Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » GOP debate, Monday, 1/16/2012

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: GOP debate, Monday, 1/16/2012
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What a great debate. I appreciated how the candidates didn't rise to the bait offered by the slanted and pointed questions offered by the moderators, but still went after each other on the things that they felt were important.

Full transcript from foxnewsinsider.com

Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great response by Romney to Gingrich questioning Romney's record:
quote:
ROMNEY: Well, I appreciate the chance to talk about my record and the private sector and also the governmental sector. And I appreciate the speaker’s work working in the Reagan years and in the Clinton years. We did see good growth in this country. I want to see that come back again.
My experience in the private sector took me, one to be head of a consulting firm that got in trouble and work to create jobs there and hold on to jobs. We were in tough times. And then I got the chance to start a business of my own.
And four of the companies that we invested in, they weren’t businesses I ran, but we invested in, ended up today having some 120,000 jobs. Some of the business we invested weren’t successful and lost jobs. And I’m very proud of the fact that we learned from the experience.
We invested in well over 100 different businesses. And the people have looked at the places that have added jobs and lost jobs and that record is pretty much available for people to take a close look at.
But my record as the governor of Massachusetts and as the person that led the Olympics flowed from the fact that I had experience turning around tough situations, that I worked in the private sector, demonstrated a record of success. By virtue of that I was asked to come out and organize the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.
And then was asked after the success of that experience to come back to Massachusetts by a number of people there, encouraged me to come back, run for governor. I did. We were fortunate to have an unemployment rate by the time I left office of 4.7 percent. Sounds pretty good today.
And I was also proud of the fact that we balanced the budget every year I was in office. We reduced taxes 19 times, put in place a rainy day fund of over $2 billion by the time I left.
And so my record is out there, proud of it, and I think if team want to have someone who understand how the economy works, having worked in the real economy, that I’m the guy that can best post up against Barack Obama.


Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I understand why the other candidates are hounding Romney for his tax returns, what I don't understand is why they are being dishonest about it.

From Perry:
quote:
And Mitt, we need for you to release your income tax so the people of this country can see how you made your money. And — and I think that’s a — I think that’s a fair thing. Listen, here’s the real issue for us, as — as — as Republicans, we cannot fire our nominee in September. We need to know now. So I hope you’ll put your tax records out there this week so the people of South Carolina can take a look and decide if, you know, we’ve got a flawed candidate or not.
They already know how he made his money, he has done all of the financial disclosure. What they want to know is not how much of the money he made, but how much of the money he made did he pay in taxes.
Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perry's comment on Romney's taxes came in a complete non-answer to the question:
quote:
BAIER: Governor Perry, you have gone so far as to call what Mitt Romney did at Bain vulture capitalism. But you’ve also said regulations in America are killing America. In fact, you said we should repeal the most recent financial regulations law, Dodd-Frank.
So what specific regulations would you put in place to curb vulture capitalism?

I would have liked to have seen him answer that question.
Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Santorum did a great job with the felons voting ad by Romney's superPAC.
Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And then had a dumb response to a question on extending unemployment benefits:
quote:
SANTORUM: Well, I think we have to look at having a reasonable time for people to be able to come back, get a job and then turn their lives around. But, what we’ve seen in — in the past under this administration, is extending benefits up to 99 weeks. I don’t support that. I think if you have people who are out of work that — that long a period of time, it’s — it’s without question it makes it harder to find work when you come back. When you’re that far long away from a job, then you lose certain skills. You lose — you lose a lot of things when you’re out of work.
And that’s — there’s a lot of research that show that to be the case. And so what I believe is, just like I did with welfare reform when we reformed welfare, we sent it back to the states. And we gave the states the flexibility to design these programs. Just as I would do here with unemployment insurance. It should go back to the states. Let the states design it. If South Carolina because of a unique situation, wants to have a longer unemployment period of time because of a unique situation here, fine. But to have a federal program that roughly and crudely tries to assess the problem of unemployment from state to state and area to area, is the wrong approach.
What we should do, is have it just like welfare. Give it to the states, put a time limit. In the case of welfare, it was 40 weeks. Give flexibility to the states to — to — to operate those programs and even in unemployment, I mean, you can — you can have as we did on welfare, have some sort of either work requirement of job training required as a condition. We’re not doing people any favors by keeping them on unemployment insurance for a long period of time.

