Let the Campaign Edit Wars Begin 571
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Megan Garber writes that in high school, Paul Ryan's classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser,' a juicy tidbit that is a source of delight for his political opponents but considered an irrelevant piece of youthful trivia to his supporters. 'But it's also a tension that will play out, repeatedly, in the most comprehensive narrative we have about Paul Ryan as a person and a politician and a policy-maker: his Wikipedia page,' writes Garber. Late Friday night, just as news of the Ryan choice leaked in the political press — the first substantial edit to that page removed the 'brown noser' mention which had been on the page since June 16. The Wikipedia deletion has given rise to a whole discussion of whether the mention is a partisan attack, whether 'brown noser' is a pejorative, and whether an old high school opinion survey is notable or relevant. As of this writing, 'brown noser' stands as does a maybe-mitigating piece of Ryan-as-high-schooler trivia: that he was also voted prom king. But that equilibrium could change, again, in an instant. 'Today is the glory day for the Paul Ryan Wikipedia page,' writes Garber. 'Yesterday, it saw just 10 [edits]. Today, however — early on a Saturday morning, East Coast time — it's already received hundreds of revisions. And the official news of the Ryan selection, of course, is just over an hour old.' Now Ryan's page is ready to host debates about biographical details and their epistemological relevance. 'Like so many before it, will be a place of debate and dissent and derision. But it will also be a place where people can come together to discuss information and policy and the intersection between the two — a town square for the digital age.'"
If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Then I'm pretty sure that what Paul Ryan did in high school can be too.
But seriously, I'm a lot less concerned with what Paul Ryan did in high school that what he has done since. I'm not sure what Romney was thinking on this one (excite a base that was ALREADY excited, that would have come out to vote against Obama no matter who you chose?). But he just gave the Democrats an incredible gift. Because he didn't just excite the Republican base, he also just excited the Democratic base (and scared the hell out of the independents, and conceded Florida). Many Democrats were disenchanted with Obama and probably wouldn't have come out to vote for him again in the fall. But stacking him up against an insane-right-wing Ayn Rand ideologue who wants to abolish Medicare and Social Security to give tax cuts to the wealthy is a pretty fucking great way to motivate them. I'm not sure if this is some form of political suicide or just incredibly bad advisers, but either way--speaking as a Dem--thanks, buddy.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But Obama's cliques in college are [dailycaller.com], of course.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think anyone is going to win or lose an election based on brown-nosing or smoking weed in in high school, then sure, put it on in there.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would it be? That would have been checked before he registered to be a candidate.
I still don't understand it anyway, since the constitution says natural born and I would assume that covers anyone that was became a citizen by birth. I for instance was born outside the US, but because one my my parents was a US soldier I was a citizen by birth.
Wiki quotes the Congressional Research Service to say;
"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term âoenatural bornâ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship âoeby birthâ or âoeat birth,â either by being born âoeinâ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship âoeat birth.â Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an âoealienâ required to go through the legal process of âoenaturalizationâ to become a U.S. citizen.[1]"
Which seems to agree with my analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa, lay off the curly quotes.
Re: (Score:3)
By the states when he registered as a candidate there. Believe it or not you do generally have to prove that you are eligible to run for public office.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's place of birth is an actual Constitutional issue. Ryan's cliques in high school are not.
It is a Constitutional issue only because he is black. Nobody gave a shit that McCain was born on a military base in Panama or that Romney's father was born in Mexico when he tried to run for President. But Obama had to have been ineligible. It is a double-standard and it is racism. And it is also factually incorrect. So fuck you for bringing it up again.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't say it's because he's black. His middle name is Hussein. The belief, no matter how unfounded, was that he was somehow trying to subvert the presidency toward muslim principles.
Re: (Score:3)
The bizarre thing is that the nuts think he is a Muslim Atheist Communist. I don't even know where to begin on the problems with that. But I guess it makes sense if you're a dumb-ass fucking redneck with no clue about what any of those words mean.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Interesting)
People believe what they see on the "news." Fox News has the legal right to lie [ceasespin.org]. I know the public should have more skepticism of the press, but it isn't wrong to expect journalistic integrity. I think the law should be revised to make someone very afraid of reporting anything that isn't true.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Obama's place of birth is an actual Constitutional issue. Ryan's cliques in high school are not.
It is a Constitutional issue only because he is black. Nobody gave a shit that McCain was born on a military base in Panama or that Romney's father was born in Mexico when he tried to run for President. But Obama had to have been ineligible. It is a double-standard and it is racism. And it is also factually incorrect. So fuck you for bringing it up again.
American military bases are considered sovereign US territory for reasons of birth, just like the Navy's ships and American embassies. Anyone born there is considered to have legally been born on US soil. This isn't new or noteworthy, this is longstanding United States law. Also, a candidate's parent's birthplace has zero consequence in the Constitution. And you'd know that if you'd bothered to take 30 seconds to Google an answer instead of sounding like a fool.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And if you took 35 seconds to parse the sentence, you'd realize that the GP was talking about George Romney running for President DESPITE being born in Mexico.
Yes, I know that "he" is a bit of an ambiguous pronoun, that's why I'm giving you an extra 5 seconds to look it over. Heck, you could have Google'd it yourself.
You really would sound less like a fool if you hadn't gotten so outraged over your own mistaken reading.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if parent was saying that - which he isn't - being a citizen of Kenya wouldn't prevent him from being an US citizen, much like I'm a citizen of both Spain and Portugal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Informative)
You're right, Obama's place of birth gives us an excellent opportunity to examine areas of Constitutional law that are commonly misunderstood. For example, where he was born means absolutely nothing because the citizenship of his mother is not in question. So, like George Romney - Mitt's father, who was born in Mexico - President Obama is a natural born citizen regardless of where he was born. The rest is racism and xenophobia.
As for the usefulness of Ryan's brown-noser status: Well it's not particularly important except that Americans like to know the personality of their prospective leaders. When Biden was picked it wasn't particularly important to note that he's a gaff machine, except in the personal context of how others will judge him. Either way, if it is verifiable and people are interested in the information as a part of his profile then it should meet the minimum standards for inclusion in Mr. Ryan's Wikipedia page.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Interesting)
All of these cases are why I wish that the case of whether or not Obama was a "natural-born" citizen had gone to the Supreme Court and that the Court had ruled on it. This is one of the rare cases where it would have been useful for the Court to offer an opinion on what defined a "natural-born" citizen that went beyond the narrow parameters necessary to decide the case. Basically, the "birther" issue has brought out the fact that the term "natural-born" does not have a clear legal definition today.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree there's no completely solid binding precedent on the subject, but is there really any doubt how it would come out? The Supreme Court has more than hinted on many occasions that if it ever came up, they would adopt an expansive view, at least as regards those born on U.S. soil. For example, they have cited positively to the New York decision of Lynch vs. Clarke (1844) on several occasions, which concluded:
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious what evidence you have regarding what the framers, and them requiring both parents to be U.S. citizens. It wasn't the case 21 years ago when I went through this with my own kid. Was it previously?
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html [state.gov]
All politicians are brown nosers ... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the usefulness of Ryan's brown-noser status: Well it's not particularly important except that Americans like to know the personality of their prospective leaders.
All politicians are brown nosers, even Obama. Witness the years of sitting through Rev Wright's sermons even though he severely disagreed, sitting there merely because Wright was the local "king maker" and getting elected to the Illinois legislature without the Rev's support would be impossible.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:4, Interesting)
There's more doubt about McCain being constitutionally a natural born citizen than Obama.
Obama was born in Hawaii, even ignoring the fact that his birth certificate was shown I find it hard to believe that someone had the amazing foresight to put a fake birth announcement in the paper on the off chance he would want to run for president someday.
On the other hand, McCain was born in a Panama, at a navy base hospital. What, exactly, McCain's citizenship status would be is a matter of some legal debate, because of various laws in place at the time and enacted later that would effect it.
My point is, it was never brought up during the campaign because everyone who is honest with themselves knows that there's no conceivable difference between someone born in one place versus someone born someone else. Being born within the borders of the US does not grant you automatic super-patriot powers. As long as you've been a citizen for a hellava long time and have shown loyalty it really shouldn't matter. (Of course, more likely, no one brought it up because attacking the citizenship of a war hero is probably a terrible idea from a PR standpoint).
Personally, I always thought the natural born requirement was silly. Why don't we just change the requirement to being a US citizen for 35 years and put it in line with the age restrictions. If someone wants to move here at 20 and run for office at 55 I say why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to? If you're willing to believe that someone is willing to plot for 35 years to throw down the US by the ridiculously unlikely plan of being elected president, why do you doubt that someone wouldn't be willing to brainwash their child into doing it instead?
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is - it is an ABSURDITY created BY the Obama camp, to make appear as ridiculous those looking into the REAL dodginess in his his background.
Newt Gingrich - member of the Obama camp? The levels of double dealing and obfuscation continue to fold back upon themselves like a pastry chef preparing baklava.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Funny)
Baklava? Are you some sort of communist?
I think you mean like a pastry chef making freedom crescents.
Re: (Score:2)
Newt Gingrich - member of the Obama camp?
Could make for an interesting novel, though: "Newt Gingrich, Deep-Cover Democratic Operative."
Re: (Score:3)
We should pitch it to Seth Grahame-Smith, if he can sell "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter", he can sell "Newt Gingrich, Deep-Cover Democratic Operative.".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that birthers are conspiracy kooks. No amount of evidence will change their minds. Evidence is not something to be taken at face value. Instead it must be demanded, and if by chance it is supplied it must be marginalised and denied and new evidence demanded. It's a tactic common with other denialist causes - 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, creationists etc.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Informative)
This being a nerd oriented site I would think people would be smarter than this. You are spreading an untrue urban legend derived from a misunderstanding of how computer software works. Those layers were caused by Adobe's PDF software. An expert from Adobe confirmed as much.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You'd trust the word of a Frenchman?
What's the country coming to? I sometimes wonder if we'd have been better off losing in 1776.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree the accident in France hasn't gotten the play it should, but the dog on the roof is the kind of story that resonates.
Mitt strapped a dog on the roof for 12 hours and chuckled when he saw the dog's feces stream down the windshield? That tells you something about the man. He's brutal. And it fits in with the prep school haircutting story, and all the plant closings at Bain Capital.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You must edit Wikipedia a lot, because you clearly missed and/or chose to ignore the facts regarding that accident. Mitt Romney was NOT [wikipedia.org] AT [thedailybeast.com] Fault. [washingtonpost.com] For those too lazy to read the linked articles, "A car heading north at about 60 mph missed a curve, barreled over a hill and veered into Romney's southbound lane. The car slammed into the front of the Citroen..."
Re: (Score:3)
" insane-right-wing Ayn Rand ideologue" and where did that come from? Why exactly is he mentally disturbed?
Re: (Score:3)
I am John Galt.
Re: (Score:2)
'bizzare' is commonly used in clinical assessments.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm in the lower middle class and my taxes took a nosedive during bush. If they don't extend them they will go up painfully. Your post is 99 percent BS, which fits with your crowd's whole.. thing I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
who wants to abolish Medicare and Social Security
How did this ever get +4 insightful? This is a perfect example of how the election is now the "D"s to lose. No one would argue Paul Ryan is king of the quislings a 1%er bootlicker to the core. But promoting outright laughable lies about the guy is a subtle way to push votes to the other 1%er supporting party, the "D"s. Negative campaigning has a way of backfiring, in fact I think at least some negative campaigning is strategic astroturfing by the "victim" to get sympathy.
The most interesting part of the
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the point was to lose the election. Either that, or you think that Romney is certifiably crazy, which is not really ruled out by the available evidence, but it seems somewhat unlikely.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed There was a journal entry yesterday (not mine) saying "it's official -- Romney wants to lose." He not only gave up Florida, but Ohio as well. Last week I thought it might be a close race, but I'm now seeing an Obama landslide. It should be obvious to everyone by now that the Republicans, and especially the tea hee party, is for helping the 1%ers in every way possible while pissing down the 99%'s backs and telling them it's raining.
If you're making $300,000 per year and you vote for Obama, you're a fo
Re: (Score:3)
Until the Tea Party is exorcised from the Republican Party, you're going to have presidential candidates being forced to pick these types of running mates. McCain in his turn had little choice but to find someone who could appeal to "the base".
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Funny)
The answer is not more insurance, that makes the problem worse. The answer is to get the 800lb government gorilla off of our collective chests and let us be free.
Re: (Score:3)
If he were really interested in the deficit, what are all those tax-cut proposals doing in there?
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
In theory government revenues don't need to be a linear function of tax rates, but in normal ranges they typically are. If you raised the top rate from 33% to 99%, you wouldn't see a tripling of revenue, but if you raised it from 33% to 34%, likely you would get more revenue; and if you lowered it to 32%, likely you would get less revenue. The Laffer Curve is not empirically supported, if that's what you're thinking of.
And, in general, I don't think lowering revenue when you already have a deficit problem is a good way to go. If we're running surpluses, then sure, cut taxes; but we aren't.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to have misread my comment, by arguing against the example I'm already conceding. I do think that very large changes in tax rates may have nonlinear changes in revenue, which is what you seem to also be arguing. One example is that raising the top rate from 33% to 99% would likely not increase revenue.
What I am arguing, however, is that smaller changes generally do in fact change revenue in the way you'd expect. If a rate is currently at 33%, then raising it to 34% will increase revenue, and lowering it to 32% will decrease revenue. The decrease in the rate from 36% to 33% under Bush decreased revenue by essentially all accounts, whether you ask the CBO or independent economists or anyone else.
It's only if you make very large changes that you may see other effects, as in the raise-to-99% hypothetical. But since nobody is proposing that, those aren't the relevant cases. In the case of changing a tax rate by single-digit percentages, there is no Laffer-curve magic.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand this demagoguery by the Left. Are you saying that using the current tax rates (or higher) is the only way to get to a balanced budget? This seems to ignore two things: government revenues are not a linear function of tax rates (sometimes they are inversely related!) and lower spending can offset lower revenue.
You're talking about the Laffer curve. Nobody disagrees with the idea that increasing taxes can actually lower revenue. There's contention as to where exactly that point is. Empirical data seems to point it at 70% rate [wikipedia.org], but at the very least, it's not less than 30%. In other words, we're nowhere near hitting that point.
Plenty of good arguments for not increasing the tax rate. That it won't increase revenue isn't one of them. I suggest you concentrate the discussion on what government services need to
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a very good theory, though. And the U.S. doesn't spend much at all, if you compare it to other strong Western economies. Germany, for example, spends about 15% more of GDP than the U.S. does, and is doing very well.
In any case, what I'm curious about is, if he's a numbers guy who believes in honestly examining budget items and making a real effort to balance our accounts, where was that in his Congressional votes? He voted in favor of Medicare Part D, which caused a huge increase in the cost of Med
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As an Independent voter, I like the fact that he actually has concrete ideas that we can discuss and debate, however it all seems to be moot when you consider that he and the fellow house republicans were unwilling to even begin to compromise to achieve an actual solution. Promoting him, is like promoting gnu hurd. Yeah, its different and maybe theoretically better, but no, its not really ever going to effect anything. Great artists ship.
How can anyone "compromise" when the ruling Dems won't even pass a budget?
And why is "compromise" always result in higher taxes and bigger government? That's NOT a "compromise".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Such is the fate of politics. Screw informed debate. Let's just get some passionate fanatic people to follow us wherever. It's much easier that way. I wish republican/democrat debate within house/senate bill votes and the presidency were based on actual thinking and not just pushing an ideology that one has become a fanatic of.
It's not popular to try. You really have to blame the voters for this. The political candidates almost HAVE to act this way to even have a chance of getting elected.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
His rhetoric aside, fiscal conservative he is not.
This guy is such a party boy. It's one thing if he bucked the ranks when his party was going nuts on the country's credit card, instead he voted the party line like a good boy. He's one of those republicans who suddenly decided to get "serious" about the deficit the moment Obama was elected. The power elite love him because he'll do what he's told.
All the Ayn Rand talk is just set dressing. Although, I'm sure he'd make a great middle manager. I think.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight. The richest country in the world can't afford free health care for all of its citizens?
But many other countries, such as the UK, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Cuba, can.
I dunno how the intricacies of your society work but from where I am standing (in Australia) I would say something over there is seriously fucked.
Maybe you just like to keep the poor people in your society poor. That's fine. Maybe you should have let the south win the civil war though, just to make it a bit easier.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Informative)
An American GI here, I have experienced the healthcare in Australia and England, all I can say is if the health care in those countries is dubious then the health care in the US is atrocious. Why is it most Americans that criticize the health care in Europe, Canada and Australia have never experienced it first hand and just take it for granted ours is better?
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Informative)
You know the republicans keep spouting this 700 billion dollar cut but does anyone actually know what was cut and why? I did some research and found a pretty well written post on reddit about it, and it has sources (amazing). To me it doesn't seem that bad, it certainly seems better than medicare turning into a coupon program. 60% off your next tumor ha!
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/y4afe/a_breakdown_of_the_gops_latest_talking_point/ [reddit.com]
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:4, Insightful)
"be the adult in the room ..."
" more interested in governing well and taking on serious issues than..."
Why do condescending posts with weasel words like these get attention in U.S. politics?
As an outside observer, Romney demonstrated that he's a dangerously ignorant and unqualified in how he pre-campaigned in England and Israel. He doesn't even have any power and he already embarrassed the country twice. He's not even qualified to be an aide to an ambassador.
Good leadership would be for him to hang his head in shame, forget national leadership and stick to positions of domestic politics.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh, no.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/ [politifact.com]
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote [thehill.com]
From both articles:
Basically the votes were taken to score gotchas against the president. The one in the house by erasing all the details and just "basing" it on his big numbers. Of course no one would vote for that.
Paul Ryan:
Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
VVoted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011) Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan. (Mar 2011
)
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/ [ontheissues.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's Ryan who proposed abolishing it altogether.
Exactly when did he do that? The only proposals by Paul Ryan on Medicare I have seen were one's that called for reforming it so that it does not go bankrupt. As to his proposals for Social Security, how is proposing to modify it so that those younger than 55 have a chance of actually collecting money from it while not making any changes to it for those over 55 saying "Screw You if You're Over 55!"? I suppose you like the Obama slogan better, "If you're under 40, plan on working till you die (if you can find
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that the VP is a symbolic role, but it can still have a real impact on an election (just ask John McCain). There is something about the "heartbeat away from President" thing that makes people think.
Re: (Score:3)
VP is a rather ineffective role.
Two words: Gerald Ford
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, except Medicare is open to all seniors over 65. His "replacement" is open to everyone too--everyone who can pay the difference between their voucher and what their insurance actually costs, that is:
If the chosen plan costs more than the premium-support [i.e., their voucher], the senior would pay the difference.
Oh, got a pre-existing medical condition that makes your insurance cost more than your voucher? Tough luck, grandma.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama would have gained some serious points for praising that. If a candidate praised the oppositions ideas it may seem like an endorsement to some. To me, it would seem like they're more concerned with good ideas than looking good.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:4, Insightful)
How can Paul Ryan be a Neocon when he's Catholic, just like the most famous Democratic president JFK? Never mind the Vatican, American Catholics tend to be middle of the road in most things, including evolution and birth control except when it comes to abortion.
Rick Santorum is Catholic, and he's decidedly not middle of the road in many things, not just abortion.
"Catholic" is really too broad a brush to be meaningful. There are people who self identify as Catholic but don't really practice their faith much, there are hardcore traditionalists, and there's everyone in between.
Re:Top Ten Reason's for AmerCIAns to Vote (Score:5, Informative)
#0: local elections.
But seriously, if the vote were as meaningless as you dropouts like to make it out, why is so much energy being spent to deprive people of it [post-gazette.com]?
Re:Top Ten Reason's for AmerCIAns to Vote (Score:4, Insightful)
You forgot:
11. Don't vote, thereby assuring the guy you like least wins
If a frw more assholes had gotten off their asses in 2000 and voted, we would not have invaded iraq and we would not have a horrible deficit. al gore is not g w bush. and if you think they are the same person, or that their parties are the same, you really are a giant fucking moron
Re: (Score:3)
Thought experiment:
EVERY SINGLE US Citizen voted on a referendum TODAY - with 100% turnout and 100% majority in favour of a mandate: "Withdraw US presence from Afghanistan and Pakistan without residual bases or support for any military or police forces."
What would be the outcome?
The issue is not AfPak. Substitute ANY issue you like of importance - particularly those that establish Imperial presence and influence. There would be no representation in the sense of a real Republic, for the governed people's w
Re:Top Ten Reason's for AmerCIAns to Vote (Score:5, Interesting)
if you don't vote, you reward the corrupt plutocracy. alienated and self-disenfranchised losers like yourself is what they DEPEND on happening, einstein, they put out propaganda and make political moves they KNOW will make zero heart, low iq fuckups like yourself wallow in self-pity and helplessness and withdraw from society. because you are WEAK and they know it
this is you, psychologically, and all other pathetic loser who rationalizes not voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness [wikipedia.org]
THAT IS YOU PSYCHOLOGICALLY. KNOW THYSELF, LOSER
what deranged bullshit rationalization you have too: "I don't vote and I encourage everyone to not vote. When voter turn out is under 10% then perhaps you thick, dim-witted motherfuckers can finally pull your heads out of your ass and help us make a democracy that works and actually represents us."
what!? LOL
"i won't play with you, and that will force you to change your policies because you want me to play with you"
this is what you really believe?!
NO, RETARD: what happens is the plutocracy laughs even harder all the way to the bank: you've bowed down and submitted to them meekly and completely! they don't fucking care about you, they will never care about you, they are glad you won't participate and fight for beliefs, they depend upon your weakness! fight for what you believe, or roll over. you choose to roll over, with this bullshit low iq zero social skillset rationalization. fucking pathetic!
seriously, you and other self-disenfranchised morons to me represent the lowest scum of the earth. at least the plutocracy is evil. at least they honestly stand for something vile that you can fight. pathetic losers like you just represent zero willpower, complete cowardice, and utter lack of any human spirit or desire to fight for themselves. a fungal growth of useless loserville. you have done nothing but be deserving of zero respect. a perfect, meek, self-disenfranchising slave
a country of free people requires a country of people willing to fight for themselves. for not fighting for your beliefs, you represent the end of a free society. i cannot adequately express how much i disrespect and loathe your thinking, because your thinking and bullshit rationalizations represents the end of free society
Re:Top Ten Reason's for AmerCIAns to Vote (Score:4, Insightful)
if you don't vote, you reward the corrupt plutocracy.
If you do vote, you also reward the corrupt plutocracy.
If you abstain: You allow evil to prevail by default
If you vote R: You're voting for corrupt plutocracy
If you vote D: You're voting for corrupt plutocracy
If you vote third party: You get laughed at.
What does one actually do that hurts the plutocracy?
a country of free people requires a country of people willing to fight for themselves. for not fighting for your beliefs, you represent the end of a free society.
What part of voting == fighting for your beliefs?
I don't vote, but if you're serious about fighting for what's right, I'll meet you in the city square with everyone else. When do we start?
Re: (Score:3)
I will ask, again, more plainly: Where do you get your political information from such that you can trust it's validity? I don't like either of the major party candidates. I think they're both sides of the same coin on everythin
Don't they lock those things? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why hasn't it been reverted to the preannouncment page and locked for editing with the addition of "prospective VP candidate for the Republican party? Seems like the best and only proper solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, presumably, you would have to at least add a mention of him getting picked as VP nominee. But this wouldn't otherwise be a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're kidding, right?
I mean, you have a perfectly sane and logical idea there, but it won't work, and here's why:
==
Fact the first: My wee little facebook page has been deluged of late with a megaton of hatred against a guy that I suspect none of my friends (or their friends, etc) have ever heard of until this past Friday. My sister-in-law's fault... let's just say that she's a bit of an 'activist'. So I decided to do a bit of questioning...
Fact the second: On one of the earliest postings, I asked a simple,
Re:Don't they lock those things? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I live about two miles from Paul Ryan. I've never voted for him or met him. The two major bills he's had passed involved repealing some minor tax on arrows, and renaming the local post office. He does have a lot of support from rich outsiders and local rednecks. Janesville back in 1992 had a KKK rally, and there are people who ride town with Confederate flags fling from their pickup. If you go to www.gazettextra.com there are the usual Tea Party shills, trolls, and astroturfing going on since the failed Walker recall started. Well, maybe since Obama got elected.
I consider Ryan as a nice guy personally based on his local rep, but a Palin clone who knows grammar.
interesting problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm tempted to say that these kinds of articles aren't where Wikipedia works best. Articles where the majority of the editors are partisans, rather than scholars or knowledgeable enthusiasts, tend to attract a lot of heat and not as much improvement (I made the mistake once of trying to edit something that was in the Israel-Palestine crossfire).
On the other hand, it's quite possible that Wikipedia has the least bad coverage. It's Paul Ryan article is contentious, edited by partisans on both sides, and may or may not end up in a great state, but every other summary of Ryan I've been able to find so far is worse. Most are either pure attack pieces, or pure hagiographies.
Re:interesting problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Screw Wickipedia (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You're really trying to give Ward Cunningham an aneurysm with that spelling of "wiki", aren't you.
Campaigns run on pathos (Score:2)
Was Paul Ryan modeled after Rick (The Young Ones)? (Score:3)
Was Paul Ryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Ones_%28TV_series%29#Rick) modeled after Rick?
They're even look-alikes: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul3U_J37YCc
"Hands up, who likes me"
Hands all down.
Re: (Score:2)
Was Paul Ryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Ones_%28TV_series%29#Rick) modeled after Rick?
They're even look-alikes: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul3U_J37YCc
"Hands up, who likes me"
Hands all down.
that is funny.
Should have been locked (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a situation where the page should have locked to prevent the edit wars. Granted, no one knew who the VP pick was going to be, but as soon as humanly possible, the page should have been locked down and only selected individuals allowed to edit it for completeness, not remove things which, while not necessarily relevant, give a broader picture of who the person is.
Re: (Score:2)
they should just replace the whole page with a link to the guys official homepage, with a big title on it that explained that it's too much of a hassle to find impartial people to moderate the page during the elections.
Wars? (Score:4, Insightful)
Romney and Ryan want to increase Defense spending. Why? Do they want us to get us involved in more wars?
At least Obama has got us out of one unnecessary war started by the previous Republican administration, and is slowly scaling back the other one.
Tell the Republicans that if they want to lower the deficit they should cut back on the defense budget and stop getting us into wars.\
And the rich people don't need more tax cuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Romney and Ryan want to increase Defense spending. Why?
Well, it ain't cheap to bring democracy or Iran by force. Or was it "replace their democracy with a new U.S.-puppet Shah"? I always get two those mixed up.
Re: (Score:3)
I normally try not to feed the trolls or the retards, but.... did it ever occur to you that there might be some differences in how troops are used in, say, Phillippines and Afghanistan? That there might be some differences in the costs associated with keeping troops in those countries? Or, heck, even a difference in how the troops are viewed and treated?
If anything, your pattern would indicate that Republican presidents are incapable of starting a proper war that has a good outcome for the US.
Democrats Weigh In (Score:3, Funny)
Welcome back to kindergarten, folks. I think I'll go hibernate for the next three months so I don't have to witness the ridiculous stupidity of American society when polarized by two equally bad alternatives.
I hate campaign season. (Score:4, Interesting)
The smart people have already looked at the real platforms of the candidates and know for whom they're voting. That leaves those who are too lazy to do any research; these are the ones swayed by stupid bullshit like how
Paul Ryan's classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser'
as well as attack ads and other campaigning that can be best summed up by "my opponent will destroy this country," even though a rational, objective thinker would realize that neither major candidate will likely do so.
The rest of us? We're not the targets of this late-stage campaigning so we're completely ignored. I'll be fast forwarding through the political ads like the rest of you and wishing it was already November 7. Hell, I can't even vote (yet) so this really just feels like being forced to watch a bunch of idiots fighting from the sidelines.
Re: (Score:2)
as well as attack ads and other campaigning that can be best summed up by "my opponent will destroy this country,"
It is the one thing that both camps can say that is probably true.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is fair game (Score:4, Insightful)
Since this is the era of the politics of personal destruction, anything is fair game.
Of course, it's dysfunctional, but we aren't going to change this soon. Our political process is too polarized now.
And of course, issues really don't matter to the side that sees them as a liability.
Oh great now we pick based on high school cliques (Score:2)
Just f'ing great. Just as the US is going down the tubes, let's all base our choice on politicians NOT by the policies they espouse [1], but by gossip someone posted just like they were in high school. (clap clap clap)Good job Internet, you brought out the best of humanity for voting.
[1] As if they won't change 180 deg. when they get into office anyways [politifact.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Paul who? (Score:4, Interesting)
...write half a sentence about who the hell this "Paul Ryan" guy(?) is supposed to be?...
A paragraph for each. I'm not going to vote D or R, so you can trust my analysis is non-partisan and pretty accurate guide to people who aren't paying attention:
Barack Obama = Vote for change, then change nothing. He would have made a pretty decent pre-neocon somewhat left of the road republican more or less in the image of Tommy Thompson back in ye olden days. Just another crook from Illinois. Basically a leftish conservative using the traditional definition of conservative not wanting to change much of anything. Despite being "commander in chief" has a strong historical record of doing whatever his masters tell him to do (D leadership, 1%ers, wall street). You can't trust him, he has bad ideas, but he never does anything, especially not if he promises it or campaigns on it, so that's OK.
Joe Biden = Probably the closest thing in national govt to a 99%er. Poorest member of the senate (still rich, but he's not rollin with the 1%ers). Babbles a lot. Most likely of all the candidates to have a twitter tag like "shitbidensays", because he's got the largest collection of memorable quotes (both good and very very bad). Fundamentally seems to be a good guy at heart (unlike the other 3 who are all crooks) but in practice a bit too lefty for my tastes. Fairly conservative, just another elderly hippie reliving the great society programs of the 60s. If he could be jolted out of the 60s and into modern era he'd be a pretty good leader, maybe not the best, but not bottom of the barrel like the other 3. You can trust him, but he's got an obsolete outlook on the world.
Mitt Romney = Gordon Gekko come to life, 1%er to the core. Another power hungry rich crook. Apparently wants to surround himself with bootlickers and quislings aka neocon Rs. Doesn't seem to have much of a message other than "I'm a 1%er now lick my boots, proles" alternating with "I'm not Obama". The hardest core evangelicals who run the R party are all in a tizzy about him because they now have to vote for what they consider a cult member, he's not "religiously pure" enough for them. You can't trust him and he's got big ideas, most (all?) of which are bad ideas.
Paul Ryan = 1%er wannabe bootlicker quisling originally from my home state of Wisconsin but left decades ago to become a wash DC insider so he really doesn't represent anyone other than whoever pays his re-election bills. Pretty much interchangeable with all the other 1%er bootlicker quislings. Wants to portray himself as a budgetary expert. In the traditional definition of liberal = wants to change things, he's the most liberal of the bunch. He hasn't actually done anything or stood for anything other than PR stuff (and he's "from my state" so I should know). In that way he's kind of a mystery man. The 1%er Manchurian candidate. You can't trust him and he's apparently got no ideas at all of his own.
I would anticipate Biden is going to crush Ryan in the veep debate just on general mental horsepower, which will be entertaining to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget that him mom probably doesn't rely on Medicare very much seeing as how she is the widow of a multimillionaire, ever hear of Ryan Construction, one of the largest road constructions companies in the US. Yes, Mr. Ryan gets much of his money from government contracts.