Herman Cain

[Adam]

Leaders, and I mean real leaders, do not subscribe to the need for nostalgia outweighing the need for solutions. That's what phony leaders, or, "the guy that got the job because he was next in line" leaders do. Nobody "needs" unreformed Medicare and Medicaid. Nobody "needs" unreformed SSI. Well, except the phony leaders of the current Democratic party. They need them because they have nothing else now that the Global Warming^TM meme has died.

 

Unfortunately, "the next in line" pretty much defines the Republican Presidential thinking for the last 60 or so years. Every time but once, with Goldwater, the "next in line" candidate has lost, or has been a one termer = Ford, Bush Sr., Dole, McCain. While the innovators, Nixon(hey say what you want but he created a lot of new ideas, the EPA for example), Reagan, Bush Jr.(new ideas galore, a lot bad, but still new) have all won twice.

 

Entitlement spending is the single biggest threat to the economic and national security of this country. No amount of Norman Rockwell "comfort food" ideas changes that reality.

 

Somebody is going to seize this opportunity and act on it. This is America after all. Why does it have to be an innovative Republican? Why not an innovative Democrat? Easy: because the Democrats are all still living in 1965, and have been, especially in New York, since 1965.

Both sides really need to cut it out with the overspending. You can't spend money you don't have on health care- Nor can you spend money you don't have on defense. Sure both are necessities, but that word doesn't go far in the check out lane at the grocery store. Someone here said we need someone who only wants one term- very true words.

[Buftex]

Leaders, and I mean real leaders, do not subscribe to the need for nostalgia outweighing the need for solutions. That's what phony leaders, or, "the guy that got the job because he was next in line" leaders do. Nobody "needs" unreformed Medicare and Medicaid. Nobody "needs" unreformed SSI. Well, except the phony leaders of the current Democratic party. They need them because they have nothing else now that the Global Warming^TM meme has died.

 

Unfortunately, "the next in line" pretty much defines the Republican Presidential thinking for the last 60 or so years. Every time but once, with Goldwater, the "next in line" candidate has lost, or has been a one termer = Ford, Bush Sr., Dole, McCain. While the innovators, Nixon(hey say what you want but he created a lot of new ideas, the EPA for example), Reagan, Bush Jr.(new ideas galore, a lot bad, but still new) have all won twice.

 

Entitlement spending is the single biggest threat to the economic and national security of this country. No amount of Norman Rockwell "comfort food" ideas changes that reality.

 

Somebody is going to seize this opportunity and act on it. This is America after all. Why does it have to be an innovative Republican? Why not an innovative Democrat? Easy: because the Democrats are all still living in 1965, and have been, especially in New York, since 1965.

 

 

I see what you are saying, and maybe Republicans are more innovative (maybe), but many of the most regressive practices are backed by your dear old Repulican party. The "Global Warming meme" is a perfect example. The importance of a clean enviorment has been neglected, trivialized, because it would interfere too much with the "job creators" to take it on...so they will, instead, buy into junk science that reinforces their need to think that enviormental issues are non-consequencial. The truth is, cleaning the enviorment could be a great source of real jobs...but it would interfere with the way business is done. Perhaps the biggest failure (note, I said biggest, not only) has been his inability to follow through on his best ideas. To me, he is the best Republican currently in the race.

[OCinBuffalo]

Both sides really need to cut it out with the overspending. You can't spend money you don't have on health care- Nor can you spend money you don't have on defense. Sure both are necessities, but that word doesn't go far in the check out lane at the grocery store. Someone here said we need someone who only wants one term- very true words.

Ugh. When will guys stop misquoting me?

 

I said we need a person who says: "I don't care if I get another term. I am going to do what I think is going to solve our problems and if I am wrong, I don't deserve another term", publicly, repeatedly. That would be accountability. And, that would prove that the person was about leading the country, not holding onto the job for the sake of the job, or the party.

 

I thought that's what Obama meant when he said: if what I do doesn't work, it will probably be a one-term thing for me. Turns out he was just playing semantics games. In fact, based on his words/actions, I am with Chris Matthews on this: I am not sure why Obama even wants a second term.

 

I have an easy way to deal with Defense spending issues: we haul out something from the Romans. Tribute. If Europe wants to live as our protectorates, as they have been for the last 70 years, they need to start paying for it. Same thing in Asia. Japan and India wouldn't be anywhere if they had to pay for their own defense. Neither would f'ing socialist paradise Sweden, or supposedly hard working, but socialist poster child Germany.

 

Until then, defense spending is what it is. And, one set of terrible circumstances does not have anything to do with the other. This is not a zero sum game. We cannot afford (edit: unreformed) Medicare/Medicaid/SSI in any way shape or form, period. The numbers simply aren't there, even if we were to gut defense spending. This is about magnitude, and orders of it. People don't seem to understand just how big of a problem Medicare is, and, it's something, unlike defense, that we have total control over, and only effects us.

Edited December 6, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Juror#8]

Leaders, and I mean real leaders, do not subscribe to the need for nostalgia outweighing the need for solutions. That's what phony leaders, or, "the guy that got the job because he was next in line" leaders do. Nobody "needs" unreformed Medicare and Medicaid. Nobody "needs" unreformed SSI. Well, except the phony leaders of the current Democratic party. They need them because they have nothing else now that the Global Warming^TM meme has died.

 

Unfortunately, "the next in line" pretty much defines the Republican Presidential thinking for the last 60 or so years. Every time but once, with Goldwater, the "next in line" candidate has lost, or has been a one termer = Ford, Bush Sr., Dole, McCain. While the innovators, Nixon(hey say what you want but he created a lot of new ideas, the EPA for example), Reagan, Bush Jr.(new ideas galore, a lot bad, but still new) have all won twice.

 

Entitlement spending is the single biggest threat to the economic and national security of this country. No amount of Norman Rockwell "comfort food" ideas changes that reality.

 

Somebody is going to seize this opportunity and act on it. This is America after all. Why does it have to be an innovative Republican? Why not an innovative Democrat? Easy: because the Democrats are all still living in 1965, and have been, especially in New York, since 1965.

 

Ummm...no. Both Democrats and Republicans have articulated plenty of great ideas - especially in the last 20 years. Examples?

 

(pay particular attention at about 1:30):

 

 

BTW, you have to be Grade A dolt to roll your eyes as conspicuously as Gore did at 1:33 into the video. Unbelieveable.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Juror#8

[Adam]

Ugh. When will guys stop misquoting me?

 

I said we need a person who says: "I don't care if I get another term. I am going to do what I think is going to solve our problems and if I am wrong, I don't deserve another term", publicly, repeatedly. That would be accountability. And, that would prove that the person was about leading the country, not holding onto the job for the sake of the job, or the party.

 

I thought that's what Obama meant when he said: if what I do doesn't work, it will probably be a one-term thing for me. Turns out he was just playing semantics games. In fact, based on his words/actions, I am with Chris Matthews on this: I am not sure why Obama even wants a second term.

 

I have an easy way to deal with Defense spending issues: we haul out something from the Romans. Tribute. If Europe wants to live as our protectorates, as they have been for the last 70 years, they need to start paying for it. Same thing in Asia. Japan and India wouldn't be anywhere if they had to pay for their own defense. Neither would f'ing socialist paradise Sweden, or supposedly hard working, but socialist poster child Germany.

 

Until then, defense spending is what it is. And, one set of terrible circumstances does not have anything to do with the other. This is not a zero sum game. We cannot afford (edit: unreformed) Medicare/Medicaid/SSI in any way shape or form, period. The numbers simply aren't there, even if we were to gut defense spending. This is about magnitude, and orders of it. People don't seem to understand just how big of a problem Medicare is, and, it's something, unlike defense, that we have total control over, and only effects us.

I neither quoted nor misquoted you. I think you are wrong about people not understanding the problem with entitlements. I just think we need to consider defense an entitlement and cut it as well. You want health care. Work for it. You want strong defense, budget for it. Enough of the credit card bs

[OCinBuffalo]

I see what you are saying, and maybe Republicans are more innovative (maybe), but many of the most regressive practices are backed by your dear old Repulican party. The "Global Warming meme" is a perfect example. The importance of a clean enviorment has been neglected, trivialized, because it would interfere too much with the "job creators" to take it on...so they will, instead, buy into junk science that reinforces their need to think that enviormental issues are non-consequencial. The truth is, cleaning the enviorment could be a great source of real jobs...but it would interfere with the way business is done. Perhaps the biggest failure (note, I said biggest, not only) has been his inability to follow through on his best ideas. To me, he is the best Republican currently in the race.