Just a bunch of blathering about the magic panacea that is giving it back to the states. Brings up some important problems, and then just waves his hand and says that they will be solved.
Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gingrich on the same question:
quote:
GINGRICH: Well, you know Brett, I think there’s a better way to — to think about this. All unemployment compensation should be tied to a job training requirement. If somebody can’t find a job…
(APPLAUSE)
… and they show up, and they say, “You know, I need help,” the help we ought to give them is to get them connected to a business-run training program to acquire the skills to be employable. Now the fact is, 99 weeks is an associate degree.
(APPLAUSE)
It — it tells you — I think it tells you everything. I — I hope my four colleagues would agree here. It tells you everything you need to know about the difference between Barack Obama and the five of us, that we actually think work is good.
(APPLAUSE)
We actually — we actually think saying to somebody, “I’ll help you if you’re willing to help yourself,” is good.
(APPLAUSE)
And we think unconditional efforts by the best food stamp president in American history to maximize dependency is terrible for the future of this country.

A much stronger answer.
Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paul was feisty tonight:
quote:
SEIB: Congressman Paul, South Carolina has seven major military bases, and thousands of people employed in the defense industry. But you want to make major cuts in defense spending, several hundred billion dollars in the coming years, that inevitably would cost South Carolina jobs. What do you say to people in this state who worry that your military plans would hurt the national security and cost South Carolina jobs?

PAUL: I would say your — your question suggests you’re very confused about my position.
(APPLAUSE)
I want to cut money, overseas money. That’s what I want to do. I want to cut military money. I don’t want to cut defense money. I want to bring the troops home. I’d probably have more bases here at home. We were closing them down in the 1990s and building them overseas. That’s how we got into trouble.
PAUL: So we would save a lot more money and have a stronger national defense, and that’s what we should do. But to say that we would be weaker is absolutely wrong, because — and — and — and another important thing you should consider is the fact that the military is behind me more than the others. I get twice as much money from the…
(APPLAUSE)
… from the active military duties than all the other candidates put together. So they’re saying that I’m on the right track. They’re sick and tired of those wars. They’re sick and tired of the nation- building and the policing activity.
But to say that we would have less money for defense, we’d actually have more money.

Paul's biggest problem is that Republicans have a hard time hearing what he is actually saying. They only hear what they would mean if they said those words. But that is something very different. We can make huge cuts to our military budget, and still have an increase in the quality of our national defense, and in the number of bases we have in the United States. It isn't hard to understand, but you have to take off your Republican/Democrat glasses to make any sense of it.

[ January 17, 2012, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: philnotfil ]

Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gingrich with the perfect answer to how high taxes should be. Everyone else got bogged down in the details, he was casting vision on how government should work, not getting bogged down in the boring details.

quote:
GINGRICH: I would like to see it be a flat tax at 15 percent and I would like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue, not raise revenue to meet the government.
Catchy antithesis, I would expect to see this show up in political discourse moving forward.
Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Santorum on poverty, he is at his best when giving responses like this. If I were him, I would go Herman Cain on the subject of family and make it a part of every response.

quote:
SANTORUM: It’s very interesting, if you look at a study that was done by the Brookings Institute back in 2009, they determined that if Americans do three things, they can avoid poverty. Three things. Work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children. Those three things…
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: Those three things, if you do, according to Brookings, results in only 2 percent of people who do all those things ending up in poverty, and 77 percent above the national average in income. It’s a huge, huge opportunity for us.
But what is the Obama administration doing? Elaine Bennett runs a program called Best Friends, the wife of Bill Bennett. And she told me through Bill that the Obama administration now has a policy, and this program is a program targeted at at-risk youth, specifically in many case necessary the African-American community, who are at-risk young girls. The Obama administration now has regulations that tells them that they can no longer promote marriage to these young girls. They can no longer promote marriage as a way of avoiding poverty and bad choices that they make in their life. They can no longer even teach abstinence education. They have to be neutral with respect to how people behave.
The problem is neutrality ends in poverty, neutrality ends in choices that hurt people’s lives. This administration is deliberately telling organizations that are there to help young girls make good choices, not to tell them what the good choice is. That is absolutely unconscionable.

A couple of quibbles.

On the numbers, Brookings said:
quote:
If you want to avoid poverty and join the middle class in the United States, you need to do three things: Complete high school (at a minimum), work full time and marry before you have children.
If you do all three, your chances of being poor fall from 12 percent to 2 percent, and your chances of joining the middle class or above rise from 56 to 74 percent.
Brookings defines middle class as having an income of at least $50,000 a year for a family of three.

Not as dramatic as those numbers sound out of context.

Also, Brookings, and Santorum, completely ignored illegal drug use and the misguided war on drugs as controllable factors related to poverty, or medical expenses as somewhat controllable factors related to poverty (we have some control over expenses, but limited control over when those expenses are incurred).

Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gingrich gets even better:
quote:
WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, you recently said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?

GINGRICH: No. I don’t see that.

