. Can we please stop the circus. We have serious problems to solve.

LOL. He is quoting Pokiman.

Ok, how long will it take until he has a show on Fox.

This is embarrassing how he speak to people like they have the intellect of a child. But then again, he is closing out his speech quoting Pokiman.

[hands11]

Clearly the most attractive thing about Paul is his
willingness to flatly state the need for certain
things which most objective people would agree
need to change. Outspending the rest of the world
combined on military expenditures of which a
significant part is garrisoning the planet. But I
fear that even he would not be able to stand up
to the status quo in this area. The thinking that
the DoD and the rest of the national security apparatus
should be in effect a massive jobs program
in spite of the economic inefficiency this results in,
is going to be extremely hard for Congress, where this
actually happens, to change.

But that message isnt anything new. The Dems has been saying that for a very long time. Problem was the Republicans slammed them for it saying they were weak on defense and used that to win elections. So they had to adjust to move to the right to get that monkey off their backs.

Just like it will take Dems to fix medicare, etc. it will take R to fix the military spending. I am very glad there is at least on voice on the R side that will put military spending on the table.

[dobrojim]

the problem with what you're saying is that dems are complicit
in the undue influence of the Mil-Ind-CONGRESSIONAL complex
as well. Even reps with the liberal rep of Ted Kennedy were
perfectly willing to vote for things that we didn't need but
created jobs in their districts or states. That is why it may
take a fiscal crisis even greater than what we are facing
before anything will change. This is one area in which
I am NOT an optimist.

[hands11]

the problem with what you're saying is that dems are complicit
in the undue influence of the Mil-Ind-CONGRESSIONAL complex
as well. Even reps with the liberal rep of Ted Kennedy were
perfectly willing to vote for things that we didn't need but
created jobs in their districts or states. That is why it may
take a fiscal crisis even greater than what we are facing
before anything will change. This is one area in which
I am NOT an optimist.

That isnt a problem with what I was saying. That is what I was saying.

As for what it is going to take, it is going to take the republicans voting on bills that cut the Military spending. They just missed one opportunity with the Super Congress thing. They could have cut spending but they wont pass anything that asks the top 1% to pay a dime more even though they are at historically low level of taxation.

And if nothing else happens, the Military will get cut in 2013 because that is the legislation that has already passed. Same deal with the Bush tax cuts. No one needs to pass anything and both will happen. Only thing that will change that is the Rep find a way to reverse that legislation.

But as it is, payroll takes will go up in January thanks to the Republicans raising our taxes.

[fugop]

Policy analysts call the defense spending -- congressional jobs nexus "the iron triangle."

And popper, this is the section of ucmj they apparently repealed:

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

1. It applies to straight people too. No BJs.
2. Gay folks are allowed to serve in the military.
3. If you think beastiality is a big problem in the military, feel free to lobby for an explicit article forbidding it. Seems a bit unnecessary, though I hear sex with box turtles is the new big thing.

[hands11]

The problem with Iran is what we did in Iraq.

Because we removed the only real threat Iran had, we will end up not only spending all that money on Iraq, but we will end up spending it on Iran also. I best hope is that we get a multinational group together to deal with them.

The cost of invading Iraq is far from over.

Iraq was never the real problem. Iran was/is. And Bush and company took the band-aide off that when they invaded Iraq.

While no one liked Sadam, an unchecked Iran is even worse. This party isn't over yet by the long shot. If anything, it is more messed up now then ever. And it is a total shame they our military fought and died for nothing in Iraq. That is a total insult to their survive and sacrifice.

I'm just glad our current commander and chief did the right things to get Osama and Kodafi. Both things that didnt take involvement from this lamn house.

The idea time for Paul to have been president would have been before Bush. But Paul would never get elected as a Republican anyway. He has to many ideas that go against that parties core issues. He will need to run as a third party candidate. But he will be in the final group to get a close look.

This is Newts time right now. I expect we will hear more from Rick and Huntsman as well. Should get a lot more interesting now that Cain is out. At least they can get serious about the debates and who is viable as a candidate. The debate will get even better once Michelle is gone.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I got to take care of three kids while my ex-wife went to Iraq and spent over two years overseas. Oh yeah, I was teaching math to middle schoolers full-time and have one child with special needs. Fun memories ...

I thought in 2004 that Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn't about Al Qaeda or weapons of mass destruction. Thought then it was about oil and building a military infrastructure that SOMEONE would profit from. I thought then that you don't send a land force that big unless you basically want to annex a country. I also thought if you want to usurp whatever oil, gold, etc from Iraq; why not use the US Air Force? Bomb those suckers to smithereens. Use covert operations to kill Saddam Hussein (the same way Navy SEALS did years later to kill Osama Bin Laden). After taking out all command, control, and communication in Iraq; effectively allow the government the US wants in power to take Baghdad.

