So if someone kidnaps a person, but the latter is too confused/afraid/intimidated to press charges, nothing bad happened?
So if someone kidnaps a person, but the latter is too confused/afraid/intimidated to press charges, nothing bad happened?
Hope is the denial of reality
So if we trade hypothetical questions but never respond to them directly, do we still have a discussion?Originally Posted by Loki
Do you really want a president who doesn't have a problem with a potential kidnapping just because he believes in fairies?
Hope is the denial of reality
Do you really want a DUI criminal as a President?
Do you really want a draft dodger as a President?
Do you really want a guy who thinks their racist preacher is a "mentor" as a President?
Do you really want a guy who was part of the KKK as a Senator?
Name me three presidents who haven't had some kind of scandal.
Now lets look at reality. Was the girl harmed? Was the girl thankful for the "intervention?" Would he do it again? If you answer these questions the right way you'll see this is a mountain out of a mole hill. Bottom line is that most presidential candidates have had REAL scandals that actually harmed people or showed sides to them that most people would find repugnant.
People make mistakes when they're young. Most people realize what they did was wrong and strive to change. Jindal doesn't seem to have made the same realization.
What do you think about Jindal blatantly ignoring court rulings (and the Constitution) by pushing for the teaching of creationism and public funding of schools that work from a creationist/religious framework (in all classes, not just biology)?
Hope is the denial of reality
Lewk, don't you want your candidate to be more than just not worse than the other guy?
Even that aside, even if you can accept Jindal's 'youthful stupidity', Ohio's, Florida's, Colorado's voters and several other states sure as hell won't.
Just drop him, let run the state that he can keep winning, fairly well I believe, and keep an eye on Rubio and Christy.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Oh there was as supreme court case? Or are we talking about the Dover case in district court?
Reading up on in it a little bit it seems that liberals biggest beef is his support for vouchers where parents can choose schools that have a different perspective on evolution:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health...roblem_.2.html
"Today, one might hope that Jindal, having established himself as a force in his party, might be willing to spend just a little of his political capital to take a stand on the side of science. No such luck. In fact, things are getting substantially worse. This year Louisiana established a scholarship program to allow students from underperforming public schools to receive state tuition aid in the form of vouchers to attend private schools. Whatever the merits of this program might be, observers in the state were stunned when they saw some of the schools on the list of those eligible to accept the vouchers. They include a school whose students will be taught to “discern and refute the lies commonly found in textbooks,” including, of course, evolution. Another school prepares students to “defend creationism through evidence presented by the Bible,” and yet another assures students that no instruction is included in its textbooks “that would conflict with young earth creationism.”
According to Zack Kopplin, a blogger and college student who is monitoring the implementation of the voucher program, at least 20 schools may qualify for as much as $11 million of taxpayer money to teach creationism to Louisiana students when school starts at the end of the summer. What this means, in plain language, is that Gov. Jindal has given wholehearted support to a program that will use public money to teach scientific nonsense to the young people of his state."
Liberals hate vouchers because they would much rather have kids in the public school system dominated by the liberal teachers union who force feed liberal views. The whole "vouchers are bad because than kids can learn about creationism instead of evolution" is a red herring designed to distract parents from realizing liberals are anti-choice when it comes to education. Private school is the choice liberal elites make but refuse to allow their voters to have the same options.
Also... I find it entertaining that Bobby has a major in Biology - probably makes him more qualified to debate anyone on this forum about evolution.
I want the person who can do the best job. Jindal is doing a good job as governor. I've listened to him speak before and he gets it. He understands how crippling regulation can be and how the government stifles free enterprise. I'm willing to overlook some silliness in college. I'd be happy with Rubio. I like Christy in a lot of ways but Rubio or Jindal would be better IMO.
Again, YOU can overlook it, and that's nice. But he won't get elected as POTUS. Imagine what dumbass thing he would say about abortion or some other social issue.
And I thought we liked holding people responsible no matter what the age? As a college kid he was over the age of majority and acted incredibly...stupid. Cancer = Demon so pray it away? This is being a dumbass and there is no other rational explanation.
It's not a particular religion I have issues with Lewk, it's all of them and when someone makes a stupid decision AND acts on it that impact other people, I get a little touchy. He would be the next Santourm. Huzzah!
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Do you guys really think the Republicans will have any more success in 2016 if they go with another moderate? They're going to need someone who can get the base fired up if they're to have a hope.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
?
Christy may be a moderate, but he is NOT milktoast like Romney or McCain. He can fire up the base just nicely. (and the other candidates would be scared he would eat them)
And a GOOD moderate is what the party needs. The old R twats are dying off, so we can get to economic issues and get the social issues out of our way.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Do we have any way of knowing what the economic or political situation will be in 2016?
Hope is the denial of reality
Since when are the 'social conservatives' only old people?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Both McCain and Romney were considered moderates before the start of their primaries.?
Christy may be a moderate, but he is NOT milktoast like Romney or McCain. He can fire up the base just nicely. (and the other candidates would be scared he would eat them
And a GOOD moderate is what the party needs. The old R twats are dying off, so we can get to economic issues and get the social issues out of our way.
God no, stay the hell away from the economy and focus on social issues almost exclusively. Look, this is Obama's last term, right? He can do all the stuff he really wants to do without worrying about the election. This is bound to piss off a lot of Real Americans. Meanwhile, we both know that what the president does has little actual effect on the economy and if you focus on economic issues then it's a huge gamble. Look at what happened to Britain's Labour party. They used weak growth to attack the governments austerity policies, then 1% growth turns up in the third quarter and quite suddenly they have no argument. The economy could be doing rather well in 2016, irreguardless of what Obama actually does. If the R are to have a hope of retaking the White House in 2016, then I think they need to spend the next four years:
- Talking about abortion and gay marriage almost to the exclusion of everything else.
- Being as intransigent and obstinate as possible in Congress. This makes them appear strong and decisive to the electorate, and they can say they stood up to the liberal agenda.
- That Tea Party thing worked well. Do some more of that.
- Ditch the moderates. All of them. The party has watered down it's message to appeal to the east coast liberal media elites. Well, it's lost the last two elections so obviously that doesn't work. Nothing they can say will get them on the R's side, so just give up trying and focus on the base.
- A lot of Americans don't believe in evolution or global warming. They're idiots, but you just can't ignore them. Republicans shouldn't be so coy about those issues. The next Republican nominee should be an unapologetic global warming denier, and ideally would be a creationist as well.
- When a Republican says something borderline racist or something incredibly offensive about rape, they shouldn't kick him to the curb, they should say his mispoke and say they're fully behind him. I know it's distasteful, but there are a lot of guys out there that secretly agree with them. You just piss them off if you publicly denounce them.
- Ok, this is the big one: immigration. The party needs a much tougher stance on illegal immigration. Like, shoot on sight laws, interment camps, the works. If they compromise in immigration they're dooming themselves to a slow demise. Latinos will never vote for them. Never. Why should the GOP just let more Democrat voters into the country just for a minor short term gain? This issue is critical not just for the next election but all future elections. Stay strong on immigration.
If they do all that, I think they've got a really good shot at winning in 2016.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Interestingly, Obama did 1, 2 and kinda-sorta #7.
This is part of our craptacular political process problem.....campaigns that begin running the nanosecond after elections.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote