About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums> USER>

Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

01-15-2010, 12:47 PM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: 15 Climate Change Villians

I think that it is particularly interesting that George Will is such an opponent to climate change. He has branded himself as a conservative intellectual, one who is not based on radicalized ideology, but rather on sound practical logic. This contradicts this image of him because he has joined that fringe group of people who deny the vast majority of the scientific base saying that anthropogenic global warming is real.

01-15-2010, 12:36 PM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: Cantor has no relevant ideas on job creation, Republicans all about ideology

I think this is a good outline of the major factions of the Republican party. I would say that currently the majority of the Republican party base is misinformed. The reason why they are tethered to the Republican party to begin with is because Republicans have done a very good job of marketing their party as the party for the hard working, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps, "American" party. At the same time, they have branded the Democratic party as the elitist liberal party for those who sip lates and listen to Wilco. This is why so much of middle America feels they can identify better with Republicans.

The problem is that this branding distorts true party ideologies. While the Republican party is for free market capitalism, with tax-cuts for the wealthy, the Democratic party is the party of equality, trying to regulate the market with various social programs to create a more equitable playing field for everyone. Most of middle America is not very wealthy, and could certainly benefit from many of the measures that Democrats tout, but simply do not realize it. Would elitists care about the poor? Would elitists stand up for seniors? Would elitists care about the plight of the rest of the world? I don't think so. If people really knew what the Democratic party stood for and what the Republican party is trying to advocate, I think more middle class Americans would realize that the Democratic ticket would suit their pocket books better.

Playing devil's advocate: However, there is a possibility that people do not vote with their wallets, but rather based on ideology. It is true that the Democratic party is for various social reforms such as same-sex marriage and abortion rights. If middle Americans care more about social issues than economic ones, then I can understand better why they vote Republican. However, I do not know if I'm willing to make that leap. I think there are certainly some people who vote based on traditional social beliefs, but I also think that there is a large sector of Americans who vote Republican because they actually believe that Republicans will help them more economically. I think THAT should be the group Democrats could try to target in converting by rebranding themselves as the party of the working-class.

What do you guys think of this analysis, like Mr. Frank, I am open to criticisms and comments.

01-15-2010, 12:14 PM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: Bobby Jindal refuses Obama’s payout for Louisiana

Source: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/11/absurdly-premature-2012-watch-vol-6-whither-jindal.aspx

I think up to this point he has not been hurt by his denial of the stimulus money or any of his other absurd stances on things such as supporting intelligent design and opposing same-sex marriage. He has enjoyed quite high public approval ratings. In fact, in 2008 he had one of the highest ratings of any governor in the country.

Now, in a column in Newsweek, there is speculation that he may even be tapped as veep because of what "brownness" and conservatives sensibilities. I guess we'll just have to see what happens, but he doesn't seem to be hurting so far.

01-14-2010, 03:27 PM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: Tancredo makes absurd claims about Obama supporters

Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121380

In this piece written by Tancredo, he coins the term "Obama Stockholm Syndrome," which a symptom of people "who display a compulsive and irrational need to reaffirm their vote for Obama no matter what happens in the real world." Now, if we stopped right there, we can see that this man has lost some of his marbles. He is going around trying to make up terms to pin on Obama supporters. But there's more. He goes on to say stereotypical Republican refrains about how people who "suffer" from "Obama Stockholm Syndrome" are the "liberal elite", which in his mind refers to anyone who reads the New York Times, or probably more generally, anyone who reads at all.

But the fun doesn't stop there. He then goes on to outline 10 ways you know that you have "Obama Stockholm Syndrome". I've copied a few of the most entertaining ones.

1. You believe the colder winters across Europe and North America over the past 11 years, the cooling of the Pacific Ocean and the increased ice accumulation in the Antarctic are all convincing evidence of global warming.

2. You believe that a committee of United Nations bureaucrats should be given a veto over U.S. economic policies in order to reverse the destruction of the planet's environment by American capitalism.

3. You believe that Obamacare will provide better health care for more Americans at lower cost without rationing because government-run services are always more efficient than services provided by the greedy private sector.

To point 1: First of all, global warming does NOT mean that it warms EVERYWHERE. It simply refers to the idea that we have an accumulation of greenhouse gases that causes temperatures to go out of whack. In some places, it means that it gets warmer, in other places cooler. Secondly, there ISNT ice accumulation in the atarctic, the ice cores data from places like Antarctica proves that climate change is real.

To point 2; Actually, probably this is a good idea. America's policies on carbon emissions are non-existent.

To point 3: Yes, he will provide better health care, and YES rationing is already happening based on income. Oh, and yes, insurance companies are inherently evil because they are held accountable to their share holders who want to see profits. Profits MEANS providing less insurance for individuals. So yes, insurance companies have a vested interest in screwing people.

Tancredo, why must you make everything so black and white? And the truth is, the real conspiracy theorist is yourself. You believe that all those in favor of Obama are liberal elites who want nothing more than to destroy America just because we believe American exceptionalism is synonymous with arrogance.

01-14-2010, 03:25 PM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: Foxx spews lies about health care reform

Source: http://www2.statesville.com/content/2009/dec/23/foxx-health-bill-belongs-scrap-heap/

Congresswoman Virginia Foxx is trying to slam the health care bill saying that it will raise taxes and hurt benefits for seniors. Once again, we have an example of false Republican rhetoric. Foxx's accusation that this will raise taxes, while not completely untrue is certainly misleading. It will only raise taxes on those with cadillac health insurance plans. The bill has made exceptions for many various groups of people with dangerous jobs who need to have better health insurance plans, such as construction workers. Also, the reduction in spending to Medicare Advantage for seniors is not going to significantly cut senior benefits. It will simply make Medicare Advantage competitive with non medicare advantage plans. The bill also closed the donut hole gap on prescription benefit plans. Additionally, health care reform is endorsed by AARP,s so clearly it cannot be hurting seniors. Foxx just wants to get uninformed voters to get riled up over nothing. Why else would she be doing this?

01-14-2010, 11:57 AM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: Rick Perry Seems to have been in favor of the bailout

Source: http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/01/was-rick-perry-for-the-bailout.html

According to this report, Rick Perry was in favor of a bailout before he was against it. This is ironic because Perry has been attacking his opponent Hutchison for being in favor of the bailout. It seems that Rick Perry will have a hard time twisting this thing around now. What do you guys think? Was he for the bailout or not?

01-14-2010, 11:49 AM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: Campaign contributions and special interests

Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-sessions_29met.ART.State.Edition1.4bc1468.html

Pete Sessions is currently under investigation for potentially giving special treatment to Allen Stanford, a man convicted of money fraud. Stanford gave a significant amount of campaign contribution to Sessions and hosted lavish trips to places like the Caribbean for Sessions and other members of Congress. According to the report, Sessions may have written a letter to Stanford after his conviction giving words of encouragement and support. All of this makes me think about the general practice of campaign contributions and how it creates a culture of special interests. If a person donates several million dollars to a politician's campaign, the politician is now somewhat bound by the whims and fancies of the donor. If the donor is a health insurance company, then the politician is less likely to support health care reform which would undercut health insurance companies. And all of this is completely legal. We say we don't have corruption in the US government, but I think it's just that we have a legalized form of corruption. Sure, it's not as bad as in India where donors give money that directly lines the pockets of politicians, but in the US donors can still buy influence.

What's the solution? I'm not sure, if we stopped allowing politicians to accept campaign contributions they would all have way less money. However, may be if we limited the amount of contribution any single entity could contribute, we would have a more even playing field. And so what if politicians then have less money to campaign with, maybe that's a good thing. Who really needs politicians campaigning for presidency two years early anyways? What do you guys think. I know this is something Obama had once suggested, but I'm not sure if he followed through with this idea. Do you guys have thoughts or ideas on this?

01-10-2010, 08:08 PM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: Newt Gingrich says he wants to racial profile

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/05/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6057768.shtml

In an interview with Fox, Newt Gingrich says the following:

"It is time to know more about would-be terrorists, to profile for terrorists and to actively discriminate based on suspicious terrorist information."

What do you guys think of the idea to racially profile airport passengers. Proponents of racial profiling say that it would be done as a safety measure and only accepted at airports. However, I personally don't like the idea at all and think that it could lead to a greater acceptance of profiling in the larger community. Once we think it is okay to racially profile someone at the airport, what is stop people from assuming that it is okay to do the same at the grocery store? If anything, geographic profiling may be a better alternative. For example, flights coming in from Yemen could have stricter regulations.

What do you guys think about this issue?

01-10-2010, 07:53 PM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: Mitch Mcconnell and the Military-Industrial Complex

Source: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100109/BUSINESS/1090357/1008/NEWS01/Raytheon+may+hire+more+workers+at+weapons+plant

Mitch McConnell recently secured $13 million in defense spending contracts for Raytheon. The manufacturing giant works largely in McConnell's home state of Kentucky and has contributed to an enormous growth of jobs for McConnell's constituency. In a plant near Louisville International Airport, employment has almost doubled, and Raytheon predicts that hiring will continue to grow in 2010.

While this may be great for the economy and certainly for Raytheon's recent hires, you have to wonder-at what cost? In all, McConnell has used his clout to funnel nearly 200 million dollars in defense-contract spending for Raytheon since 1998. Yes, by the US government climbing into bed with defense-contracting companies such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, the government can play a direct role in increasing jobs, but what does it mean to put so much money into defense?

Why do you think we constantly have to be in a war, why has the US gone from being a nation sometimes involved in wars to a war-nation? On the one had Obama says that going into Iraq was a mistake, while with his other hand he seeks to wage us into another war in Afghanistan. And if we play our cards right, we may even have a war in Yemen. To continue funneling such huge amounts of money towards defense means the military must continue to make use of its new toys. The only problem is that those new toys, well, they aren't toys. They kill people.

