Rayzor Posted May 5, 2012 Report Share Posted May 5, 2012 Thanks for answering my question Mike! Love that speech... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel2Velvet Posted May 6, 2012 Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 Carter lost because he was perceived as weak (rightfully IMO) on foreign issues. The Iranian hostage crisis and the way he handled it doomed him. He also seemed helpless to stem a 13% inflation rate, shrinking emplotment numbers and the worst performing GNP period in 40 years. People elect on personal perception of long term comfort. Foreign policy can effect that feeling, but the economic performance is closer to home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted May 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 Schwarzenegger: GOP, take down that small tent California's Republican Party used to work toward solutions. Now it's an exclusive club where members' ideological cards must be checked at the door. It was Richard Nixon who brought me into the Republican fold. He was running for president, and I had recently arrived in California from Austria, which I'd left because the European socialist mentality wasn't big enough for my dreams. Growing up, I was surrounded by kids whose greatest ambition was to one day collect a pension. I didn't intend to spend my whole life dreaming about floating on a government safety net. One day, when Nixon was talking on the television, my liberal friend Artie translated bits of what he was saying. As I recall, he spoke about free enterprise, about less government and taxation, about the need for a strong military. I asked what party Nixon was from. Artie said he was an imbecile Republican. "Then I will be an imbecile Republican," I said. I've been writing my memoirs recently, and looking back at how I came to my political identity has reminded me that this election cycle marks my 44th year as a Republican. I can't imagine being anything else. That's why I am so bothered by the party's recent loss of two up-and-coming Republicans: San Diego mayoral candidate Nathan Fletcher, currently a state assemblyman, and former assemblyman and current Congressional candidate Anthony Adams, both of whom left the party to become independents. On the one hand, I respect their standing up for principle. On the other, I hate to see them go. I'm sure they would have preferred to remain Republicans, but in the current climate, the extreme right wing of the party is targeting anyone who doesn't meet its strict criteria. Its new and narrow litmus test for party membership doesn't allow compromise. I bumped up against that rigidity many times as governor. Not surprisingly, the party wasn't always too happy with me. But I had taken an oath to serve the people, not my party. Some advisors whose opinions I respect urged me to consider leaving the party and instead identify myself as a "decline to state" voter. But I'm too stubborn to leave a party I believe in. It's time for the Republicans who are so bent on enforcing conformity to ask themselves a question: What would Ronald Reagan have done? He worked hard to maintain a welcoming, open and diverse Republican Party. He would have been appalled to see Republicans like Fletcher and Adams conclude that they had no other option than to leave the party. We need to remind the Republicans who want to enforce ideological purity that if they succeed, they will undo Reagan's work to create an inclusive party that could fit many different views. An inclusive party would welcome the party's most conservative activists right alongside its most liberal activists. There is room for those whose views, I think, make them sound like cavemen. And there is also room for us in the center, with views the traditionalists probably think make us sound like progressive softies. What's important is our shared belief in the broad Republican principles of free enterprise and small government. If we continue to fight one another without being willing to compromise, we will keep losing to big-government advocates. We need to welcome young leaders into the party and invite them to participate in a robust debate. Republicans love the free market, so it should seem like a no-brainer that the more views we have at the table, the better our final product will be. To succeed, Republicans need to embrace true Reaganism, and that means embracing the true Reagan, a brave and independent leader who believed in solutions and compromise. As governor, Reagan was never afraid to buck his party. He raised taxes when he saw no other way to get California out of the red, and he created the California Environmental Protection Agency because, as strongly as he believed in eliminating unnecessary government regulation, he also saw wisdom in protecting our natural resources. As president, Reagan worked very well with Democrats to do big things. It is true that he worked to reduce the size of government and cut federal taxes and he eliminated many regulations, but he also raised taxes when necessary. In 1983, he doubled the gas tax to pay for highway infrastructure improvements. Today, that would be enough for some of the ideological enforcers to start looking for a "real" conservative to challenge him in a primary. Some Republicans today aren't even willing to have conversations about protecting the environment, investing in the infrastructure America needs or improving healthcare. By holding their fingers in their ears when those topics arise, these Republicans aren't just denying themselves a seat at the table; in a state such as California, they also deny a seat to every other Republican. The GOP's history is filled with leaders who rejected ideology in favor of seeking solutions. Teddy Roosevelt is still a hero among environmentalists for his conservationist policies. Dwight Eisenhower believed in the value of investing in infrastructure, and we can thank him for our highway system. Nixon, who originally attracted me to the party, nearly passed universal healthcare. He also created the national Environmental Protection Agency, which some modern Republicans want to close down. Being a Republican used to mean finding solutions for the American people that worked for everyone. It used to mean having big ideas that moved the country forward. It can mean that again, but big ideas don't often come from small tents. It's time to stop thinking of the Republican Party as an exclusive club where your ideological card is checked at the door, and start thinking about how we can attract more solution-based leaders like Nathan Fletcher and Anthony Adams. Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times How true, and the same goes for the Democratic Party. Really, when you think about it. Bold and bright ideas are gone, now it's just stumps and sound bites. Rhetoric ringing in our ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 That was a pretty good op-ed, but I couldn't help but read it in Arnie's voice, which kinda made me giggle a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted August 11, 2012 Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 mint rmoney picks paul ryan as his v.p. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/live-video-mitt-romney-announces-vp-pick-123251121.html As much as I hate obama, there's no way I'm voting for rmoney now. This bum vp pick voted for the invasions/military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, yet wants to privatise medicare and screw other people over in order to pay for his mistake in judgment. I'm actually shocked this was his pick for vp since he games the system in order not to pay taxes; if this was his case, then these guys should man up - not be cowards - and vote to increase taxes on everyone in order to pay for their military excesses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel2Velvet Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 Just a concern. It would seem that a sitting president and vice president might desire the higher road during campaign appearances and throughout endorsed messages. Be perceived more presidential, as it were. Not noticing that, so far, during this election cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 Yes this does lack the sense of dignity and fair play of past American elections. #sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 During the past four years, every attempt at taking away individuals' voting rights and placing them on rich corporations has never been more obvious than the electioneering done by the Republican party. This is borderline treason or at least should be considered un-American Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel2Velvet Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 Where is the source of this "evil corporation" mantra? I hope people consider that EVERY corporation in America has been the reflection (or offshoot of that reflection) of the success of a rooted entrepreneurial endeavor, a mom and pop business, as it were. Henry Ford couldn't get a bank loan to realize his silly idea, at one point. To vilify corporations is to vilify the dynamic hope of millions who work to become uniquely successful in the USA, through their own sweat equity and singular personality traits. Normally, evil intent does not translate to success in the USA. Are there evil and greedy people at work in top levels of some corporations? Yes. Are there evil, greedy people in positions of worker representation in unions? Yes. Are there dishwashers who harbor evil, greedy thoughts of ripping off their employer at the next opportunity? I would hope not, but we all know the answer to that question. There are evil, greedy people in all walks of life and in every location around the world. To single out corporations as the source for a dysfunctional economy or to suggest that corporations control the American voting system is a wee bit short-sighted, at best. The world's leaders are many times no longer civil because we as citizens have lost our civility. That is why leadership today in that most important matter of courteous discourse is more vital than the art of pinning blame or hurling thoughtless accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 Are there evil and greedy people at work in top levels of some corporations? Yes. Are there evil, greedy people in positions of worker representation in unions? Yes. Are there dishwashers who harbor evil, greedy thoughts of ripping off their employer at the next opportunity? I would hope not, but we all know the answer to that question. There are evil, greedy people in all walks of life and in every location around the world. That's true... but it's also true that the evil people in prominent positions (in corporate or political environments) have much more power and opportunities to do evil things that affect many other people, compared to the evil dishwashers. Also, I'm not sure if calling them 'evil' is really correct... I think it's more that a mixture of ignorance and greed is making them do things that are good for few people while not caring (or willingly accepting) that it would be bad for a larger group of peopl, the environment, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Where is the source of this "evil corporation" mantra? I hope people consider that EVERY corporation in America has been the reflection (or offshoot of that reflection) of the success of a rooted entrepreneurial endeavor, a mom and pop business, as it were. Henry Ford couldn't get a bank loan to realize his silly idea, at one point. To vilify corporations is to vilify the dynamic hope of millions who work to become uniquely successful in the USA, through their own sweat equity and singular personality traits. Normally, evil intent does not translate to success in the USA. Are there evil and greedy people at work in top levels of some corporations? Yes. Are there evil, greedy people in positions of worker representation in unions? Yes. Are there dishwashers who harbor evil, greedy thoughts of ripping off their employer at the next opportunity? I would hope not, but we all know the answer to that question. There are evil, greedy people in all walks of life and in every location around the world. To single out corporations as the source for a dysfunctional economy or to suggest that corporations control the American voting system is a wee bit short-sighted, at best. The world's leaders are many times no longer civil because we as citizens have lost our civility. That is why leadership today in that most important matter of courteous discourse is more vital than the art of pinning blame or hurling thoughtless accusation. Oh, but the rich corporations and rich people in general DO control U.S. politics and policies now. It's how they game the system in order to keep more money for themselves and exploit the hell outta the citizens their laws affect. Take all those "contractors" and "consultants" who made themselves even richer because of the two military invasions in the Middle East. You really think some poor chump in the army reserves really wants to go into these foreign lands and blow up innocent citizens in order to make these guys more money? Besides, how were these stupid and useless wars going to be paid? But that's the thing, these two military invasions and subsequent occupations were pushed for and voted in by Congress - the same people whose elections were paid for by rich, influential people. Of course, now that we're deeper in debt because of this military industry fiasco, how do they plan to pay for it? Oh, hey, let's privatise Medicare and Social Security... and watch as rich corporations become richer as they drive down the bit of assets from poor schlubs on Main St. Imagine if these two programmes had been placed on the market back in, say, 2004 or 2005 - and then see both systems crash catastrophically the way the economy subsequently did. So, not only would there be a loss in 401K retirement accounts from young, working folk, but also on health care and income for the elderly. All that cash gone, gone... gone into a vortex sinkhole where the rich collect all of it at the bottom, and hoard it in offshore accounts and tax-dodging schemes (as they've been doing for God knows how long, just like mitt romney and his coward friends) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzor Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 And don't forget how the government used tax dollars to help "bail out" some of those same companies, B-A. They had offshore accounts and the governments help. Talk about rich getting richer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 See, I'm all for fiscal responsibility and having a balanced budget with expenses that are accounted for. During WWII, there was a collective drive to conserve resources, buy war bonds, etc. What bush, cheney, and their cronies did was pass tax cuts for their wealthiest friends and donors, and now the rest are getting pinned for that cost in terms of loss of human lives, horrific war injuries, and another "lost generation" of military folk and people here in the nation. This war effort did absolutely nothing in making things better for anyone living in the U.S. Again, these chicken hawks should man up and raise all taxes, esp. on the rich to start paying for the costly policies of the confederacy of dunces they bought in Congress. And now this lowlife scumbag is going to israel promising those terrorists we will back any military effort to defend... israel. What the hell?! As a naturalised U.S. citizen, I took an oath to defend THIS country, not the apartheid policies of foreign terrorists. Adding salt to that injury, mitt has chosen the same imbeciles who put together the Iraq WMD hoax to conduct Middle East policy! I thought this guy liked firing people! Well, here's your chance, mittens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel2Velvet Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 That's just my original point, BA. You begin by opening the dialogue with rationale for your political choice, but then degrade the arguments through name calling and slanderous accusations. Yes, you are not running for president, but we tend to reflect leadership, which is the concern. I feel that "Bully Viewing Instinct" to side with those under voracious attack. I recall how badly I felt for him when Obama was being hammered mercilessly about his birth certificate. Now, I feel the same about Romney being called out about his tax returns of 10 years ago, which were they not filed or falsified would be under investigation by the Obama administered federal agency, IRS. But it is the name-calling that is the basest of our national character traits, perhaps indicating that there is a virus thriving among us somewhere in the darkness of misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 btw, I've been kind of surprised by how different the political standpoints of Obama and Romney actually (not) are This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state. ... As outrageous as it may appear, civil libertarians and human rights supporters would have actually fared better under a Republican administration. Had a Bush or McCain presidency permitted extrajudicial executions virtually anywhere in the world ( www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/047/2012/en ), expanded drone strikes and introduced the NDAA, the Democratic Party would have howled from the rooftops. Senator Obama the Constitutional lawyer would have been one of the most vocal objectors. Under a Democratic administration however, these far-reaching developments have received scant opposition and a disgraceful absence of mainstream media coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 That's just my original point, BA. You begin by opening the dialogue with rationale for your political choice, but then degrade the arguments through name calling and slanderous accusations. Yes, you are not running for president, but we tend to reflect leadership, which is the concern. I feel that "Bully Viewing Instinct" to side with those under voracious attack. I recall how badly I felt for him when Obama was being hammered mercilessly about his birth certificate. Now, I feel the same about Romney being called out about his tax returns of 10 years ago, which were they not filed or falsified would be under investigation by the Obama administered federal agency, IRS. But it is the name-calling that is the basest of our national character traits, perhaps indicating that there is a virus thriving among us somewhere in the darkness of misunderstanding. Just calling a spade... "a spade." To focus on name-calling in light of the fact these people have the power to send others to their deaths based on a bunch of lies and political posturing, and that they have the power to legally lie, cheat and steal from them just goes to show priorities are way off alignment in today's times. There is no more sanctity for any life because power and money have taken precedent on almost every level of govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 I'm taking a mid-year's resolution not to debate politics on the internet. See you at election day, everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkstones Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 I love the GOP ticket this year. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan aka The Android and The Randroid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Nice backpedal he did there with the whole "I agree with Ayn Rand" and then "I don't agree with Ayn Rand" in the span of... a coupla weeks. Spoken like a true illiterate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel2Velvet Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Nice backpedal he did there with the whole "I agree with Ayn Rand" and then "I don't agree with Ayn Rand" in the span of... a coupla weeks. Spoken like a true illiterate BA, I agreed with your first point, but you lost my support through your overstated slur at the end. That was my point 5 or 6 posts ago. The most legitimate argument becomes tarnished by the name calling associated with prejudice and unnecessary character assassination. I loved when the president stated, after the Gabby Giffords shooting, that the national tone of political debate must become more civil, less radicalized. It seems his supporters rarely follow his leadership on this issue, which may be interpreted as a reflection of those leadership skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 I'm sitting in on the presidential election. I view it as a bread-and-circus spectacle of Roman proportions (they sure are spending millions more electioneering). Half a century before, this would've been unreal. There is no respect for the Presidency/Executive, Congress/Legislative, and maybe even the Judicial branch of U.S. govt. with the kinds of overt shenanigans going on at their level - right in front of everyone. And any attempt at changing the way business-as-usual, corrupt way of doing things has been met with resistance from the same branches of govt. that are supposed to be looking out for the interests of the nation/people. I'm only voting for locals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel2Velvet Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 All I could come up as a reason for Obama's debate strategy last night (yes, the U.S. presidential debate series is being carried by Brazilian cable) was that the campaign has not been challenging enough for someone of his competitive nature, so he threw his opponent a few handicap poll points. Now, that's grace and confidence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 All I could come up as a reason for Obama's debate strategy last night (yes, the U.S. presidential debate series is being carried by Brazilian cable) was that the campaign has not been challenging enough for someone of his competitive nature, so he threw his opponent a few handicap poll points. Now, that's grace and confidence! Haha, I heard he did it because his supporters became too confident and he wanted to bring them down a notch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 To me Obama just seemed stunned that Mitt would lie through his teeth like that. LOL...he's not cutting funding for education or raising taxes on the middle class, he's just turning more responsibility to the states. That's rich! Wonder who will end up paying for that? Oh, and who will pay for the subsidization of the oil companies who will drill for oil in the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Oil that will not go directly to the U.S. either, but to the general/world market Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now