Is it TIME to save the GOP?

[hazbalz]

River, like Obama, I do not believe you understand the depth of "pissed off by Obama" his more Progressive voters are. I see a swath of Red States from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin. The taxed out middle class.
What has Obama done for the Occupy movement? Oh, made new laws restricting peaceful assembly.

It all cashes out in November. One of us will have bragging rights on the other, Si?

Moi
Progressive aka Populist, remember.

Remember, it does not matter to me how much worse Romney will be.
The Democratic Party and Obama should be representing something better and more Progressive.
That is MORE important to me. I would sacrifice a few years to see the Democratic Party get it right rather then capitulate to a Conservative, Regressive, militaristic (drone kills) Democrat, again.

Moi, is right. Progressives do not like Obama's policies, for the most part. Does anybody remember the Employee Free Choice Act? This was a bill to help strengthen unions and was a top priority of Progressives in 2009. Obama killed it. He demanded Pelosi take it off the table for a vote. Its traditional among Democrats since Carter, take the Progressive wing for granted under the belief that they have nowhere else to go. Why did the Dems lose in such large numbers in 2010? Because Progressives didn't show up at the polls. They won't vote Repub so they just don't vote. Obama had the numbers in Congress and the support of the public in 2009 to return the US to sensible policies but he chose to try and become the great bipartisan unifier. He ignored what the GOP said and did, ignored what smart advisors told him and the result is what we have. He never bothered to use his eloquence to tell the American people a simple story of how we got into this mess and the best way out. He never once used his vast database of 15 million email addresses to garner support for his policies. Even in his big compromise with the GOP in December 2010 that extended the Bush tax cuts did he bother to try and get a committment to increase the debt ceiling. At the time he said everyone knew how important it was to raise it. That foolishness cost the US a great deal in the anemic recovery we had going at the time and made him look like the weak kneed politician he is. Occupy Wall Street was a direct response to Obama doing nothing in regards to the financial sector, who today are more powerful than ever. Obama had a dinner early in his term with Krugman, Stiglitz, Baker and some other notable economists who were critical of his weak stimulus package. Be certain, Obama was told how to end the recession, just as Krugman has laid out in his book End This Depression Now. Obama ignored the advice. Obama will end up as one of those historical figures in American history who had the opportunity and the tools to accomplish something big for all Americans but he chose, instead, to squander it all. What a waste!

[moi621]

Moi, go look at A-1's avatar, and take note.


River

Right!

And a Penny Saved is a Penny Earned.

Must be true.
It's all true.
What happens when two truths conflict?
The truthiest prevails?

I wonder if the next President will feel compelled to surpass
President Obama's selective death from the sky drones record.
Maybe besides total score we could establish a % of oopsy kills.
Maybe the Presidential score should be total kills multiplied by the % of intended kills.
Or Total Kills minus the oopsy kills. But that may give a President a negative score.
Will the GOP allow itself to be seen a "weak on drone kills"? Topically speaking.
The truthiness of it all is so confusing. Like Vietnam and the domino theory.

Moi
Truth Seeker & FREEDOM Lover

[A-1]

Right!

And a Penny Saved is a Penny Earned.

Must be true.
It's all true.
What happens when two truths conflict?
The truthiest prevails?

I wonder if the next President will feel compelled to surpass
President Obama's selective death from the sky drones record.
Maybe besides total score we could establish a % of oopsy kills.
Maybe the Presidential score should be total kills multiplied by the % of intended kills.
Or Total Kills minus the oopsy kills. But that may give a President a negative score.
Will the GOP allow itself to be seen a "weak on drone kills"? Topically speaking.
The truthiness of it all is so confusing. Like Vietnam and the domino theory.

Moi
Truth Seeker & FREEDOM Lover

So, what 'cha gonna do? OOOOOOOOO!

You DO know about bureaucracies, don't you?

Tell me, after Bill Clinton TRASHED the CIA, then what happened 9 mos after George W. Bush took office? Tell me, tell me, tell me, tell me... I know that you remember, don't cha'?

Now, Who TRASHED the Secret Service? Who? Tell me, tell me, tell me, tell me... Or should we call it the "SECRET CIRCUS?"

Who is protecting the President? Tell me, tell me, tell me, tell me... You DO know, don't you?

Well, I am scared. I hope that weakening them like Clinton weakened the CIA will not result in compromises in the President's protection, or the protection of any other government officials.

As for TRUTH, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH...

No president, no matter who, should go against the advice of these government "EXPERTS" who keep the U.S. out of harm's way.

Presidents set policy, they DO NOT work out the details. As far as I am concerned, that little BASTARD al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi got WHAT HE HAD COMING...