Then clean the F'ing environment, and stop using it as an excuse for "fundamental transformation of America".

I assume you clean your house, or pay somebody, because it needs cleaning. Do you use that fact to demand that you get a new house, or move the kitchen to the living room, because it's supposedly "better" and because some scientist with questionable motives and even more questionable work tells you to? No.

 

Cleaning the environment already is a source a new jobs: have you seen how much dinero the average environmental engineering firm charges? Have you ever tried to build a new building, anywhere? Do understand that they are getting away with murder because of the laws you have seen fit to support? Often the environmental nonsense is what slows down/kills deals that have no real environmental impact, but because of the laws and bureaucracy, die. How is that "progress" there Mrs. "Progressive"?

 

That's the problem: your need for regulation, and government control is the single biggest barrier to success of your need for a clean environment. You support creating ridiculous environmental laws, then support an organization of documented crackpots(the current EPA) to enforce them....and then whine when Republicans are able to easily use the stupidity in those laws, and the stupidity of the EPA, against you politically. You are handing them the gun and saying shoot, and then crying when they shoot you! Is this that hard to understand? Really?

 

My advice: resolve your schizophrenia on your own time.

[Juror#8]

Republicans:

 

[RkFast]

Republicans:

 

youtube.com/watch?v=ptAoJedxFzU

 

 

The big-eared golf pro didnt know what STATE he was in today.

 

 

You really wanna go there?

 

 

Im Im sorry...I made fun of Obama.....was that raaaaacist?

[OCinBuffalo]

I neither quoted nor misquoted you. I think you are wrong about people not understanding the problem with entitlements. I just think we need to consider defense an entitlement and cut it as well. You want health care. Work for it. You want strong defense, budget for it. Enough of the credit card bs

I am the one who said what I said, so I know what I said. Enough distortion.

 

Ok, if I am wrong about people not understanding, then why don't you understand it? The math is simple enough. We cannot afford it, even if we gut defense spending. Period. You want people to "work for it"? Ok, then you are for means testing and increasing the retirement age. No? Why not? You want people to work for it, well, working for it starts with those two immediate reforms. In the immortal words of Toby from West Wing "FDR didn't intend SSI to mean 20 years of shuffle board!".

 

You like reality? Ok, that's as real as it gets. Now, I dare you to get up in front of a bunch of Baby Boomers and say that. In New Mexico, or how about Brooklyn?. You're Jewish, right? You won't have any problems! They'd love to have a nice Jewish boy come tell them why the LBJ programs they have believed in their whole lives, and a lot have made a nice living off of, need to be changed immediately.

 

Meanwhile, I dare you to also get up in front of my cousin's fighter wing and tell them that they will only be able to train 1 day a week, because of your defense cuts, and then pay $1k for every pilot who retires over the next year, and an additional $1k each month for every slot that remains unfilled.

 

What? You seem to think this is all simple: OK, I just made it simple for you. If you are unwilling to come up with better solutions, and want to decry anybody that does, well...go ahead and try my dares and see what happens to you. You want to blame ALL politicians, then why don't you try dealing with the Democrats unwillingness to change something that is screaming out to be changed? They love change...except when it hurts them, but since this is all so simple, and you have the answers, what's stopping you?

[Adam]

I am the one who said what I said, so I know what I said. Enough distortion.

 

Ok, if I am wrong about people not understanding, then why don't you understand it? The math is simple enough. We cannot afford it, even if we gut defense spending. Period. You want people to "work for it"? Ok, then you are for means testing and increasing the retirement age. No? Why not? You want people to work for it, well, working for it starts with those two immediate reforms. In the immortal words of Toby from West Wing "FDR didn't intend SSI to mean 20 years of shuffle board!".

 

You like reality? Ok, that's as real as it gets. Now, I dare you to get up in front of a bunch of Baby Boomers and say that. In New Mexico, or how about Brooklyn?. You're Jewish, right? You won't have any problems! They'd love to have a nice Jewish boy come tell them why the LBJ programs they have believed in their whole lives, and a lot have made a nice living off of, need to be changed immediately.

 

Meanwhile, I dare you to also get up in front of my cousin's fighter wing and tell them that they will only be able to train 1 day a week, because of your defense cuts, and then pay $1k for every pilot who retires over the next year, and an additional $1k each month for every slot that remains unfilled.

 

What? You seem to think this is all simple: OK, I just made it simple for you. If you are unwilling to come up with better solutions, and want to decry anybody that does, well...go ahead and try my dares and see what happens to you. You want to blame ALL politicians, then why don't you try dealing with the Democrats unwillingness to change something that is screaming out to be changed? They love change...except when it hurts them, but since this is all so simple, and you have the answers, what's stopping you?

dude. I am laughing at you right now. Not because I disagree, but because you are acting like I do. Social security was meant to be for about two years, not 20. It has turned from an end of life fund to a retirement supplement. As far as training, the military is there for defense, not to be employers. Has to be paid for, just the same.

[IDBillzFan]

The big-eared golf pro didnt know what STATE he was in today.

After confusing the states, Barack Obama apologized to the crowd: "Sorry for messing up states," the President said, adding "You white people all look alike to me."

[OCinBuffalo]

dude. I am laughing at you right now. Not because I disagree, but because you are acting like I do. Social security was meant to be for about two years, not 20. It has turned from an end of life fund to a retirement supplement. As far as training, the military is there for defense, not to be employers. Has to be paid for, just the same.

 

Not really, I'm just seeing if I can push your buttons into doing something besides saying "everybody sucks" in every thread.

 

Our military hasn't been there "for defense" since Teddy Roosevelt created the white ships. Look that up and understand. (Edit: and, ask the Native Americans about our military being "for defense". Now that's funny.)

 

Our military has been in fact the reason why we can sell our goods in every market we choose. Now, ask a Ron Paul supporter how the market became "free" and what keeps it free. Then ask them if they know anything about the Barbary Pirates, and if our actions were "militarist". You want a laugh? That's good for at least 15 minutes of humor.

Edited December 6, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Adam]

Not really, I'm just seeing if I can push your buttons into doing something besides saying "everybody sucks" in every thread.

 

Our military hasn't been there "for defense" since Teddy Roosevelt created the white ships. Look that up and understand. (Edit: and, ask the Native Americans about our military being "for defense". Now that's funny.)

 

Our military has been in fact the reason why we can sell our goods in every market we choose. Now, ask a Ron Paul supporter how the market became "free" and what keeps it free. Then ask them if they know anything about the Barbary Pirates, and if our actions were "militarist". You want a laugh? That's good for at least 15 minutes of humor.

I think you need to take that baritone out of your post! LOL

 

Seriously, we can afford to do that with our military. We can't afford to put wars on the credit card with every country that commits an atrocity.

[OCinBuffalo]

I think you need to take that baritone out of your post! LOL

 

Seriously, we can afford to do that with our military. We can't afford to put wars on the credit card with every country that commits an atrocity.

I have become convinced that every so often we actually need to use the big stick(and yes, since I just saw that Obama is on the TR train today as well, it's going to be all TR aphorisms until the end of this thread) instead of merely carrying it around with us.

 

If we don't, then the average scumbag leader out there, thinks Mao had a point, that we are paper tigers, and then we have to spend even MORE money on an even bigger mess. There is no such thing as a pacifist world leader. Pacifism is only for people who can't fight. They attempt to hide that in "won't fight", but it's really "can't". World leaders cannot lead if fighting and winning wars isn't one of the clubs in their bag.

 

Defense spending is like insurance spending: it's no good unless you can collect. If we don't get a peaceful world, and peace of mind that we aren't looking at another WW2, whether it's a forced, Pax Americana peace or otherwise, then yeah, it isn't worth it.

 

However, iIf you can fire up the white ships, sail around the world, and let people know: we are watching you, and we can hit you where your kids live. If that message is received loud and clear, then there's a good chance that we benefit in all quarters: less war, less dbaggery, open and stable markets, etc.

 

In long-term, big picture terms, if we can do that, and it works, then there's no doubt about the ROI. However, as I said, it appears we have to actually use those white ships, and go after Raisuli every so often, to make the threat stick.