And then backs it up:
quote:
New York City pays their janitors an absurd amount of money because of the union. You could take one janitor and hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor, and those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out. They would actually have money in their pocket. They’d learn to show up for work. They could do light janitorial duty. They could work in the cafeteria. They could work in the front office. They could work in the library. They’d be getting money, which is a good thing if you’re poor. Only the elites despise earning money.
And then lays the wood when Juan Williams try to keep going:
quote:
GINGRICH: Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I know among the politically correct, you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
Second, you’re the one who earlier raised a key point. There’s — the area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama a corridor of shame because of unemployment. Has it improved in three years? No. They haven’t built the road. They haven’t helped the people. They haven’t done anything.

quote:
GINGRICH: So here’s my point. I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness. And if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.
(APPLAUSE)

Absolutely perfect, and not just the words, the delivery was powerful as well. (and he got a standing ovation for it, as he deserved)
Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Republicans booing the Golden Rule?

quote:
PAUL: My — my — my point is, if another country does to us what we do others, we’re not going to like it very much. So I would say that maybe we ought to consider a golden rule in — in foreign policy. Don’t do to other nations…
(BOOING)
… what we don’t want to have them do to us. So we — we endlessly bomb — we endlessly these countries and then we wonder — wonder why they get upset with us? And — and yet it — it continues on and on. I mean, this — this idea…
BAIER: That’s time.
PAUL: This idea that we can’t debate foreign policy, then all we have to do is start another war? I mean, it’s — it’s warmongering. They’re building up for another war against Iran, and people can’t wait to get in another war. This country doesn’t need another war. We need to quit the ones we’re in. We need to save the money and bring our troops home.

It's good if Jesus teaches it, but not when Ron Paul repeats it?

[ January 17, 2012, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: philnotfil ]

Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another line the Republicans didn't like from Ron Paul:
quote:
But I would like to point out one thing about the Taliban. The Taliban used to be our allies when we were fighting the Russians. So Taliban are people who want — their main goal is to keep foreigners off their land. It’s the al Qaeda you can’t mix the two. The al Qaeda want to come here to kill us. The Taliban just says we don’t want foreigners. We need to understand that, or we can’t resolve this problem in the Middle East. We are going to spend a lot of lives and a lot of money for a long time to come.
I wonder how many of the people who reacted negatively to Ron Paul's statement about the Tailban would have cheered for the young confederate soldier who told his union captors why he was fighting them, "Because you are here."?
Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good for Santorum, regarding the NDAA:
quote:
SANTORUM: OK.
First off, I would say this, what the law should be and what the law has been is that if you are a United States citizen and you are detained as an enemy combatant, then you have the right to go to federal court and file a habeas corpus position and be provided a lawyer. That was the state of the law before the National Defense Authorization Act and that should be the state of the law today.
You should not have — you should not have — if you are not an American citizen, that’s one thing. But if you are a citizen and you are being held indefinitely, then you have the right to go to a federal court — and again, the law prior to the National Defense Authorization Act was that you had the right to go to a court, and for that court to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether you could continue to be held. That is a standard that should be maintained and I would maintain that standard as president.

We need more of this.
Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron Paul on the same question:
quote:
No, I think we are going in the wrong direction for the protection of our liberties here at home. They are under deep threat. The PATRIOT Act has eliminated the fourth amendment. We now have a policy of preemptive war, you don’t have to declare war and you don’t even have to have an enemy. We can start the wars, that’s what preemptive war is all about.
Now with the military appropriations defense act, this — this is — this is major. This says that the military can arrest an American citizen for under suspicion, and he can be held indefinitely, without habeas corpus, and be denied a lawyer indefinitely even in a prison here.
Let me give you one statistic. You’re worrying about all these — all these — where we’re going to try people, where are they going to do it, we have to do it secretly, because our rule of law is so flawed. We have arrested 362 people related to Al Qaida-type operation; 260 of them are in prison. They’ve been tried and convicted. So don’t give up on our American judicial system so easily, I beg of you.


Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Santorum with a great response to Gingrich's rebuttal of Santorum's claim that Gingrich's plan for entitlements won't work (was that convoluted enough of an explanation?)

quote:
GINGRICH: Well if you actually look at the plan at newt.org, you’ll see that one of the ways we pay for it is we take 185 different federal bureaucracies that deal with low income Americans. Think about this, there are 185 separate bureaucracies with separate regulations, all dealing with low income Americans. We can consolidate them into a single block grant. We send it back to the states and we take the billions of dollars in federal overhead that saves and put that into Social Security in order to make up the difference.
So in fact Rick, it is a very sound plan and I say this as somebody who helped balance the budget four times in a row.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Quickly. Quickly.
SANTORUM: Newt, I support that idea. But we need that to reduce the deficit we have now, not doing what you’re suggesting, which is ballooning the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars more and then using things that we should be doing now to strengthen this budget deficit, to add more fiscal — financial responsibility on to the federal government.

Gingrich's plan for coming up with the money to pay for his entitlement changes needs to be done, but Santorum is absolutely right, it should be done to get our budget balanced, not done just so that we can spend even more money.
Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Damn, Phil.
Posts: 3114 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice summary. I thought this debate had the best answers of any of them. These guys are maturing into a real debating team!
Posts: 7158 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gingrich with a misguided attack on Romney's superPAC ads:
quote:
GINGRICH: Well, this is typical of what both Senator Santorum and I have complained about with Governor Romney’s super PAC, over which he apparently has no influence, which makes you wonder how much influence he’d have if he were president.
(APPLAUSE)
Well, let me take that particular bill. That bill was introduced by Claudine Schneider, who is a Republican from Rhode Island. It was introduced at a time when Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy was enforced. The Mexico City policy said no U.S. funding will be used to fund any activity that relates to abortion.
So it is explicitly a falsehood to suggest that a bill introduced under Mexico City policy would have paid for China’s one-child policy. In fact, I have explicitly opposed it. I have a 98.6 percent National Right to Life voting record in 20 years. And the only vote we disagreed on was welfare reform, which had nothing to do with abortion. So I think it is an absurdity and it would be nice if Governor Romney would exercise leadership on his former staff and his major donors to take falsehoods off the air.
BAIER: Governor Romney?
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Speaker Gingrich, I — I already said at our last debate that anything that’s false in PAC ads, whether they are supportive of me or supportive of you should be taken often the air and fixed. I’ve already said that.
Now I can’t call these people and direct them to do that, as you know, because that would violate federal law, is that correct?
GINGRICH: Absolutely.
BAIER: All right.
So I can’t do what you just asked me to do, but I can tell them publicly as I can here if there’s anything that’s inaccurate in any ads that support me I hope they take it off and don’t run it.
But if we are talking about Super PAC ads that are inaccurate, Mr. Speaker, you have a Super PAC ad that attacks me. It’s probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot. The people that looked at it have said that this ad is entirely false, that this documentary that they are running includes businesses I had no involvement with, the events that they described. And yet that’s out there on a Super PAC that is supporting you.
You said that you think it’s bad just as I said the Super PAC that support me is doing bad things. But somehow for you to suggest that you and I have different standards here is just not quite right.

GINGRICH: I said publicly — I said publicly it ought to be edited. And I believe, in fact, the head of that group has actually submitted your campaign a set of questions to make sure that they edit it accurately and put only the correct facts in.
So I think it should be edited. And I would be delighted if you would agree that the ad that was just referred to was false and people see the Romney Super PAC ad attacking me on that particular issue should know in advance it is false and shouldn’t be run.

Everything Gingrich says applies even more so to himself. I don't know why he would even bring this up.
Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great final word by Romney on superPACs:
quote:
ROMNEY: We all would like to have Super PACs disappear, to tell you the truth. Wouldn’t it nice to have people give what they would like to to campaigns and campaigns could run their own ads and take responsibility for them. But you know what, this campaign is not about ads, it’s about issues.
BAIER: So governor Romney, in the general election, if you are the nominee you would like to see Super PACs ended?
ROMNEY: Oh, I would like to get rid of the campaign finance laws that were put in place McCain-Feingold is a disaster, get rid of it. Let people make contributions they want to make to campaigns, let campaigns then take responsibility for their own words and not have this strange situation we have people out there who support us, who run ads we don’t like, we would like to take off the air, they are outrageous and yet they are out there supporting us and by law we aren’t allows to talk to them.
I haven’t spoken to any of the people involved in my Super PAC in months and this is outrageous. Candidates should have the responsibility and the right to manage the ads that are being run on their behalf. I think this has to change.


Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Blaming McCain/Feingold for SuperPACs is rather amusing. [Smile]
Posts: 21185 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
Republicans booing the Golden Rule?

quote:
PAUL: My — my — my point is, if another country does to us what we do others, we’re not going to like it very much. So I would say that maybe we ought to consider a golden rule in — in foreign policy. Don’t do to other nations…
(BOOING)
… what we don’t want to have them do to us. So we — we endlessly bomb — we endlessly these countries and then we wonder — wonder why they get upset with us? And — and yet it — it continues on and on. I mean, this — this idea…
BAIER: That’s time.
PAUL: This idea that we can’t debate foreign policy, then all we have to do is start another war? I mean, it’s — it’s warmongering. They’re building up for another war against Iran, and people can’t wait to get in another war. This country doesn’t need another war. We need to quit the ones we’re in. We need to save the money and bring our troops home.

It's good if Jesus teaches it, but not when Ron Paul repeats it?
I've seen American Christians go absolutely ballistic if you argue that Christians shouldn't support preemptive war, let alone torture. The American middle-class worships the flag as much as they do the cross and often have fuzzy ideas about what both of them really stand for on an intellectual level. So no it doesn't surprise me.

You're absolutely right that understanding Ron Paul means taking off the Republican/Democrat glasses.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, I kinda suspect that the reason all those middle class, flag waving, cross worshipping republicans were booing, was not because they dislike the idea of the golden rule being a pillar of foreign policy doctrine. Instead, maybe they were booing at the implication inherent in the statement, that we were not already following the golden rule in foreign policy matters.

I think many christians differentiate between the golden rule, and turning the other cheek. The golden rule being proactive guidance, and turning the other cheek as reactive guidance.

Now if you want to argue that places like Libya, or Iraq, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or Vietnam, or Korea, or China, etc, never did anything to warrant us going to war over, that's fine. You can have a debate over that. And maybe somebody out there really does believe that our foreign policy should be based on not just the golden rule, but turning the other cheek. But I don't believe that many people would argue that we should not have gone to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor.

Posts: 3114 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Instead, maybe they were booing at the implication inherent in the statement, that we were not already following the golden rule in foreign policy matters. "

Yes, that's what ran through my head when he made his comments. And I'm pretty certain that's what the crowd thought, also.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I honestly don't understand how someone could think we're following the Golden Rule in foreign policy matters.
Posts: 21185 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
"Instead, maybe they were booing at the implication inherent in the statement, that we were not already following the golden rule in foreign policy matters. "

Yes, that's what ran through my head when he made his comments. And I'm pretty certain that's what the crowd thought, also.

I presume you're no fan of Obama? Would you then approve of a foreign power invading the United States, killing thousands of our people and destroying our infrastructure to remove him and to then install a new government of their choosing? How would you like Iran imposing Shia Islam on us "for our own good"?

They may not want to hear it, but there's nothing Christian about telling people what they want to hear.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know VL, we did the same thing to Nazi Germany and Japan.

We invaded them. Killed hundreds of thousands of their people. Installed governments that we essentially set up. We indiscriminately bombed their civillians, their children. We dropped atomic bombs on Japan.

Was it justified in those cases?

I really can't judge the Japanese too harshly. What other choice did they have? We cut off their oil. I guess they were supposed to withdrawl from Manchuria, and Korea, and the rest of occupied China. I don't judge any of them too harshly.

But I don't think that means that I would not have approved of our entry into the second world war. I know it does not mean that I do not approve of it now, looking in judgement on the past.

Posts: 3114 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You know VL, we did the same thing to Nazi Germany and Japan.
Depends on how close you want the situations to be in order to declare them "the same thing".

quote:
We invaded them.
After they had invaded other nations in turn, not before. After they'd launched wars, not before.
Posts: 3033 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant, I'm not going to play the WW II makes everything ok game.

We didn't fight Japan until they attacked us and Germany until they'd declared war on us. Both countries had also invaded and neighboring countries as well, and were still ocupying them when we entered the war so in both cases there were multiple additional parties to consider. And again, we waited until we'd been attacked by Japan and Germany had declared war on us.


I am so tired of WW II getting treated as a blank check for every intervetion someone thinks is a good idea.

[ January 18, 2012, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The government of Iraq did invade other nations. If Hitler had failed to take France and Poland, do you think we should have left him in power?

Oh, I know that wasn't the big television reasons we went over there the second time. That being said, I've always believed that one of the underlying reasons was that the neo-cons with the Bush II admin felt they had unfinished buisiness with Iraq.

The government of Afghanistan was....what? Consider your premise: how would you like it if the United States were invaded and the President overthrown by a foreign power?

Well.... If the United States was being run by a president, that was not elected, and was opressing 50% of the population, and butchering fellow americans, starving them by burning crops, and burning homes. Then yes, I would pray every night (sorry I seem to be on a prayer kick this month, it will blow over, I'm going back home tomorrow morning and when I get back next month I'm sure I'll be cured) that some nation, somewhere in the world, would come and deliver me, and my wife, and my children from a kind of tyranny that I can only imagine.

Come to think of it, alot of the Iraqis did not seem quite so upset either initially. Maybe they were asking for someone to come save them from Saddam. I know I probably might.

So I can't follow the "would you approve of the United States being invaded" line of reasoning. Simply because I would approve, if the United States was being run anything like Iraq of Afghanistan. I think you would too, Aris. And you too VL.

Grant out, see you next month.

Posts: 3114 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
Gingrich gets even better:
quote:
WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, you recently said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?

GINGRICH: No. I don’t see that.

And then backs it up:
quote:
New York City pays their janitors an absurd amount of money because of the union. You could take one janitor and hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor, and those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out. They would actually have money in their pocket. They’d learn to show up for work. They could do light janitorial duty. They could work in the cafeteria. They could work in the front office. They could work in the library. They’d be getting money, which is a good thing if you’re poor. Only the elites despise earning money.
And then lays the wood when Juan Williams try to keep going:
quote:
GINGRICH: Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I know among the politically correct, you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
Second, you’re the one who earlier raised a key point. There’s — the area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama a corridor of shame because of unemployment. Has it improved in three years? No. They haven’t built the road. They haven’t helped the people. They haven’t done anything.

quote:
GINGRICH: So here’s my point. I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness. And if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.
(APPLAUSE)

Absolutely perfect, and not just the words, the delivery was powerful as well. (and he got a standing ovation for it, as he deserved)

A good delivery can spin the most pernicious doubletalk into gold, it would seem.

Summarizing what he said:
There are working class folks in New York that have managed to band together to request equitable pay for the work they do. Of course the work is a publicly disdained job, so let me play on your prejudices a bit: I'd rater send in people desperate enough for any money at all (people that you think should be relegated to the worst kind of work, at that) and have them undermine the investment that the current workers have put into overcoming bias until they could argue for a fair wage, and put those people out of work in favor of wages so low that the workers will slide slowly into poverty, but not fall so quickly that we can't come up with new ways to suggest that it's their fault for taking such low paying work, and thus pretend that we have no responsibility for helping them find a way to be more competitive.

Posts: 9858 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant

If Hittler had stayed in his borders, it really wasn't any of our business. I'd have advocated taking in refugees from the Reich, but no we wouldn't have had any legal right to invade (other than enforcing the Treaty of Versailles, not popular in the USA). Americans weren't interested in another European war even when Germany WAS invading most of Europe, so would we have left him in power.

In fact we didn't invade Germany until they declared war on us, a fact I don't appreciate you ignoring.

Grant the Iraqis we first encountered were Shia and to the Saddam was a foreign occupier in his own right, much like the Ukrainians initially welcomed Hittler as an alternative to the Soviets, an alien power itself.

Were we to be under a Taliban style regime I would seek to overthrow it from within. I'd be wary of any foriegn liberators. (Ask the Poles how well Soviet "liberation" worked out for them.) Maybe Britain or Canada, but a country that had been depriving our country of vital medicines resulting the deaths of thousands of children? (speaking of the golden rule) I'd be suspicious they had something other than our best interests at heart. It would take a lot to convince me I wasn't going to be a collaborator.


Aris, a Greek, is probably not going to want to see his nation turned back into a colony either.

[ January 18, 2012, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
Gingrich gets even better:
quote:
WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, you recently said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?

GINGRICH: No. I don’t see that.

And then backs it up:
quote:
New York City pays their janitors an absurd amount of money because of the union. You could take one janitor and hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor, and those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out. They would actually have money in their pocket. They’d learn to show up for work. They could do light janitorial duty. They could work in the cafeteria. They could work in the front office. They could work in the library. They’d be getting money, which is a good thing if you’re poor. Only the elites despise earning money.
And then lays the wood when Juan Williams try to keep going:
quote:
GINGRICH: Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I know among the politically correct, you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
Second, you’re the one who earlier raised a key point. There’s — the area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama a corridor of shame because of unemployment. Has it improved in three years? No. They haven’t built the road. They haven’t helped the people. They haven’t done anything.

quote:
GINGRICH: So here’s my point. I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness. And if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.
(APPLAUSE)

Absolutely perfect, and not just the words, the delivery was powerful as well. (and he got a standing ovation for it, as he deserved)

A good delivery can spin the most pernicious doubletalk into gold, it would seem.

Summarizing what he said:
There are working class folks in New York that have managed to band together to request equitable pay for the work they do. Of course the work is a publicly disdained job, so let me play on your prejudices a bit: I'd rater send in people desperate enough for any money at all (people that you think should be relegated to the worst kind of work, at that) and have them undermine the investment that the current workers have put into overcoming bias until they could argue for a fair wage, and put those people out of work in favor of wages so low that the workers will slide slowly into poverty, but not fall so quickly that we can't come up with new ways to suggest that it's their fault for taking such low paying work, and thus pretend that we have no responsibility for helping them find a way to be more competitive.

That may be a good summary of what you heard him say.

Here is a summary of what I heard him say:
I don't think that it is insulting to tell people that they should demand jobs instead of handouts.

We could save money and give youth character building experiences by letting them be involved in the care of their schools. (I disagree with him that we should get rid of child labor laws to accomplish this, but I agree with the underlying principle)

More people have ended up on food stamps under Barack Obama than any other president (we also have more people in the US under Barack Obama than any other president, I would want to see this as a percentage before I gave it any credence).

Barack Obama identified an area as a "corridor of shame", but then didn't do anything about it.

Instead of handouts, we need to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.


I have issues with some of what he talked about, but overall he presented an important message, particularly the last line.

Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why is anything he said anything but campaign puffery? Has Gingrich proposed a specific plan (not just a hand-waving idea) to do what he said?

As for Obama identifying the "corridor of shame" and doing nothing about it:
quote:
The U.S. Department of Education says $144 million of federal bailout money meant for South Carolina’s public schools will be doled out to the other 49 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. State leaders replied the state doesn’t need the money, which represents a federal intrusion into state education.

The federal agency sent a letter last week to Republican Gov. Nikki Haley and Superintendent Mick Zais, notifying them South Carolina’s money will go elsewhere if the state doesn’t apply for it by Monday. South Carolina is the only state not to receive its share of $10 billion passed by Congress last August specifically for teaching jobs in the last and current school year.


Posts: 7158 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Why is anything he said anything but campaign puffery? Has Gingrich proposed a specific plan (not just a hand-waving idea) to do what he said?

It isn't. He hasn't. But it said all of the right things, and it was well-delivered.

quote:
As for Obama identifying the "corridor of shame" and doing nothing about it: [QUOTE]The U.S. Department of Education says $144 million of federal bailout money meant for South Carolina’s public schools will be doled out to the other 49 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. State leaders replied the state doesn’t need the money, which represents a federal intrusion into state education.

The federal agency sent a letter last week to Republican Gov. Nikki Haley and Superintendent Mick Zais, notifying them South Carolina’s money will go elsewhere if the state doesn’t apply for it by Monday. South Carolina is the only state not to receive its share of $10 billion passed by Congress last August specifically for teaching jobs in the last and current school year.

I'll add that to the list of problems with Gingrich's statement.
Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
Here is a summary of what I heard him say:
I don't think that it is insulting to tell people that they should demand jobs instead of handouts.


Which is vacuous because it addresses an imaginary position. The only point here is to create a strawman by suggesting that anyone has made that case to begin with.

quote:
We could save money and give youth character building experiences by letting them be involved in the care of their schools. (I disagree with him that we should get rid of child labor laws to accomplish this, but I agree with the underlying principle)
The number of other ideas baked into the plan that are outright destructive far eclipse the nugget of truth that he tried to use to sell them. Remove kids from the specific equation, and you still have him suggesting that we should be shuffling minorities into menial labor positions (which is where the core of the offensiveness of the statement came from). Put that aside, and he's saying that we should be displacing laborers that have negotiated a price for their work with people desperate enough to take poverty level wages. He accuses Obama of not providing enough employment opportunities, but uses that as cover to suggest a plan that depends on displacing current workers, not creating new jobs, and on paying them lower wages, which means that they can less afford to fund jobs for everyone else through their spending.

quote:
More people have ended up on food stamps under Barack Obama than any other president (we also have more people in the US under Barack Obama than any other president, I would want to see this as a percentage before I gave it any credence).
The percentage is way up- but it's a result of the crash that put people out of work- it's not the fault of the systems that kick in to stabilize the system until enough work to employ the people becomes available again. He tries to create the impression that if these people didn't have food stamps that they'd have gotten jobs, rather than being out on the street and starving, and more that providing them support was an alternative to getting them work, not a way to help support them until they could find better work.

quote:
Instead of handouts, we need to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.
And, instead of supporting funding for programs that help do that by providing training, by employing people to do things that need to be done, by giving people the support they need to make ends meet while they're looking for better employment, by stoking consumption to the point that it naturally provides more employment opportunities, he suggests accomplishing it by displacing current workers and undermining wages by increasing overall desperation.

quote:
I have issues with some of what he talked about, but overall he presented an important message, particularly the last line.
Just the opposite- he played on common prejudices and myths, with a bit of handwaving in an effort to sell Thanksgiving to turkeys. What valid points that he did touch on are things that few, if any people disagree with, but he used them to sell ideas completely contrary to those points, while establishing an arguing position that lets him claim that attacks on the bad ideas (we should take janitorial jobs away from decently paid union workers and give them to minority kids) are attacks on the veneer he wraps them in (we should find ways to encourage good work habits and help kids learn to feel rewarded for contributing value)

Heck- he could have put forth the same good points in the same basic scenario by suggesting that we make school itself a job for the kids- that we pay them for their overall performance in class just like it was a job for them. This is something that has shown good results where it has been tried, and addresses the good elements directly without displacing anyone. But it would require changing elements of the underlying message to say, for example, that there is more value in the kids in question being well educated than there is in them being a source of cheap manual labor. Having a strong work ethic applies to both of those, but the latter plays on existing fear and envy where the former requires making a more clear collective investment in their potential success.

Posts: 9858 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well.... If the United States was being run by a president, that was not elected, and was opressing 50% of the population, and butchering fellow americans, starving them by burning crops, and burning homes. Then yes, I would pray every night (sorry I seem to be on a prayer kick this month, it will blow over, I'm going back home tomorrow morning and when I get back next month I'm sure I'll be cured) that some nation, somewhere in the world, would come and deliver me, and my wife, and my children from a kind of tyranny that I can only imagine.
Which, of course, is the reason the United States applauded Vietnam so loudly when they invaded Cambodia. [sarcasm]

No, Paul has a point regarding the Golden Rule (which, btw, is not in the Bible, IIRC). [Smile]

Posts: 8100 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm probably the wrong person to defend this since I only agree partially with it, but here goes.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
Here is a summary of what I heard him say:
I don't think that it is insulting to tell people that they should demand jobs instead of handouts.

Which is vacuous because it addresses an imaginary position. The only point here is to create a strawman by suggesting that anyone has made that case to begin with.
I thought it was a pretty direct answer to the question, which directly asked if he could see how making this statement was insulting.

quote:
quote:
We could save money and give youth character building experiences by letting them be involved in the care of their schools. (I disagree with him that we should get rid of child labor laws to accomplish this, but I agree with the underlying principle)
The number of other ideas baked into the plan that are outright destructive far eclipse the nugget of truth that he tried to use to sell them.
At least you can see that there was a nugget of truth buried in there [Smile]

quote:
Remove kids from the specific equation, and you still have him suggesting that we should be shuffling minorities into menial labor positions (which is where the core of the offensiveness of the statement came from).
I didn't see him bringing up race in his statement.

quote:
Put that aside, and he's saying that we should be displacing laborers that have negotiated a price for their work with people desperate enough to take poverty level wages. He accuses Obama of not providing enough employment opportunities, but uses that as cover to suggest a plan that depends on displacing current workers, not creating new jobs, and on paying them lower wages, which means that they can less afford to fund jobs for everyone else through their spending.
BYU does this to great success. Not only does it help the college kids earn money and learn skills, it also keeps the campus cleaner because everyone knows someone whose job it is to pick up the trash they are about to drop on the ground, and so it gets dropped into a trash can instead of on the ground. I wouldn't apply it to middle school kids, but I would certainly advocate it for high school and college students.

quote:
quote:
More people have ended up on food stamps under Barack Obama than any other president (we also have more people in the US under Barack Obama than any other president, I would want to see this as a percentage before I gave it any credence).
The percentage is way up- but it's a result of the crash that put people out of work- it's not the fault of the systems that kick in to stabilize the system until enough work to employ the people becomes available again. He tries to create the impression that if these people didn't have food stamps that they'd have gotten jobs, rather than being out on the street and starving, and more that providing them support was an alternative to getting them work, not a way to help support them until they could find better work.
I agree. Perfect response for the setting he was in.

quote:
quote:
Instead of handouts, we need to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.
[/qb]And, instead of supporting funding for programs that help do that by providing training, by employing people to do things that need to be done, by giving people the support they need to make ends meet while they're looking for better employment, by stoking consumption to the point that it naturally provides more employment opportunities, he suggests accomplishing it by displacing current workers and undermining wages by increasing overall desperation.
He actually doesn't suggest any ways of accomplishing it.

quote:
quote:
I have issues with some of what he talked about, but overall he presented an important message, particularly the last line. [/qb]
Just the opposite- he played on common prejudices and myths, with a bit of handwaving in an effort to sell Thanksgiving to turkeys. What valid points that he did touch on are things that few, if any people disagree with, but he used them to sell ideas completely contrary to those points, while establishing an arguing position that lets him claim that attacks on the bad ideas (we should take janitorial jobs away from decently paid union workers and give them to minority kids) are attacks on the veneer he wraps them in (we should find ways to encourage good work habits and help kids learn to feel rewarded for contributing value)
You are arguing against things that he didn't say during the debate.

quote:
Heck- he could have put forth the same good points in the same basic scenario by suggesting that we make school itself a job for the kids- that we pay them for their overall performance in class just like it was a job for them. This is something that has shown good results where it has been tried, and addresses the good elements directly without displacing anyone. But it would require changing elements of the underlying message to say, for example, that there is more value in the kids in question being well educated than there is in them being a source of cheap manual labor. Having a strong work ethic applies to both of those, but the latter plays on existing fear and envy where the former requires making a more clear collective investment in their potential success. [/QB]
He could have, but his message was tailored to a very specific audience. (and it actually hasn't shown lasting good results where it has been tried, although some programs which offer money for specific actions which are related to academic performance have had some very good results)
Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheRallanator
Member
Member # 6624

 - posted      Profile for TheRallanator   Email TheRallanator       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I honestly don't understand how someone could think we're following the Golden Rule in foreign policy matters.

Because they watch Fox News and know deep in their heart that Saddam did 9/11 [Smile]
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He could have, but his message was tailored to a very specific audience.
Indeed- and given the audience he was speaking to and the history of the rhetoric use to appeal to that audience, the implicit racial and other such overtones become very relevant.
Posts: 9858 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1