01-10-2010, 06:03 PM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: Bachmann wins "Wingnut of the Year" and American Stupidity

Source: http://www.minnpost.com/dailyglean/2010/01/04/14622/a_new_year_and_some_ongoing_tales

CNN's John Avalon recently did a piece about the most ridiculous and radical politicians doing, giving the grand prize to Michelle Bachmann, the Minnesota representative who believes God him/her/itself has given her the divine duty of representing Minnesota. The comment that won her the award was where she says the following:

"Where tyranny is enforced upon the people, as Barack Obama is doing, the people suffer and mourn."

Clearly, Obama and his tyrannical rule of absolute destruction where he, well where he....he may raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans - is absolute treason. HANG HIM.

The scariest part about all this is that where this seems laughable to us, many Americans actually take what sehe says seriously. How else does a person like this come into power. And she is certainly not alone in her divisive politics. How do Americans stand for this? Are we really this stupid?

01-10-2010, 05:31 PM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: Guantanamo Bay Closure

Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is urging President Obama to reconsider closing Gitmo, on the grounds that it will be too dangerous to have such enemy-combatants on US soil. Does this sound like a valid argument to you guys. The opposing argument is that everyone regardless of whom you are, deserves the basic rights mandated by the Geneva Convention. The truth is, we really don't know what happens to these prisoners once they are in Gitmo. The US prisons, although they have their own set of problems (Oh, do they ever!), at least have some access to the media and must act under Federal law.

Of course, there is the argument that by transferring them to US prisons, we are increasing the danger for all US citizens. Although this may be a valid claim, I would like to know how many prisoners in the US actually escape from the high security prisons. I would guess the number is low.

01-10-2010, 04:24 PM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: John Mccain's flip flop on Can and Trade

Source: http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/56236

As one of the original authors in 2003 of a "Cap and Trade" bill, John McCain has always been acutely aware of the dire consequences of climate change. However, recently he has turned his back on science and become of the firmest opponenets of any sort of climate change reform. Once again, it's all about the politics. McCain is facing re-election against a hard-line conservative J.D. Hayworth in his state of Arizona, and he believes that if he wants to win he has to tell the people what they want to hear. This is yet another example of a Republican politician being alienated by his own party because his own conservative beliefs do not match up with how far right right the party base has veered. What do you guys think?

01-10-2010, 03:05 PM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: Blaming terrorism on domestic nation building: neoconservatism at its best

John Cornyn spoke recently about how he worries that the President's "preoccupation" with health care reform is compromising attention towards anti-terrorism. What's more, he says that "keeping America safe from harm" is the President's primary duty, implying that healthcare reform is some sort of special interest group niche concern. There are many things wrong with Cornyn is saying, let's dissect.

1. The Christmas day attempted bombing was more a problem with intelligence than anything else. Umar Mutallab's own father had warned the US that his son may have radical intentions. He paid for his ticket to Detroit in CASH. He was denied re-entry to Britain on the grounds that he LIED on his application form. These are more than enough signs to point to a guy whom the US should be suspicious about and should never have been granted a visa to the US.

2. Healthcare is MUCH more dangerous than terrorism Ok, so let's tally the number of people who died from September 11th: almost 3000. Now, how many Americans die every year from being uninsured/not having proper health care coverage: about 45,000. Yes, that's every year, and yes that's 15 times the number who died during 9/11. I'm not saying that 9/11 wasn't tragic or that we should not do something to combat terrorism. However, let's not pretend that this is the greatest threat to the US. Our ailing healthcare system is a much larger threat to both our well being and our fiscal sustainability. So when Senator Cornyn says that the President's main responsibility is to keep Americans safe, by focusing on health care reform President Obama is doing just that.

01-10-2010, 11:25 AM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: Stance on CSPAN hypocritical

Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/05/boehner-backs-move-to-open-health-care-talks-to-media/

John Boehner is calling on Democrats to broadcast the health care bill exchanges on CSPAN, making good on Obama's campaign promise While this is not wholly untrue, Obama did promise this, it is not as if Republicans have the cleanest record of transparency themselves. John Boehner himself called health care reform a "government takeover." There is no justification for such a claim, even if the public option stays.

The Republicans are the ones who have partaken in some of the dirtiest politics. Anyone remember the congressional fight for creating Medicare Part D? Oh yes, now I remember, that was measure that former US Comptroller David Walker called "probably the most fisclally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s." In efforts to try and pass the Medicare Modernization Act, Republicans twisted arms, threatened Congressmen, and left the floor open for voting several hours longer than legally permissible.

Hey Boehner, how would you have liked that on CSPAN?

12-31-2009, 06:42 PM

Edit

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

Thread: Joe Wilson's "You Lie!" comment: racially spurred?

Source: http://newsone.com/nation/opinion-the-most-racially-charged-stories-of-2009/

Joe Wilson's comment was incredibly disrespectful, but others are saying it goes further. Some say that is was no coincidence that the first time something like this happened was directed towards the nation's first Black President. I am not sure if I am willing to make such a leap, but it started making me think about the racial prejudices and conceptions our elected officals have. Do you believe that Obama would have had any easier time passing, say health care reform, if he were White? I personally think that in this arena at least, Congress has played pretty nice. Whatever people may think behind closed doors is one thing, but at least publicly relations seem to be fine. What do you guys think?

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES