Vote(d) 2012 ... can't mediate the Ho Ho's

[RobbyPants]

My favorite is when every now and then, someone sees an Onion article and takes it seriously. Last year, there was a congressman who saw the Onion's article on a multi billion dollar abortionplex and took it seriously, posting on Facebook about it.

[dman11235]

So the Republican candidate for Indiana governor released a satement about what he wants to do with marriage.  Effectively, although he refuses to give details until "the coming weeks", he wants to encourage marriage with legislation.  He said that he does hope to provide incentives that encourage marriage.  Now, what can you possibly hope to accomplish with that sort of legislation?  Hmm.....

[RobbyPants]

What does he mean by encourage marriage?

[dman11235]

We don't really know since he's being deliberately vague.  I can only hope he's going to hurt his chances by saying what he really thinks here in a few weeks.  In IN, it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that he will win, since he's a Republican, though.  But basically, he wants marriage to have an incentive, so that more people get married.  When I heard that, I immediately thought "oh, he's going to try and work towards a ban on extra-marital pregnancies", because that's one of the only things I can think of that this would be needed for, and given his background (hardcore conservative), it makes sense.  Also banning homosexual marriage, or possibly just having a benefit for heterosexual marriage over homosexual, but I know he'd prefer the ban.

EDIT: the full statement he made, and again, no one but his campaign knows what this means, is this:

Promote marriage by requiring a family impact statement for state regulations

I really can't think of any reason why he'd put that in there other than the reasons I listed, and then "I want to be seen as a family man", so there's also the possibility he's just saying it to help his election.

[radionausea]

Family Impact Statements aren't actually a bad thing at all. Would be preferable for them to be called Household Impact Statements of course but having any bill having to be assessed for the impact it will have on households across the board is a good thing in theory.  How that links with 'promoting marriage' is the worrying thing and how marriage will be factored into impact assessments.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Whew, things aren't looking good ...

Libya seems to be a semi-alQaeda attack, 
not the fault of Benghazi or the rest of Libya.

Egypt is somewhere between Iran in '79 and
just a sort of political theatre.  But how to tell.
Now the rest of that part of the world, are
jumping in heavy.  Oh boy.

 

[bhu]

Any thoughts on Bernanke and the various corps playing a game of chicken?

[Libertad]

For once, I agree with Rick Santorum.

[Libertad]

One of the most epic Daily Show clips I've seen in a long time.

More of it.

[Hallack]

Any thoughts on Bernanke and the various corps playing a game of chicken?

My thoughts... we're screwed.  Doesn't matter much who is in office after Nov.

[altpersona]

idk this is the right thread or not;

but


i dont generally believe 'trickle down' economics works.. but i found an example that does.

political campaigns.

normally, the money that is supposed to trickle down from the Owners to the masses just gets pulled from circulation.

but political campaigns take huge sums of money from the rich and trickles it right on down back into the economy..

i guess it does work... color me surprised.. 

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I heard Romney speak in favor of Regulations.
Wow, that ought to kick him out of the conservative camp, but it wont.


I was trying to make sense of the budget numbers tossed around.
PBS News had former McCain and former Biden econ guys on.

Romney's numbers go like:
if the Bush tax cuts expired, you'd have a baseline
from that baseline, you get 20% tax cuts,
but the Bush tax cuts won't (wink,wink) expire,
and he'll close some unknown loopholes later.
The numbers end up the same.

So the Dems + Obama call this the $5 Trillion tax cut.
Which is more or less accurate if you use part of what I just posted.
  Clarified nothing.  But the talking econ heads seemed happy.

[xaotiq1]

idk this is the right thread or not;

but


i dont generally believe 'trickle down' economics works.. but i found an example that does.

political campaigns.

normally, the money that is supposed to trickle down from the Owners to the masses just gets pulled from circulation.

but political campaigns take huge sums of money from the rich and trickles it right on down back into the economy..

i guess it does work... color me surprised..

Now we just need 200,000 people to run for POTUS and all receive massive amounts of corporate backing!   

Yeah, we're boned.

[bhu]

New drinking game:

Anytime a public official mentions Big Bird on tv, do a shot and call Romeny's campaign to say "How dare you impugn the honor of Big Bird you broken little man."

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

What does he mean by encourage marriage?

Tax breaks. Am I the only one with an IQ over 90 here?

I especially loved the incorrectly titled youtube video where the first line was about the media.

This thread needs to die. I'd only be marginally sad if this subforum went away just to stop the shear stupidity in this one thread. Not that I head over that often.

[skydragonknight]

This thread needs to die. I'd only be marginally sad if this subforum went away just to stop the shear stupidity in this one thread. Not that I head over that often.

I give it a month, thereabouts.

[RobbyPants]

What does he mean by encourage marriage?

Tax breaks. Am I the only one with an IQ over 90 here?

The reason people should be getting married is... tax breaks?

I especially loved the incorrectly titled youtube video where the first line was about the media.

This thread needs to die. I'd only be marginally sad if this subforum went away just to stop the shear stupidity in this one thread. Not that I head over that often.

You know, you don't have to read this thread or post in it. Posting how stupid it is and how smart you are without trying to add anything is incredibly masturbatory.

[Hallack]

I heard Romney speak in favor of Regulations.
Wow, that ought to kick him out of the conservative camp, but it wont.

Just one more example of the stupidity of the electorate, particularly the supposedly fiscally conservative free market loving "Tea party" types.

It is freakin' mind blowing how 'tea party' types are backing Romney/Ryan.  They are anti-tea party candidates.   

Just one more  amongst many.

[dman11235]

They're supporting them because they are Republican.  And the Tea Party is Republican.  So they vote Republican.  Really, the Tea Party is just a way for Republicans to distance themselves from things that their party did that they don't want to be associated with*.  And I'm being vague about which party they are distancing themselves from for a reason.

*massive spending, poor foreign policy, social reform, tax issues, illegal behavior, bureaucratic mistakes, religious issues, etc.  And these terms are relative, so don't take it out on me for things that they want but I said they distance themselves from, or things that they as a party don't/didn't do.  It's a game to the politicians, so they distance themselves from anything the average voter sees as bad.  For crime, the average voter sees the sexual harassment, illegal campaigning, etc. and applies it to the entire party rather than the individual who commits it.

[Hallack]

I don't disagree that the Tea Party was coopted and wrapped up nicely by establishment interests. 

What I am finding actually is that most are supporting them not because they are Republican but because they are not Obama.  I find that reasoning just as saddening. 

The root of my lament however is that the Tea Party (broad brush generalized version) lacks conviction of their espoused principles. 

This however is not a problem specific to the tea party or Republicans.