Seemed to me my approach would have been a whole lot cheaper than what the US ended up doing. Who knows, maybe the bombing I thought of was oversimplification and would not have worked. I thought all we needed to do was secure the oil fields, put enough ground forces in to protect supply lines, and then get all non-essential military out of Iraq. Let contractors like Black Water handle the rest. I would have preferred bad publicity and massive bombing over the short run to a long campaign that inflicted tons of collateral damage.

People's lives were changed because of the wars. Forget US military and family that went through it. They were volunteers. Over 500,000 Iraqis died. Maybe they are better off without Saddam and this needed to happen. I am not so sure.

One reason I don't have the same support for Barack Obama that I did when I voted for him is he promoted having a surge in Afghanistan. Seems to me this is another un-winnable war. Who is next? Iran? Libya? What about all the Al Qaeda in Syria?

I am not much on politics, but I do like Ron Paul's take on reducing military forces around the world. I like that better than bombing folks with drones. Obama did not start what George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld got us into, but he is continuing it with IMO reckless abandon.

[hands11]

Getting out is a lot harder then going in.

And we are talking about a Dem. If he didn't at least give it a good effort to have some positive effect and withdraw in an organized way, then the Dems would get labeled as weak on military issues. That is something he has done well to counter by actually being effective.

If you wanted someone to walk out of Iraq or Afghanistan, that would have needed to be a Republican. Bush could have done it. But he didn't. He simply started the mess and handed it off to the next person to clean up his mess.

But the bigger point I was making was regarding Iran and how we weakened our position by removing Sadam. He was who we put in place to keep Iraq in check. Removing him is allowing Iran greater religious extremest influence over Iraq and it is making Iran a direct target for us to deal with because there is no one else to do it now.

The clock is ticking until we have to deal with Iran unless we are lucky enough for their own people to change things. If not, we have another war on the horizon. The clock is ticking.

While I do think the military need downsides, I think Paul black and white thinking is moving to far from what needs to be done because he would do nothing except protect our immediate boarders. I think it is more complicated then that. We do need some international bases. We just don't need this many and we don't need to be paying for it all ourselves. More of them should probably be UN and NATO bases where the cost is shared.

[dobrojim]

remarkably prescient interview with my boy, Andrew Bacevich

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ1h6Ki2-8U

recorded in 2009 but actually touches on a number of issues
raised by the #OWS folks.

It's an hour long but probably better than a lot of other
possible alternative programs you might be thinking of
watching.

[hands11]

What. Trump wants to run a debate and Republicans are considering this ?

Please let the circus end.

I have never seen a primary with so many key players in it who are so focused on simply making themselves money. This is supposed to be our country looking for a candidate for president not the Kardashians.

[dobrojim]

as a totally partisan dem, why would you want the circus to end?

it can't be helpful for the pubs

Richard Cohen had a few choice words about this on today's op-ed
page basically pointing out how lucky BHO is considering the quality
of the likely opposition a year from now. You should read it, you'll
get a good chuckle.

But Obama’s most astounding bit of good luck is the motley crew of opponents the Republican Party has coughed up. It is simply amazing that in a country of 313 million people, many of them literate, the political opposition consists of ignoramuses, dimwits, contrarians, Christian jihadists and, now, two men so thoroughly hollow that a moral principle would make a rattling sound inside them. I am talking of course of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

[hands11]

as a totally partisan dem, why would you want the circus to end?

it can't be helpful for the pubs

Richard Cohen had a few choice words about this on today's op-ed
page basically pointing out how lucky BHO is considering the quality
of the likely opposition a year from now. You should read it, you'll
get a good chuckle.

Personally I want to circus to end because politics and how the government functions is very import to a country. We are a lot more then just a bunch of individuals or a bunch or separate profit seeking companies. We are the United States of America. Lowing the bar as it has been lowered is not good because it is wasting time, focus and resources for real solutions and real candidates. These people are proposing solutions that the electorate is considering as viable when most are not. That is in large part how we got in this mess to begin with.

This circus only misinforms and make the electorate even dumber then it already is which is dumb enough. This didn't used to happy when the vetting process was done by the party first before we even got to see who the options were. That has all changed as primaries became something the people got involved in. Now anyone who is a public figure can run. Problem is, the news agencies and the electorate have not evolved enough to manage this process. They are being suckers and allowing this flim flams to take there attention and money.

Hopefully this election cycle will be a lesson and next time around people take what they have learned here into account before showing any support for people who have zero political experience. This whole idea of an outsider with no political experience is stupid. They are running for a the top political job. Political experience should be a core requirement. Obama may not have had much, but he was at least elected a Senator. Cain and Trump have no business even being discussed. After that, some brains would be a nice bar to get over. No more of this Sarah Palin crap. Nor Perry.