If YOU THINK NOT, THEN YOU ARE NUTS... and a few other things that will remain unsaid for now...

[moi621]

So, what 'cha gonna do? OOOOOOOOO!

You DO know about bureaucracies, don't you?

Tell me, after Bill Clinton TRASHED the CIA, then what happened 9 mos after George W. Bush took office? Tell me, tell me, tell me, tell me... I know that you remember, don't cha'?

Now, Who TRASHED the Secret Service? Who? Tell me, tell me, tell me, tell me... Or should we call it the "SECRET CIRCUS?"

Who is protecting the President? Tell me, tell me, tell me, tell me... You DO know, don't you?

Well, I am scared. I hope that weakening them like Clinton weakened the CIA will not result in compromises in the President's protection, or the protection of any other government officials.

As for TRUTH, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH...

No president, no matter who, should go against the advice of these government "EXPERTS" who keep the U.S. out of harm's way.

Presidents set policy, they DO NOT work out the details. As far as I am concerned, that little BASTARD al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi got WHAT HE HAD COMING...

If YOU THINK NOT, THEN YOU ARE NUTS... and a few other things that will remain unsaid for now...

And that has to do with the topic, how?
Let us cerebrate together and keep the personals out of it.
(Keep the mania out of it too, amazingly void of humor accept to the author by definition)

The upload you reference offers whether the GOP will accept looking weaker on security by
having a President with fewer drone assassinations aka targeted killings and innocents murdered.

Moi
Percolate Up Populist.
Bail out people, not banks, or no one.

[A-1]

And that has to do with the topic, how?
Let us cerebrate together and keep the personals out of it.
(Keep the mania out of it too, amazingly void of humor accept to the author by definition)

The upload you reference offers whether the GOP will accept looking weaker on security by
having a President with fewer drone assassinations aka targeted killings and innocents murdered.

Moi
Percolate Up Populist.
Bail out people, not banks, or no one.

Hey good buddy,

YOU started with the DRONE kill thing.

That's what it has to do with it. At least Obama didn't send in an ARMY to Pakistan like BUSHIE did to Iraq and like Romney said that he would sent to Iran.

You know, it is about like a police negotiator trying to talk someone out of suicide and and you have some ninny in the crowd shouting "GO AHEAD AND SHOOT YOURSELF AND LET US SEE WHAT HAPPENS."

You really need to stop being so impulsive and stop pissing people off all the time just because you can get by with it.

...and don't play ignorant, either. You KNOW what I am talking about. You and Bob/3 tried to get me banned off of these boards since the first time YOU posted here.

You are one of the most intelligent people on this board and YOU calling individuals 'UNBALANCED' and 'bloody' is simply projection on your part.

[Riverwind]

And that has to do with the topic, how?
Let us cerebrate together and keep the personals out of it.
(Keep the mania out of it too, amazingly void of humor accept to the author by definition)

The upload you reference offers whether the GOP will accept looking weaker on security by
having a President with fewer drone assassinations aka targeted killings and innocents murdered.

Moi
Percolate Up Populist.
Bail out people, not banks, or no one.

Just what does this post and the one you posted before it had to do with the GOP. As I recall Obama is a democrat and has nothing to do with the GOP. You are very good at pointing out others that steal a thread then get it closed, however you seem to be doing the same thing. Get back on topic, if you don't like this one start a new one, I know you know how to do that.

River

[janekane]

I suppose it might be worth mentioning in passing that the indirect proof by null-hypothesis/alternate-hypothesis dichotomy approach to otherwise intractable scientific puzzlements (of Popper, Lakatos, Feyerabend, and others) assumes a solid grounding in set theory for it to make useful sense.

Meanwhile, a review paper in the June 7, 2012 Nature, pages 52-58, hints at a "biosphere state shift" which, if it occurs, would plausibly render prior climate change concerns functionally moot.

The authors give evidence of an impending state transition, "... with the potential to transform Earth rapidly and irreversibly into a state unknown in human experience."

How was it put years ago in Chicago? "Jane Byrned while Bilandic fiddled"?

I wonder whether humans are faced with an interesting choice. If we continue to be groups of mutually, destructively retaliating adversaries, will we not have demonstrated that human intelligence failed to evolve?

I make an effort to share a description of something I find I have learned, only to observe some others acting as though being in the role of a psychoanalyst who has assigned to me the analysand role. What I post is as though a transference and replies are as though forms of countertransference.

If one allows some merit for the "ABC" model of Albert Ellis (Activating events activate Beliefs which are acted upon so as to result in Consequences, and Consequences of Acting on events through Beliefs may, in turn, become Activating events. Activating events are deemed to be outside a person's locus of control and Consequences follow directly from activated Beliefs. Therefore, if a person is dissatisfied with the consequences of Activating events, the opportunity for improving the quality of Consequences is to be found in changing Beliefs so that the Consequences of Beliefs as Activated by events is of improved quality.

For those who understand how the Ellis "ABC" model fits into psychodynamic psychoanalytic approaches to human predicaments, the effect of the imposition of the analysand/analyst-transference/countertransference; it may be rather obvious as the mapping of the beliefs of the one who has taken on the psychoanalyst role while being unwitting about the countertransference being a mapping of the beliefs of "the one" offered gratis to the supposed analysand.

Methinks, if people, as individuals and as a whole, save themselves properly, the GOP will properly take care of itself.

[A-1]

...Methinks, if people, as individuals and as a whole, save themselves properly, the GOP will properly take care of itself...

Let me say this about that.

I have Long suspected ever since janekane came here and started posting on these boards that he possesses an intellect that is in fact an UNMEASURABLE genius.

This statement offers IRREFUTABLE evidence that confirms my suspicion.

It is a fact that janekane possesses a genius that is so high that it is unmeasurable using the crude instruments that are available to the psychometric technicians of our world.

[moi621]

That is the Progressive, Populist, Percolate Up philosophy.
At evening "intellectual discussion nights" once a month they would bitch
preferably about Congress or California State government but
were very unhappy when I mentioned how we could not manage an honest
Homeowners Association or small City Council.
I always figured if we can't do the latter their is no hope of the former.
And it starts with the individual.
Amen.

Moi
Populist
Freedom from herd mentality - - follow me. Or else!

[A-1]

...Moi
Populist
Freedom from herd mentality - - follow me. Or else!
...

to moi:

I believe that America HAS followed WORSE, much worse, and has been following worse for a long, long time.

[moi621]

Can Romney and the GOP attract Black voters?
SNL repeat last night had a skit of a Black TV show on BET
discussing, "What would it take. . ." not to support Obama's re-election.

The best joke was pointing out Romney looks like the villain
in a Blackploitation movie.
I don't see a speaking tour by Herman Cain as the answer. He did not seem
to attract much of the Black community.

Another call of
How can Romney and the GOP attract Black voters?

Moi

[Riverwind]

Can Romney attract the Spanish speaking voters?

River

[A-1]

Moi, is right. Progressives do not like Obama's policies, for the most part. Does anybody remember the Employee Free Choice Act? This was a bill to help strengthen unions and was a top priority of Progressives in 2009. Obama killed it. He demanded Pelosi take it off the table for a vote. Its traditional among Democrats since Carter, take the Progressive wing for granted under the belief that they have nowhere else to go. Why did the Dems lose in such large numbers in 2010? Because Progressives didn't show up at the polls. They won't vote Repub so they just don't vote. Obama had the numbers in Congress and the support of the public in 2009 to return the US to sensible policies but he chose to try and become the great bipartisan unifier. He ignored what the GOP said and did, ignored what smart advisers told him and the result is what we have. He never bothered to use his eloquence to tell the American people a simple story of how we got into this mess and the best way out. He never once used his vast database of 15 million email addresses to garner support for his policies. Even in his big compromise with the GOP in December 2010 that extended the Bush tax cuts did he bother to try and get a commitment to increase the debt ceiling. At the time he said everyone knew how important it was to raise it. That foolishness cost the US a great deal in the anemic recovery we had going at the time and made him look like the weak kneed politician he is. Occupy Wall Street was a direct response to Obama doing nothing in regards to the financial sector, who today are more powerful than ever. Obama had a dinner early in his term with Krugman, Stiglitz, Baker and some other notable economists who were critical of his weak stimulus package. Be certain, Obama was told how to end the recession, just as Krugman has laid out in his book End This Depression Now. Obama ignored the advice. Obama will end up as one of those historical figures in American history who had the opportunity and the tools to accomplish something big for all Americans but he chose, instead, to squander it all. What a waste!

So might this result in a BACKLASH of sorts? Will buying votes work once the TRUTH is out? Will the public be further enraged if they find out that they are being used and that people have taken advantage of them?

What can be done to get the word out? The e-mail chains that were started for the purpose of Obama defamation seem to NOT be as plentiful. Perhaps has this sort of thing reached a point of saturation? Could it be made to work again, but this time FOR Obama?

[A-1]

Throw them an anvil, it's sink or swim time...

[moi621]

Did Obama just out Latino anything Romney might propose today.
Romney might solidify some non Latino vote around Obama's "shameless election year action".

Moi