Republican Top 3 (in Debates)


AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 29 2011 3:39 AM EDT

As of about a week ago, this were the top three contenders for the Presidential nominee for the Republican party:

1) Rick Perry
2) Mitt Romney
3) Michelle Bachmann

In that order. My question are mostly for Republicans/Libertarians/People who would consider vote Republican. I'll have one question for everyone at the end.

First off:

What do you think of the current contenders? Are you satisfied? Would you be okay with one of them being president? Are you surprised with this current lineup? Of these three who do you think would win the Republican Nominee?

As for me, I don't really like any of them. I think Perry has the best shot of winning the nominee of these three. I don't think he'd do terrible as a President, but I'm not sure he'd be the best.

What do you guys think?

My question to everyone else Republican/Democrat/Alien/Whatever:

Do you think any of the above have a shot at beating Obama?

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 29 2011 3:50 AM EDT

Honestly, the only republican who has some kind of integrity I've seen is that Ron Paul dude. And unfortunately nobody in the main-stream republican sphere of influence seems to take him seriously; never-mind the fact that he has done a couple nutty things also.

All three of those don't really seem presidential enough. I don't really know much about Perry, but I can say Romney has no integrity, and has backtracked on things he previously has believed just to fall in line with some preconceived notion of what he thinks republicans want.

Bachmann just sounds crazy, not sure why she is even considered a serious contender.

So, by default I guess Rick Perry seems the most viable at this point.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 29 2011 3:52 AM EDT

Also, why are you posting this in Off-topic and not debates? This sounds like a legitimate enough topic.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 29 2011 3:54 AM EDT

Honestly, the only republican who has some kind of integrity I've seen is that Ron Paul dude.

Yeah, I actually really like Ron Paul. I was talking with one of my quite liberal friends and we were discussing who we thought had the best chance of winning the election if they won the Rep nominee and we both agreed on Ron Paul. Republicans would vote for him because he's not Obama, he'd get a lot of libertarians because he is a libertarian, and he'd get a lot of independents because I think he has the most mass appeal. Although, he does do some crazy stuff sometimes.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 29 2011 3:55 AM EDT

Also, why are you posting this in Off-topic and not debates? This sounds like a legitimate enough topic.

Well I forgot it was the "Debate/*Discussion*" thread. And I didn't want a debate, just a discussion. Which I guess fills that other threads roll too :P. You can move it if you want.

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] August 29 2011 4:52 AM EDT

I would also vote for Ron Paul, despite some of the farfetched things he has said.

I believe at one point he stated how 9/11 was an inside job, and he believes there is a group trying to create a 1 world government.. >.>

QBRanger August 29 2011 8:59 AM EDT

I would vote for a pet rock over Obama, to start things off.

I think both Perry and Rommey can beat Obama. Bachmann has little chance.

I highly prefer Perry over Rommey. Rommey is a typical north-easterner Republican. Which is basically a moderate Democrat. Rommeycare will be a huge negative for him on the general election.

Perry is much more conservative and has a much better record of job creation in Texas.

However, as I stated, I would vote for anyone over Obama.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 29 2011 10:48 AM EDT

I think it's a sad state for the GOP to be in...

All the work done to pave the way for this election cycle economically and they still can't field a candidate that doesn't make people's skin crawl

QBRanger August 29 2011 10:53 AM EDT

All the work done to pave the way for this election cycle economically and they still can't field a candidate that doesn't make people's skin crawl

And the same people 3 years ago said that about Obama.

But what exactly about Rommey and/or Perry makes your skin crawl?

Bachmann is another story entirely.

But seriously, what is so bad about Rommey and/or Perry?

QBRanger August 29 2011 10:54 AM EDT

And I will be willing to bet anyone any amount of CB that the Republican nominee will beat Obama in the general 2012 election.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 29 2011 11:15 AM EDT

Romney smiles too damn much...

Perry was the governor posturing about Texas succession recently right, I'm not sure people advocating treason and pandering as hard as he physically can are executive material. It's nice to see the forgiveness of the repub fold forgetting about his past a dem and his participation in the biggest tax increase in Texas history.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 29 2011 11:20 AM EDT

http://factcheck.org/2011/08/what-perry-really-said-about-secession/

QBRanger August 29 2011 11:30 AM EDT

Ok, so Rommey makes your skin crawl because he smiles to much. Now that we have that out of the way...

Perry did not stated he wanted Texas to secede from the union.

From politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/aug/18/truth-about-gov-rick-perry-and-secession/

From another site:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-real-truth-about-gov-rick-perry-and-secession/

Certainly Perry was at first a Democrat. And then came to his senses to see how a free market economy where 50% of the population is not on the government payroll is a good thing. As evidence by the job growth in Texas compared to the rest of the US.

As for the largest Tax increase, I do not know enough about it other than he changed the way businesses are being taxed, to try to avoid the same problems we have now. Like GE paying 0 tax on all their income.

The one problem I have with Perry, and the only major one is his immigration laxity. Like wanting a road from Mexico directly to the middle of Texas. His laxity on immigration enforcement.

However, anything remotely Republican right now is infinitely better than the current anti-business agenda we currently have in the White House.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 29 2011 11:56 AM EDT

And then came to his senses

You don't wear a Red Sox hat in NYC do you? :)

I just feel like all the candidates are too dumb. Michelle Bachmann, that doesn't need explanation. Rick Perry seems to have some ok common sense, but he just doesn't feel intelligent enough. I'm not just saying this, this is from me watching some of his debates and speeches and such. I know how people sound don't always correlate to their intelligence, look at dubya for example. Mitt Romney seems to be the most intelligent among the bunch, but I don't think his views align with me quite well enough. I'll make a blanket statement right now saying I'm not going to vote for Obama, but I'm not voting for Romney or Bachmann either. I'll consider Perry depending on what more I learn from him during the campaign. Romney I suppose could save himself with some great ideas during the campaign, but it'd have to be some revolutionary stuff that I don't see happening.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 29 2011 11:58 AM EDT

I'm perplexed at your cutesification of Romney's name...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/us/26tttaxes.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/8714-rick-perry-and-the-largest-tax-hike-in-texas
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/rick-perry-democrat-years/

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 29 2011 12:25 PM EDT

cutesification

Sorry, I don't know this word. And who are you talking to?

QBRanger August 29 2011 12:48 PM EDT

No, that was towards me for switching a M and N unintentionally. However, according to novice there was some evil Republican motive behind my misspelling.

You don't wear a Red Sox hat in NYC do you? :)

Nope, not a fan of either.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 29 2011 1:35 PM EDT

Here is one reason I don't like Romney. And here is the other reason I don't like Romney. I don't think Romney knows which way he stands/feels about many issues until he reads political polling numbers.

After reading a bit about Perry, I don't think he is remarkable enough to be President. Besides, haven't we had enough Presidents from Texas for a while? He has generic republican views on many things, I think he would probably continue the same kind of pro-business, anti-regulation that will lead us to more income inequity in this country, which I think is pretty disgraceful for our country as a whole. For pete's sake, there is a very detailed wikipedia article about income inequality in America, so you know it's bad. I'm sure he wouldn't be a bad President, but he wouldn't do anything to make sure businesses could start hiring again, he would just make sure rich people were richer.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 29 2011 1:57 PM EDT

I didn't read all the way down Rick Perry's Wikipedia article. Reasons I don't think Rick Perry would be a good candidate:

QBRanger August 29 2011 2:07 PM EDT

I don't think Romney knows which way he stands/feels about many issues until he reads

That is the reason I do not like RomNey. But I would certainly get behind him if he is the nominee.

I do not dispute the income inequality in America. However the "poor" in America have it very well compared to the "poor" throughout the world. They have TV, cable, cell phones, refrigerators etc...

However, I still believe either Republican candidate would be a huge improvement over Obama and his anti-business agenda.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 29 2011 2:09 PM EDT

He asked Texans to pray for rain.

What's the harm? If there's no god, then no problem. If there is, he just might hear them. Who cares?

He believes anti-sodomy laws are 'appropriate'

Some of them are, not the ones pertaining to homosexuals, but definitely some of them are.

He seems to be pretty religious, and doesn't have any qualms mixing politics and religion.

Yeah, even though I'm quite religious, I don't like this too much either. It often leads too much to the government trying to control people's morals. My view on that is pretty simple.

"Do whatever the hell you want, just as long as everyone else can do whatever the hell they want to."

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 29 2011 2:54 PM EDT

He believes anti-sodomy laws are 'appropriate'

Some of them are, not the ones pertaining to homosexuals, but definitely some of them are.

Anti-sodomy laws are based explicitly on biblical scripts, and is exactly the definition of the government trying to control peoples morals.

He seems to be pretty religious, and doesn't have any qualms mixing politics and religion.

Yeah, even though I'm quite religious, I don't like this too much either. It often leads too much to the government trying to control people's morals. My view on that is pretty simple.

"Do whatever the hell you want, just as long as everyone else can do whatever the hell they want to."

Then you say you aren't a fan of people trying to control other peoples morals. So, I think the moral of this story is, you ARE for the government controlling other peoples morals, as long as you agree with them.

Thinking about it for a bit, my explanation for this logical dichotomy is that you've managed to synthesize your own world view with religious views taken into account, and that trying to separate the scripture from your own world view is actually impossible. When you make the step to decide something that, in your mind, is decidedly secular, you aren't fully aware of how much the religious aspects of your life have influenced your world view.

QBRanger August 29 2011 3:08 PM EDT

Verifex,

Is there any Republican who you would support? I think not as you are against free markets, limited government and a strong national defense.

Not that your opinion is incorrect, however, it is the opposite of what I feel is the best for America.

Lord Bob August 29 2011 3:12 PM EDT

Honestly, the only republican who has some kind of integrity I've seen is that Ron Paul dude.
Yep. He's the only one I'd consider even maybe switching sides for, though I'd still say there's a 99.6% chance I'm voting Obama again even if he does get the nomination. Paul is the only one of the Republican candidates with any upsides at all.

Do you think any of the above have a shot at beating Obama?
No.

QBRanger August 29 2011 3:26 PM EDT

No.

Again, care to put your money where your typing is?

Any amount, Obama has no chance to win reelection unless something truly unexpected occurs. Like a Wag the Dog scenario.

9% unemployment. EPA regulations that are going to make energy prices skyrocket. Home prices still falling. 1% increases to GDP. A new entitlement program that raises taxes and does not bend the cost curve down as promised. Anti business ruling from the NLRB. Growing government as the private sector stagnates.

There is no way, if the election was held today, Obama would win. No way at all.

And the Republicans will never nominate someone like Ron Paul or Michelle Bachmann. It will be between Rick Perry or Mitt RomNey. Possibly Mitt as the MSM is now on a mission to destroy Perry.

Lord Bob August 29 2011 3:30 PM EDT

Again, care to put your money where your typing is?
We already discussed such a wager.

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] August 29 2011 3:45 PM EDT

And I will be willing to bet anyone any amount of CB that the Republican nominee will beat Obama in the general 2012 election.

I feel like I should jump in on this bet

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 29 2011 4:43 PM EDT

Do you think sodomizing a child should be illegal Fex? Thought so... these were the laws I was speaking of. And I didn't glean this belief from any biblical script...

Lord Bob August 29 2011 4:45 PM EDT

Do you think sodomizing a child should be illegal Fex?
That's sexual contact with a minor. It's not the sodomy itself that's illegal and immoral.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 29 2011 4:47 PM EDT

Well, I don't have any problem with what 2 consenting adults want to do in their own time, so long as it doesn't result in the death of one of them. Just so we're clear on that Fex.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 29 2011 4:59 PM EDT

Well, I don't have any problem with what 2 consenting adults want to do in their own time, so long as it doesn't result in the death of one of them. Just so we're clear on that Fex.

I agree. Also, there are laws against murder, assault and rape already. There are also laws against fraternizing with a minor. So, these sodomy laws specifying what you can and can't do with another consenting adult based on biblical text are unnecessary. Also, they have been repealed in many states already. Something about them makes you okay with them though, and I'm trying to figure that out, and why you are otherwise against legislating morality. There is a disconnect here somewhere.

QBRanger August 29 2011 5:01 PM EDT

He believes anti-sodomy laws are 'appropriate',

Sodomy is such a broad term.

Sodomy can mean relations with an animal, child, or another human male or female.

So, Verifex, since you do not like Perry due to his anti-sodomy views, do you think sodomy should be legal?

If you are typing about homosexuals only, then state that.

I personally do not believe in zoophilia or pedophilia. What 2 grown adult people do in their own bedroom I could not care less.

I am against gay marriage. Not against civil unions. To me, marriage describes more of a religious ceremony that is recognized by the state. I believe that civil unions should have all the rights of marriage, I just feel uncomfortable calling it marriage for that reason.

QBRanger August 29 2011 5:07 PM EDT

Something about them makes you okay with them though, and I'm trying to figure that out, and why you are otherwise against legislating morality. There is a disconnect here somewhere.

You are way off base in your generalization. Just because we agree that some sodomy laws such as pedophilia are needed, does not mean we agree with all sodomy laws. As Titan stated clearly.

Some laws to prevent zoophilia or pedophilia are needed, no?

And yes, quite a few times the biblical text is used to push a particular point of view.

Just because I am a staunch Republican does not mean I agree with all these views.

However, I do not ridicule those that do. I try to understand their point of view and not quickly dismiss it as a joke.

The one thing that I do not like about the Republicans is that they typically stand for 4 principles:

1) Personal Freedom
2) Limited Government
3) Free Markets
4) Strong National Defense

However they only stand for point number 1 when it suits them. You can have personal freedom to do what we want. IE no gay relations, but you can have your freedom elsewhere. And of course, personal freedom as long as you do not hurt another person. That should be obvious.

But I so strongly agree with the other 3 points, I cannot vote for the Democrat unless he is very moderate. Which has not happened on the national level for 20+ years.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 29 2011 5:08 PM EDT

Sodomy can mean relations with an animal, child, or another human male or female.

This is what I took it to mean, which is why I said some sodomy laws ok. If they are already covered by other laws then yes they are redundant. Should there be laws the make homosexual relations between consenting adults illegal, no.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 29 2011 5:23 PM EDT

Ranger, another thing...

I am against gay marriage. Not against civil unions. To me, marriage describes more of a religious ceremony that is recognized by the state. I believe that civil unions should have all the rights of marriage, I just feel uncomfortable calling it marriage for that reason.

If Marriage was not recognized by the government for any reason (no special rights or whatever), would you be FOR the government getting involved in Marriage at that point, or would you think it was expanding government? Personally, I don't think government should be involved in telling people in relationships what they can and can't do, especially with regards to religious ceremonies.

QBRanger August 29 2011 5:42 PM EDT

Can't answer that verifrx. Marriage is so integrated in society. I cannot imagine any democratic place without it.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 29 2011 5:46 PM EDT

I think regarding the legal term marriage as anything but a business contract is silly, and preventing any two individuals legally allowed to sign a contract from entering into that contract is discrimination.

Civil Unions currently do not have all the rights, and anyone who says they do needs to read one of the countless articles detailing loved ones prevented from being in the room with their partner while they died.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 29 2011 5:50 PM EDT

I think regarding the legal term marriage as anything but a business contract is silly, and preventing any two individuals legally allowed to sign a contract from entering into that contract is discrimination.

Yes, marriages between 2 adults should be treated the same regardless of sex, race, religion, whatever underneath. I think it's up to church's as to whether they accept it as a marriage under god. If they don't, so be it, it won't affect the people in any way.

QBRanger August 29 2011 6:09 PM EDT

Civil Unions currently do not have all the rights, and anyone who says they do needs to read one of the countless articles detailing loved ones prevented from being in the room with their partner while they died.

Currently not all civil unions are recognized in other states. That is something for the states, not the government to work out.

I think regarding the legal term marriage as anything but a business contract is silly, and preventing any two individuals legally allowed to sign a contract from entering into that contract is discrimination.

I disagree about it being only a business contract. It is about family, love and mutual respect. But one can then say that polygamy should be allowed, as it involved consenting adults.

And since divorce is so easy to obtain now, it is much easier to get a divorce than break a standard business contract.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 29 2011 6:27 PM EDT

Legally, it is nothing more than a business contract, the only aspect that the government needs to be dealing with is that everyone should be allowed to enter into that contract.

Protecting citizens from discriminatory lawmaking by the states is ABSOLUTELY a matter for the Federal level, unless you're ready to repeal the civil rights act as well there...

Demigod August 29 2011 6:29 PM EDT

Civil Unions smell too much like Jim Crow...

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 29 2011 6:40 PM EDT

Legally, it is nothing more than a business contract, the only aspect that the government needs to be dealing with is that everyone should be allowed to enter into that contract.

Protecting citizens from discriminatory lawmaking by the states is ABSOLUTELY a matter for the Federal level, unless you're ready to repeal the civil rights act as well there...

Yes yes

QBRanger August 29 2011 6:57 PM EDT

So what do you think of polygamy? That is with consenting adults.

QBOddBird August 29 2011 7:07 PM EDT

I'm all for it, personally

Lord Bob August 29 2011 7:17 PM EDT

So what do you think of polygamy?
More PLEASE!

QBRanger August 29 2011 7:26 PM EDT

It is consenting adults entering into a contract. Just like any adult people can.

If you agree with gay marriage, what is the difference between that and polygamy?

Lord Bob August 29 2011 7:30 PM EDT

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "More PLEASE!"

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] August 29 2011 7:34 PM EDT

Marriage is so integrated in society. I cannot imagine any democratic place without it.

It is about family, love and mutual respect.

And this would be why I am for marriage between consenting adults and why if it is not allowed it is discriminatory.

As for polygamy I think that it is alright provided it is equal status between all members and it is between all members involved. That is the women are also married to each other and the men are married to each other as well.

QBOddBird August 29 2011 7:39 PM EDT

Ranger, are you under the impression that members of the same sex cannot love or have mutual respect for one another?

I only ask in an attempt to understand why this is included in your argument against same-sex marriages.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 29 2011 7:44 PM EDT

I believe there is a pretty strong precedent for legal partnerships including more than two individuals. I'm not sure what business it is of mine how much trouble you decided you could handle, let alone the governments.

As long as marriage is a legal term with legal benefits I'm not sure you can fairly exclude folks. Personally I'm in favor of the elimination of it as a legal status, the terms of the contract are terribly vague.

Outside of the specter of teenage girls being enslaved as baby machines I'm not really sure why anyone cares about the who, what, and why of a partnership. They're voluntarily entering into a legal contract, why the hell do you care how many of them there are?

No one is forcing anyone else into one of these polyamorus fascistic liberal marriage trampling legal agreements, what is there to be against?

QBRanger August 29 2011 7:51 PM EDT

Ranger, are you under the impression that members of the same sex cannot love or have mutual respect for one another?

I never stated that members of the same sex cannot love each other.

I stated marriage as the institution is more of a religious ceremony. I prefer civil unions with all the rights that are accorded to married couples as the alternative.

No one is forcing anyone else into one of these polyamorus fascistic liberal marriage trampling legal agreements, what is there to be against?

So I take it you are for polygamy. Just wanted to know how you felt about this.

QBOddBird August 29 2011 7:55 PM EDT

Eh, I've never seen marriage as a religious institution, primarily because people of differing religions - as well as non-religious folk - all get married. As a result, I don't see why we would offer same sex couples the exact same benefits as marriage, but refuse to allow them to call themselves married. It's like saying "fine, you can have your union, but just so you know it's not /real/ marriage."

Well, in my mind, at least.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 29 2011 7:58 PM EDT

Are you for the releasing of violent criminals?

I'm sure you're not, but if you were asked a question about if you felt that anyone convicted of a violent crime should be locked up for life without the possibility of parole the answer might be different... so you much therefor support the release of violent criminals.

I'm against legalized discrimination

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 29 2011 8:00 PM EDT

Religious institutions providing framework for a harmonious committed relationship between two heterosexuals. Awesome!

Religious institutions being recognized by the government? Awesome!

Government recognizes certain classes of individuals being discriminated against based on religious dogma and decides to expands rights of individuals in the name of freedom. Even more awesome!

And yet, Ranger is still unhappy about the situation. Come on dude, you've seen the very happy gay couples getting married on the news. What right do you have to say those people shouldn't get to experience the joy that you've obviously found in marriage?

QBRanger August 29 2011 8:10 PM EDT

I'm against legalized discrimination

Are you for affirmative action? That is discrimination. Do not even try to state it is not.

There are plenty of other cases of legalized discrimination. Age quotas on some professions, etc..

But for a liberal, some forms of discrimination are ok?

What right do you have to say those people shouldn't get to experience the joy that you've obviously found in marriage?

They have every right to find their soulmate and enjoy a life together. They have every right to have a civil union and enjoy all the benefits and consequences of getting "married".

The endpoint of gay marriage is different than that of male/female marriages. There certainly is a difference even though you refuse to acknowledge it.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 29 2011 8:19 PM EDT

>They have every right to find their soulmate and enjoy a life together. They have every right to have a civil union and enjoy all the benefits and consequences of getting "married".

The endpoint of gay marriage is different than that of male/female marriages. There certainly is a difference even though you refuse to acknowledge it.

Why does the end point of a marriage have to do with why someone can't have it? Marriage is just a symbolic ritual that our government has chosen to recognize. We're not living in some neolithic stone age where people must be controlled through top-down religious dogma anymore. The fact is, there are gay people, these people deserve to be happy, and they contribute more to society when they have the same stability of a loving relationship in marriage then if they are loosely defined as "dating" or "living together".

Demigod August 29 2011 8:20 PM EDT

::sigh::

I'd say we should make a poll about it, but I already found this:
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002qW0

QBRanger August 29 2011 8:25 PM EDT

The fact is, there are gay people, these people deserve to be happy, and they contribute more to society when they have the same stability of a loving relationship in marriage then if they are loosely defined as "dating" or "living together".

So why, if the benefits and consequences of a civil union and marriage are the same, why are so you intent on it must be the exact same if heterosexual and homosexual?

I have no problems with what they do in the bedroom. No problems with gays having the same rights and other benefits/consequences as other people who are married.

But to me and some others, marriage designates a religious event.

It is how I feel and I am quite disappointed you cannot respect that. But that is the typical liberal. Their point of view is always right and whoever disagrees is always wrong.

QBOddBird August 29 2011 8:32 PM EDT

But it's an inter-religious ritual; that is to say, it is used in many different cultures and religions. Non-religious people get married, and let's be honest, it is a social and cultural thing more than religious in this country.

So why, if the benefits and consequences of a civil union and marriage are the same, why are so you intent on it must be the exact same if heterosexual and homosexual?

Why are you so against allowing homosexual couples to be called married? The fact is, currently a civil union and a marriage are not equivalent at all.

http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

Now the question is, if it is a cultural and societal institution just as much as a religious one, why do you feel that your religion should be considered the factor that is allowed to impose on the rights of others?

Demigod August 29 2011 8:33 PM EDT

"So why, if the benefits and consequences of a civil union and marriage are the same, why are so you intent on it must be the exact same if heterosexual and homosexual"

Apparently you missed the Jim Crow comment above. It's because separate-but-equal is discrimination.

"But to me and some others, marriage designates a religious event."

Then let the church or synogogue not recognize it. I'm talking about the government, not the religious institution. The government opened the door by recognizing marriage. Now it must do so without discrimination.
I wish the easy quotes worked with HTML activated...

QBRanger August 29 2011 8:42 PM EDT

The Jim Crow laws stated "separate but equal". But we all know they were certainly separate but not equal. Schools, hotels, etc.. were nothing near equal. Private parties such as businesses, political parties and unions created their own Jim Crow arrangements, barring blacks from buying homes in certain neighborhoods, from shopping or working in certain stores, from working at certain trades. Such discrimination is now forbidden due to the civil rights laws.

A civil union and marriage would be the exact same with the exact same benefits and consequences. Show me where it would not. The only place would be that heterosexual marriages are recognized by all states, while presently marriages and civil unions of homosexuals are not. Which certainly is a states right. It is called reciprocity.

QBOddBird August 29 2011 8:51 PM EDT

You entirely dodged his point about seperate-but-equal being discrimination by pointing out that in the past, they weren't equal.

It's proof enough that there is a difference, that there is discrimination, in the nature inherent to your intense disapproval of using the term marriage for a union between members of the same sex.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 29 2011 9:06 PM EDT

The govt. should just do civil unions between consenting adults, and let marriage be purely church based.

QBRanger August 29 2011 9:36 PM EDT

Titan 9:06 PM EDT
The govt. should just do civil unions between consenting adults, and let marriage be purely church based.

Exactly. Have both give the same rights under the law.

I know by "church based", you mean religion based.

But back to the OP, I cannot see Bachmann getting the nomination. I can see her finishing third in the primaries. Giving her career a nice boost and giving her a lot more exposure. Unfortunately, she is the extreme of the right wing of the Republican party. Even to the right of most tea party members.

On the other extreme of the Republican party is RomNey. Your typical north-eastern Republican, which is more moderate Democrat than anything. True Republican never win office in those states. RomNeycare is a large liability which could give Obama one way to deflect the oncoming assaults of Obamacare that will occur next year. Whether or not the Supremes hear the case by then. He waffles on almost every major subject, saying what he thinks the votes want to hear. Only 1 term as a Governor. Made most of his money with leveraged buyouts, which did put a bunch of people out of jobs. He did save the Olympics and turned them a profit. Very sharp businessman.

Perry is, to me, not the ideal candidate, but is the best of the three by far. The major problem I have with him is his stance on immigration. In addition to giving state tuition to illegal residents, he is against the border fence. His record on job creation is by far the best in the US. His views on regulation of the workplace are very equal to mine. The "largest" tax increase in Texas was nothing of the sort. He lowered property taxes and raised a Franchise Tax. Which for those "corporations are evil" people" out there, should make them like the Governor.

Is Perry the best of all the candidates so far, yes by far. Will he get the nomination? I think he will unless the MSM is so scared of him beating Obama, they give him the Sarah Palin treatment.

Like this untrue article about Issa:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/us/politics/15issa.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

For which they already have had to do 2 front page retractions and are considering more.

If Perry is the nominee, he will certainly beat Obama for numerous reasons, but highest is his record of job creation vs Obamas. The economy of Texas is doing very well compared to the rest of the country. I do not see how Obama can win with 9+% unemployment, a housing market that continues to lose value, and all his anti-success rhetoric.

I certainly do not see the economy now turning around unless Obama makes a gigantic pivot to the middle and changes his strategy. The Keynesian policies are just not working.

That's my take on the candidates and the upcoming general election.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] August 29 2011 9:51 PM EDT

Exactly. Have both give the same rights under the law.

Why would both need to confer rights at all? If the government approves Civil Unions in lieu of marriages, then all rights come with Civil Unions. Marriage is a sacrament and confers no legal right to anything beyond lots of prettily-wrapped swag.

And, yes, for all the Religious Right's "We are being persecuted" spam claiming that The Institution of Marriage is under attack by crazy homos: Absolutely. Marriage is a sacrament. Civil Unions are contractually-based legal representations, that can be defined by law.

Ergo: Let's get rid of marriage. Anyone currently married 35+ years can keep their "marriage" and be grandfathered in. Everybody else gets Civil Unions. If you want a wedding too, talk to your favorite religious leader about scheduling the floral deliveries.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 29 2011 10:24 PM EDT

Ergo: Let's get rid of marriage. Anyone currently married 35+ years can keep their "marriage" and be grandfathered in. Everybody else gets Civil Unions. If you want a wedding too, talk to your favorite religious leader about scheduling the floral deliveries.

Yes.

Lord Bob August 29 2011 11:04 PM EDT

Ergo: Let's get rid of marriage. Anyone currently married 35+ years can keep their "marriage" and be grandfathered in. Everybody else gets Civil Unions. If you want a wedding too, talk to your favorite religious leader about scheduling the floral deliveries.
Double yes.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 31 2011 3:27 PM EDT

for a more balanced take on perry's texas economic record read here:

http://factcheck.org/2011/08/texas-size-recovery/

QBRanger August 31 2011 3:40 PM EDT

So one of the main reasons Texas does not have as much of a housing crisis is due to better requirements to buy a house? Like actually having money for a downpayment?

Barney Frank must be having a seizure at the thought.

Yes. Governor can have a large impact on a states economy. As evidence by the population growth compared to a similar state like California that has tons of business regulations.

So are people willing to give Perry props?

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 31 2011 3:48 PM EDT

Well his website kind of sucks; :P. I did a little more research. Learned both are for nuclear power, which is awesome. I have to say they seem pretty similar, at least at face value beliefs that is. Looking forward to seeing some debates so I can actually get a read on them.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 31 2011 3:48 PM EDT

props for unemployment growth perhaps? underpaid workers? ones with no benefits? our under-educated work-force here in texas? what do you see in that article, directly attributed to perry, that deserves "props"?

QBRanger August 31 2011 4:32 PM EDT

This article is about the best I have seen about Rick Perry and Texas jobs.

Takes the data and easily spells it out:

http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590

This article address the unemployment numbers, the supposed minimum wage jobs, the oil boom in Texas and the public sector job growth.

Rick Perry for President!1

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] August 31 2011 4:47 PM EDT

Wow, that's a great article Ranger, maybe one of the best you've ever linked. For just being a blog that guy has amazing analysis and great source citing.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 31 2011 5:04 PM EDT

i can really only speak from experience and this article describes what is happening now in texas better than any i have seen. i have said before that my wife is a public school teacher. her school, due to budget cuts, has not hired to replace any lost teachers. this has made her classroom populations increase by around fifty percent this year so far.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576470232177476242.html?mod=ITP_pageone_1

QBRanger August 31 2011 5:09 PM EDT

I would think the article I used addressed almost all the WSJ's points.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 31 2011 5:18 PM EDT

and the factcheck article addressed all the ones in your post, you still posted your link though. what exactly is your point?

QBRanger August 31 2011 6:02 PM EDT

The link I made actually went into the statistics and explained them. The factcheck post you made used the same superficial assumptions that the MSM are using.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 31 2011 6:05 PM EDT

i see plenty of statistics in the factcheck article, which ones are you not seeing? ; )

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 31 2011 6:09 PM EDT

who exactly is the author of your link, i cannot find any attribution whatsoever?

QBRanger August 31 2011 6:19 PM EDT

http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?page_id=245

There is a link to "about" on the top right.

i see plenty of statistics in the factcheck article, which ones are you not seeing? ; )

I see plenty also. However, my major in college was statistics. I know how leaving out key parts can skew things.

Take for instance politifact's statement about benefiting from high oil prices. The article I quoted states that even without the oil industry the job growth was more than any other state. Something politifact leaves out.

Also take the increase in government jobs politifact likes to state. Certainly there are more government jobs, but in proportion to the general population growth it is appropriate.

Also their approach to the minimum wage job fact is skewed. While there may a lot of min wage jobs, the average hourly wage is right in the middle of the pack.

The article I quoted is much more in depth and takes the analysis to a higher level.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 31 2011 6:24 PM EDT

not really, it leaves out some things that factcheck includes, like the numbers of people without health benefits in texas. i would actually recommend that people read all of the links for the best overall picture as there are merits to each.

with that being said, how do you feel about the author of your links article here:

http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1509

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 31 2011 6:26 PM EDT

I see plenty also. However, my major in college was statistics. I know how leaving out key parts can skew things.

which is why i posted the link in the first place, all we hear from the perry camp is that he has created jobs in texas while everyone else was losing jobs. that fits your description to a tee! there are many key parts left out that are skewing things.

QBRanger August 31 2011 6:53 PM EDT

Nothing is skewed.

Texas has created 40% of all the new jobs since 2007. It has min wage jobs but the average hourly wage job is right in line with every other state. It has built up the government workforce but that was due to census workers and the population explosion Texas has seen.

QBRanger August 31 2011 6:58 PM EDT

with that being said, how do you feel about the author of your links article here:

http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1509\

One HAS to click on the graph to see the whole thing however.

It is a very good article stating a few key points:
2. the Bush tax cuts are not wholly to blame for the deficit. If revenue had held steady at 2007 levels, we'd still be looking at record deficits based only on the spending increases.

At least someone else believes that this is true. The Bush tax cuts increased revenues from 03-07.

We do have a revenue problem, due to the recession. We need to make a fair or flat tax and get rid of all the special interest loophole that make companies like GE pay 0 income tax. That will increase revenue. We do not need more class-warfare in only the rich should pay their "fair share". Not while 47% pay no federal income tax and some even get money back.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 31 2011 6:59 PM EDT

hmm, factcheck says 47% but i am sure that is skewed as they leave out what doesn't suit their agenda! ; )

QBRanger August 31 2011 7:00 PM EDT

Nah, 47% is a number almost everyone agrees on. It is a simple stat accepted by almost everyone.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 31 2011 7:26 PM EDT

We do have a revenue problem, due to the recession.

sorry, i do not see where the author states that it is due to the recession. is that just your opinion?

QBRanger August 31 2011 7:50 PM EDT

sorry, i do not see where the author states that it is due to the recession. is that just your opinion?

1. our current deficit is driven by BOTH a dramatic increase in spending and a devastating decline in revenue.

The devastating decline in revenue due to ?? The recession of course, which I had thought was quite obvious.

If you do not believe that the recession is the cause of the decline in revenue, please let me know what your basis is for the drop in revenue the last 2 years.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] September 1 2011 7:08 AM EDT


Does anyone else hear "Thunder and Blazes"?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 7:25 AM EDT

If you do not believe that the recession is the cause of the decline in revenue, please let me know what your basis is for the drop in revenue the last 2 years.

ah, now you specify the last two years. our revenue issues have been going on for longer than that though and has only been exacerbated in the last two years by the recession.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 7:34 AM EDT

that is where opinion comes into play, it seems that you think our revenue issues just started with the recession therefore you state that as fact above that it is due to that. in my opinion our revenue issues have been going on for 35 years or more and have gotten much worse since 2000 and then hella bad in the last two years.

just like everything else in these political debates though i likely won't change your mind, nor will you change mine and everyone else is ignoring us by this point...except for bast! ; )

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 9:52 AM EDT

everyone else is ignoring us by this point...except for bast!

I'm still reading... though you did derail my thread a little XD

QBsutekh137 September 1 2011 10:49 AM EDT

Texas has created 40% of all the new jobs since 2007. It has min wage jobs but the average hourly wage job is right in line with every other state. It has built up the government workforce but that was due to census workers and the population explosion Texas has seen.

It's funny you keep talking about "job creation"... What about actual unemployment rate?

Like most states, unemployment in Texas skyrocketed between 2008 and 2010. It has remained relatively level since then, and as of July 2011 is around 8.4%.

That's not bad, the national average is around 9.1%. But it's not great, either. You can talk about job creation all you want, but that is like talking only about how great ice cream tastes while ignoring its caloric effect. You're just talking the upside, when jobs are lost every day, too. Genuine, bottom line question for you: shouldn't we be focusing on the unemployment rate?

By that metric, I guess you think Scott Walker (WI gov.) would be a better president than Perry -- WI unemployment rate is at just below 8%. Funny, though, unemployment dipped throughout 2010, from around 9% to as low as around 7.4%. Since the start of 2011, about, the rate has gone back up around 0.6%. Looks like Walker's Reagonomics is failing pretty miserably thus far. Well, except that by giving corporate tax breaks and generating a deficit, he was able to ram-rod Union busting legislature through even AFTER the Unions agreed to cuts that would balance the budget.

So, Ranger, Scott Walker for Pres? He's got WI at a lower unemployment rate than TX, so if it is about jobs, then doesn't he sound like a better candidate? Bonus question: why are Walker's trickle-down economic policies failing so miserably? Where are the jobs?

As for gay marriage, I haven't read every post, but am I right in saying you mentioned marriage is often a religious ceremony, and that it should be defined as between a man and woman? Defined how? If defined in federal law or a Constitutional amendment, wouldn't that be an egregious mix of church and state (if marriage is considered a largely religion-based institution?

I liked your dodge of the overall question "because marriage is just too ingrained in society", but that is quite the cop out, no? There's no issue we can't talk about or get our heads around, is there? Didn't you go to school for a really long time? I know I did. And we can't even try to discuss this because it's just too...unimaginable? Could you clarify what you mean by that?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 10:51 AM EDT

i REVIVED it...then promptly derailed the hell out of it! for that i apologize.

Origame September 1 2011 10:53 AM EDT

Obama is the man, he's done so much already! Gobama in 2012

Origame September 1 2011 10:54 AM EDT

Nah, just kidding. We just need to displace the old guard that sitting pretty in congress right now.

QBRanger September 1 2011 10:57 AM EDT

Sut,

Did you actually read the article I referenced that explained the unemployment rate in Texas?

Apparently not.

As to Scott Walker, well he has been in office less than 1 year, compared to 11 for Perry. But Walker is doing a great job in WI. School districts are now saving money with his new laws. Especially from the WEA trust monopoly that was nothing more than additional profits to the teachers union.

Defined how?

It is already defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

A law already on the book that our current president refuses to defend because he thinks it is bad. Disregard that fact that as president he is responsible for defending all the laws in the nation, he picks what he wants to accept. Disregard the fact the DOMA was passed by bipartisan support.

QBRanger September 1 2011 11:10 AM EDT

Well, except that by giving corporate tax breaks and generating a deficit, he was able to ram-rod Union busting legislature through even AFTER the Unions agreed to cuts that would balance the budget.

It was more than unions paying a bit more for retirement and medical. It was breaking up things like the WEA trust monopoly for medical benefits.

http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20110629/APC0101/110629072/Kaukauna-Area-School-District-projects-1-5-million-surplus-after-contract-changes-health-care-retirement-savings

http://maciverinstitute.com/2011/07/wisconsin-school-districts-are-switching-health-care-providersplans-to-create-savings-in-2011/

QBsutekh137 September 1 2011 11:26 AM EDT

Did you actually read the article I referenced that explained the unemployment rate in Texas?

No, I sure didn't. I want to know what YOU think of the issue, not some article. Do you have any independent thoughts on why you keep referring to "job creation" rather than "unemployment rate" as a metric for how an executive does, overall, in terms of the jobs portion of the economy?

If I read every article you link to, thinking you have somehow won the debate by mere quantity of links, I'd never have time for anything else. Would you like me to post the several hundred links I could find on what an awful job Walker is doing, and what Wisconsonites think (sorry, you're not from here), and expect you to read every one? This is a debate thread, not a "look at how many articles I can find" thread. Talk is cheap (and easy to find (for both sides, especially on the Internet). So why would your citations be any more accurate or truth-bringing than mine?

>As to Scott Walker, well he has been in office less than 1 year, compared to 11 for Perry. But Walker is doing a great job in WI. School districts are now saving money with his new laws. Especially from the WEA trust monopoly that was nothing more than additional profits to the teachers union.

No, actually, he is doing a terrible job. How long should we wait before the voodoo-economics kicks in? I have the sneaking suspicion you would give him the benefit of the doubt for an indeterminate number of years, and even then would simply find articles explaining why it didn't work in this case (deflecting the real fact that his supply-side tactics and bullying simply are not working). Two fellow Republicans were already recalled, while no Democrats ended up being recalled. I think that says a little more than some article would about what Wisconsin folks are thinking at the moment, wouldn't you?

If Walker himself gets recalled, will that be indication enough that he is and has been a terrible governor for the state of Wisconsin? Or will you still find articles on how the recall must have been in error?

A law already on the book that our current president refuses to defend because he thinks it is bad. Disregard that fact that as president he is responsible for defending all the laws in the nation, he picks what he wants to accept. Disregard the fact the DOMA was passed by bipartisan support.

There is a law on the books that defines marriage, what you previously acknowledged as a mostly-religious-based act? Yikes, isn't that a mixing of church and state? What is the point of enforcing such a bill? If it is mixing church and state in the way you've already admitted, I assume the Supreme Court would overturn it anyway, wouldn't they?

Or, from another angle, if homosexuals were to all form a religion, join up, and get "married" within the confines of that religion (it's in quotes because let's remember, it's just a fracking word), would that allow them to call it "marriage" in your eyes? After all, Freedom of Religion is an older and more basic right than some newer law like the DOMA, isn't it?

QBRanger September 1 2011 11:39 AM EDT

The article I quoted states the view on the unemployment rate far better than my less than optimal command of the English language ever could. But in quick version:

People are flocking to Texas in massive numbers. This is speculative, but it *seems* that people are moving to Texas looking for jobs rather than moving to Texas for a job they already have lined up. This would explain why Texas is adding jobs faster than any other state but still has a relatively high unemployment rate.

So as opposed to a state that is hiring with a stagnant population, Texas's population is growing at a very fast rate.

As to Walker, why is he doing a bad job? I read that school districts are now in the black. Saving money and some even hiring teachers.

In June 9k jobs were created compared to 18k the entire country. I do not have data for the more recent months.

Now teachers are not forced to give money to the teachers union unless they want to belong to it. More money to their pockets instead of their union overlords who spend it on politics. Now, if a teacher wishes to be part of a union, great. If not, great. It is their choice and would you not agree that choice is a good thing? Not being forced to give your money to someone just to keep your job is a good thing?

As to the recall elections: The 2 recalled Rs were problem candidates. One left his wife and moved in with his 20ish year old mistress. The other was in a highly D county. Pfft. Shows nothing significant to me.

As to marriage, if the gay community makes a religion that is more than just a cult, a recognized religion, then I guess that would be marriage. If the sky turns red, it would still be red, I guess.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 11:44 AM EDT

So as opposed to a state that is hiring with a stagnant population, Texas's population is growing at a very fast rate.

on a federal level this could be accomplished by opening our borders to mexico. the u.s. could then claim major job creation whilst the unemployment actually rises. that would be very comparable to what is happening in texas. if perry did this would you support it? it would be creating jobs in the u.s.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 11:51 AM EDT



That's unemployment rate with current job numbers compared to pre recession population. As you can see TX is doing amazing, WI is doing anything but. You really should read the link Sut.

Since the recession almost 740k people have moved into TX, while WI is still down about 120k. This is the only reason the unemployment rate is near the average. Because people are flocking there by the dozen in hopes of finding a job. About the only argument that one could argue is that this isn't Perry's fault. Which is the approach that dudemus tried to take.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 12:03 PM EDT

this is from the factcheck article:

While Texas has created jobs, the state hasn't created enough of them to keep pace with a rising population and labor force. In fact, if we look at the June 2009 starting point that Perry refers to, unemployment got worse in Texas ヨ going from 7.7 percent in June 2009 to 8.4 percent in July 2011. The national rate, meanwhile, improved ヨ dropping from 9.5 percent to 9.1 percent.

the unemployment numbers seem to be based on current population. it isn't trying to compare anything that i can see to pre-recession population. it is comparing texas unemployment to that of the national rate.

you could say, and i would agree, that we can all find stats to support our point of view.

with that in mind, how can texas' growth be applied to the national level?

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 12:08 PM EDT

The reason states such as WI have lower unemployment rate than they should is b/c the unemployed left their state. While people from say WI moved to Texas to find a job. It's not a hard concept.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 12:13 PM EDT

it must be difficult to grasp as you are still comparing state to state which has nothing to do with what i posted. texas went up while the country as a whole went down. ; )

but again, even if perry was able to bring these droves to texas, how could this work on a national level?

QBsutekh137 September 1 2011 12:18 PM EDT

What do I care about that particular analysis of the statistics if I am someone looking for a job? Unemployment is unemployment, isn't it? The stats can be sliced and diced any way they want (and yes, I understand that job creation is an important aspect of those numbers, good for Perry!). And I'm not defending anyone, certainly not Walker. I KNOW he is doing a terrible job, and I don't need to see various re-jiggering of the numbers to know that. I live here. I hear real people, not article pundits, talking about what they have experienced. I have a sister-in-law (a teacher) who was near-continuously ill throughout the whole budget fiasco back in February (and contrary to popular belief, she isn't amazingly rich and powerful because of the teacher union). I don't need a graph to see and feel unease.

Schools are in the black? They would have been in the same black if Walker hadn't spent millions on corporate tax breaks as soon as he got into office. Here are the facts that many folks seem to keep forgetting (or perhaps never heard):

-- The previous Gov wanted to work with schools on contracts, etc. before he left office at the end of 2010. Walker said "no, don't, I'll handle it". At that point, the budget was roughly in balance, certainly no immediate crisis at hand.
-- Walker got into office and spent a huge amount on immediate tax breaks for corporations meant to make WI "Open for business". He did this by DE-balancing the budget into deficit territory.
-- Coincidentally, nearly that same amount (well, not a coincidence I guess, since the budget was roughly in balance before) was then asked for from public workers in the forms of benefits and tax cuts.
-- Bedlam ensued for a day or two, and then the unions said they would comply. The Budget could be restored.
-- Walker said "no". He said the cuts had to also be accompanied with all of the other union busting language. It was all or nothing, and he insisted that hey, he had no choice but to start laying people off if they didn't fully capitulate. In fact, he did have a choice. Go with the agreed-to cuts, then come to the table and talk with the Unions about the future. He refused to do that.
-- More bedlam ensued, including Dems playing dirty tricks like leaving the state to void law-making capabilities of Walker's congress. That was lame. However, in subsequent recall elections, two Republicans have been ousted while two Dems who were up for recall remained in power. Lame or not, the people of Wisconsin have offered a form of tacit approval, at least if voting is counted as a voice.
-- Next up will be the attempted recall of Walker. I figure that is going to be a mess for both sides, as Walker DOES have a lot of support up here. I don't however, think getting the recall itself in place will be hard. Judging by the million+ votes Ohio got (or was it Indiana?) when they only needed 400K to overturn a similar bill, I have no doubt there will be plenty of votes to get the recall going. Getting a good alternative and getting him her elected, however (especially with Feingold opting out) will be a struggle, I think.

The dots seem pretty clear to me, and they are easy to connect. And the cherry on the sundae is that WI unemployment is rising (even with a stagnant population, I now see!). Small business owners (and some medium-sized) who have been interviewed on NPR have said, directly, the tax cuts and incentives aren't causing them to hire new people. The ones who have hired would have hired anyway, and the ones that don't don't because they just don't have the orders. What is the point of hiring someone, looking good on paper, only to have to lay them off later if things still haven't picked up? At this point, anyway, supply-side economics is not working for Wisconsin, despite Walker creating a budget crisis out of it.

Does that redux, from someone actually living in WI (gainfully employed, non-public sector, not a registered Democrat, no axe to grind) shed any light on things?

QBRanger September 1 2011 12:19 PM EDT

but again, even if perry was able to bring these droves to texas, how could this work on a national level?

That is the question to be answered.

If you look at the business climate in Texas compared to that in Washington you can see a difference. Texas does not demonize success like DC. It does not say that making a profit is a bad thing. It allows its natural resources to be used, unless the current DC administration.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 12:20 PM EDT

1) If you compare state to nation, you also have to look at why the nation went down, or why the state went down. The single reason the unemployment rate went up in Texas is because of increase in population.

2) If you increase the number of jobs, it should decrease the unemployment, city, state, nation wide...

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 12:23 PM EDT

ranger, the only two ways to increase population is through birth and immigration, no?

titan, look at it this way: if an unemployed person moves to texas and gets a job there then national unemployment rate goes down and texas remains the same. if an unemployed person moves to texas and fails to find a job, nationwide unemployment is unaffected and texas unemployment goes down. the only way to make the nationwide go down while texas goes up is if an employed person from another state moves to texas and cannot find a job and is replaced by someone who was unemployed in his previous state.

this is exactly what the factcheck article states, that texas is not keeping pace in job creation with its population growth!

QBRanger September 1 2011 12:31 PM EDT

Again Sut,

The unions concessions into paying a bit for their retirement and medical was part of the problem.

The other changes, such as the ability for districts to seek other insurance agencies other than WEA was a major help in saving school districts a lot of money.

Doyle's contract with the unions prior to Walker was not enough in concessions. That contract did not ask the unions for any money toward retirement and medical. Once Walker got elected, only then did the unions finally agree to anything.

Yes, the dots are crystal clear. The unions give money to the Democrats, who give them sweetheart contracts. When the populace of WI voted in a Republican who wanted concessions then the Democrats fled rather than face the fact they lost the election.

The current laws have saved townships major money.

The tax breaks for business is helping as evidence by WI having the 2nd highest new jobs in June. I do not have data for the more current months.

Also, teachers now have a choice whether they want to join the union and give the union overlords money or keep the money for themselves and their families.

I see nothing but good things up there.

QBsutekh137 September 1 2011 12:33 PM EDT

Still, that's a preferable, dynamic problem to have, isn't it?

There are always going to be stat aberrations in a "hot" area, as moves in might go over what reality can support. It's not like the job market has "immediate seating available" signs or that people can easily move to and fro on a whim. *smile*

If the TX job creation is a stable, ongoing thing, it should level out and TX unemployment should keep going down.

QBRanger September 1 2011 12:36 PM EDT

If the TX job creation is a stable, ongoing thing, it should level out and TX unemployment should keep going down.

Certainly if nobody new moves to Texas. However it is growing faster than any state. Picked up 4 Reps in the house.

As long as people flock to Texas, how can the unemployment go way down?

It is still amazing that it is below the national average with all the influx of new citizens.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 12:38 PM EDT

the problem, as i see it, with job creation from population growth is that it is unsustainable even in the short term. forget the simple fact that there is not an un-limited supply of people wanting to move to texas but just look at it from the logistics standpoint.

when people are coming en-masse, then for a short time more jobs are created than those people coming in. for example, a family of four moves in with two people then needing jobs, but to create a home for them more than two people will have a job. this is a net gain in jobs. however, once their house is finished, those jobs will go away.

that is what we are seeing in texas in my opinion. jobs were created during the boom time and with the problems in the rest of the country more people came and it fed itself for a while. remember the housing boom, we have a growth boom here that will likely burst at some point.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 12:40 PM EDT

titan, look at it this way: if an unemployed person moves to texas and gets a job there then national unemployment rate goes down and texas remains the same. if an unemployed person moves to texas and fails to find a job, nationwide unemployment is unaffected and texas unemployment goes down. the only way to make the nationwide go down while texas goes up is if an employed person from another state moves to texas and cannot find a job and is replaced by someone who was unemployed in his previous state

3 states add 20k jobs, TX adds 40k jobs, 3 states lose 10k jobs

70k people move to TX

Boom! TX suddenly did the best job of adding jobs, yet their unemployment went up compared to the whole. While fact check does a great job of stating facts, they don't do a very good job of analyzing those facts. I think they even try to stay away from doing that.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 12:42 PM EDT

the problem, as i see it, with job creation from population growth is that it is unsustainable even in the short term.

I don't remember you linking a fact checker article that proved that the employment growth in TX was just do to population rise :P

Which came first the chicken or the egg? That's basically what we're talking about here, and it's going to be impossible to prove either side.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 12:43 PM EDT

uhh, wouldn't that be only 30k moving to texas? if texas created 40k jobs then they are still going down in unemployment rate.

what did you say about factcheck? ; )

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 12:45 PM EDT

i didn't have to link it, ranger did and you approved of his blogger's data!

The reason is that people are flocking to Texas in massive numbers. Starting at the beginning of the recession (December 2007), let's look at how this set of states have grown in their labor force.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 12:48 PM EDT

it was in the factcheck article as well though and seems to be the one point everyone agrees upon.

Perry's record is part of a long-term trend. Texas has done well in the jobs department for decades. "This point goes neglected," says Bernard L. Weinstein, professor of business economics in the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "Yes, Texas has created more jobs than any other state" in the last two years. "But thatメs been true since 1970. For the last 41 years Texas has added more jobs than any other state, and in most years, has led the nation in job creation," Weinstein told us. "So Gov. Perry can claim that these jobs were created on his watch, but they were created on everybody elseメs watch too."

The San Antonio-Express News recently pointed out that past Texas governors have done well in terms of job creation, too. The state did even better when George W. Bush was governor; jobs went up 20.3 percent, though Bush's 1995-2000 term also came during prosperous times. "A lot of what weメre doing is growing like we always grew," Dick Lavine, senior fiscal analyst for the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin, a think tank that advocates for low- and moderate-income families, told us, referring to both jobs and the state's burgeoning population. "Itメs a longer-term trend in Texas thatメs just continuing."

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 12:52 PM EDT

uhh, wouldn't that be only 30k moving to texas? if texas created 40k jobs then they are still going down in unemployment rate.
what did you say about factcheck? ; )

That assumes that people are rational, have perfect knowledge, and that the only reason people move are b/c of jobs. I could give a more perfect example. But, I didn't think it was necessary.

I added North Dakota to my list of states to show something very important. North Dakota currently has the lowest unemployment rate of any state at 3.2%. And yet Texas is adding jobs at a faster rate than North Dakota. How can this be?
The reason is that people are flocking to Texas in massive numbers.

Get all of the quote when you quote. He's saying the reason the *unemployment* numbers are high is b/c of population increases.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 12:53 PM EDT

Basically, you're saying the reason jobs were created was because of the growth in population, while Ranger is saying it's the other way around. I'm saying it's going to be impossible to prove either way.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 12:58 PM EDT

ok, so more people move than have jobs in texas. this was all that the factcheck article was stating. we aren't keeping up with the population growth in job creation.

i certainly wasn't trying to mislead by quoting that part. he covers several things and i read it as the reason for all of those is the population growth. reading the paragraphs on either side of my quote, i still stand by that.

everything i have read attributes the job creation to our population growth. if you choose to ignore all of that then i am unsure what i can say to convince you of what most accept as fact.

i also haven't seen ranger claim otherwise, it seemed to me that he also understood that the job creation was due to the population growth. maybe he can correct me if i am wrong on that count.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 1:14 PM EDT

3 states add 20k jobs, TX adds 40k jobs, 3 states lose 10k jobs

70k people move to TX

actually the other 40k have to be accounted for in your example. either they had jobs where they lived or they didn't, either way though they will affect the numbers where they left and then when they get to texas so you can't just pull them out of the air.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 1:20 PM EDT

everything i have read attributes the job creation to our population growth

Link please

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 4:32 PM EDT

i will tell you where i read it if you tell me where the 40,000 magic people came in with your example! ; )

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 4:45 PM EDT

3 states add 20k jobs, TX adds 40k jobs, 3 states lose 25k jobs

I made up numbers. There that's more reasonable. 100k total jobs gained, 75k lost. National unemployment would go down, TX's would go up.

Although numbers don't matter. It's the concept that matters.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 4:48 PM EDT

Remember, not everyone who moves had to already have a job. They could have already been unemployed, or not looking for a job. Then when the job losses happened they were unaffected. Then, they saw that TX was doing well, so they moved there. There's a lot of ways you can make both sides true. Which is why I was asking for the links.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 4:49 PM EDT

how many are moving to texas then? you have to determine that before you can say what texas did?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 4:53 PM EDT

not really, if you lost a job in another state and then move it is reported for where you lost it. you also can't be just not looking or not employed and then go get on unemployment. these numbers are very specific and well tracked. you cannot really fudge these numbers.

the factcheck article above attributes much of the job growth to the population increase. every news article i have read since perry started touting that has stated the same thing but let me see if i can find a source that might be more acceptable. ; )

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 4:54 PM EDT

got one:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/did-rick-perry-create-the-texas-miracle-54325/

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 4:58 PM EDT

you also can't be just not looking or not employed and then go get on unemployment. these numbers are very specific and well tracked. you cannot really fudge these numbers.

You not understanding me. I'll post a complete example tonight.

Thanks for the link

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 5:16 PM EDT

wow, i was wrong! i learned something today. here is a great description of how the unemployment numbers are obtained and after reading it i have no idea what the blogger in the link is talking about with pre-recession population (perhaps he was talking about another set of numbers other than what factcheck presented?):

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

with that being said and after reading how they get the numbers. i still see no manner in which a scenario could pan out where texas has a higher unemployment rate than the nation and it isn't due to the fact that its job creation rate isn't staying up with its population increase rate. which is what factcheck stated and what i have been saying.

what i really would like to know though is how are people in the samples handled if they move from one state to another during their sampling period.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 5:36 PM EDT

What was different than what you thought?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 5:43 PM EDT

i thought it was at least somewhat based on ui and somewhat random sampling. i also didn't realize they used the same people consecutively for certain periods. it is news to me as well that people who have been sampled often won't know what their classification is at the end of an interview.

these all make it more accurate though rather than less. i would still like to know how people moving across state lines is treated in the system.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] September 1 2011 5:51 PM EDT

on ui and somewhat random sampling

What's UI?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] September 1 2011 6:03 PM EDT

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] September 1 2011 9:51 PM EDT

Perry has nothing to do with the wild west, immigrant slaving, money bovine that is Texas. Few of his business reforms did help large corps, but that didn't mean they were good for the state. The jobs creation claim is politics as usual.

QBRanger September 1 2011 9:54 PM EDT

The jobs claim is correct, and is going to be a big point in the upcoming election.

What Perry did best is get out of the way and not have excessive regulations. Such as is happening now with the NLRB vs Boeing.

The fact Texas is a right to work state is also a huge plus. I do not think anyone disputes the amount of jobs Texas has created, or its enormous population growth.

QBsutekh137 September 2 2011 9:23 AM EDT

As long as people flock to Texas, how can the unemployment go way down?

Because that will level out over time, as I said. The population growth is the spikier of the two things going on.

QBsutekh137 September 2 2011 9:48 AM EDT

Doyle's contract with the unions prior to Walker was not enough in concessions. That contract did not ask the unions for any money toward retirement and medical. Once Walker got elected, only then did the unions finally agree to anything.

It is interesting how much you can write and not really address _anything_ in my post. But, I suppose if I don't read linked articles, the next logical step is for people to not even read my posts. *smile*

I never said the union contracts (prior to 2011) were enough. But read these points of fact:

-- Doyle WAS going to speak with the unions BEFORE the end of his term. We've no idea what they would have negotiated. Doyle could see the writing on the economic wall even as unemployment was coming down for WI all through 2010 (funny, that!). Since he was actually going to sit at a table and TALK with them, he could very well have gotten everything you asked for. We'll never know.
-- We DO know that in WI, public sector workers aren't really that much better off than private sector workers. To hear right-wing folks talk about it, you'd expect teachers and gov't employees up here to all be driving around in Rolls Royces eating Filet Mignon off sticks. That's just not factual, though. That's proof that the unions aren't some sort of money-grubbing up up up entity. When the going gets tough, they were willing to talk, first to Doyle and then to Walker. Doyle was told to never mind (by Walker), and then Walker simply said "no". How is unwillingness to converse EVER a good thing?
-- Yes, the unions agreed to changes once faced with the deficit (that Walker created, and which has had no positive effect on job creation thus far in 2011). They also agreed to go further -- discuss the future to a greater extent to see how these sorts of things could be prevented the next time. That's where Walker said "no". In fact, he made sure they could never talk that way again, removing collective bargaining rights for the Union. Not only would the guy not speak with them, he went one level further and removed their ABILITY to speak in the future! Again, can you tell me how refusal to even speak to someone when one is in the position of power is a good idea? Is that good leadership?

You seem to be posting as if never in the history of time have Unions done the right thing and worked with administrations or management for the better of their companies/nations. Is that what you think? That's some pretty drastic demonization, don't you think? Unions are just people, after all. I know I can't ask for a citation to prove no Union has ever done the right thing (it wouldn't be fair or logical to ask for proof of something not happening), so I'm just asking: do you not think working WITH the unions can be of benefit, especially when in a position of power (the unions aren't stupid, they know Walker has a Senate majority) and especially when working with a Union that isn't economically out of control (from a "lucrative" standpoint)?

And bear in mind when answering that Walker prevented such talking, twice, and created the budget deficit that brought the second situation to a head.

Yes, the dots are crystal clear. The unions give money to the Democrats, who give them sweetheart contracts. When the populace of WI voted in a Republican who wanted concessions then the Democrats fled rather than face the fact they lost the election.

You have slightly mis-spoken here. Walker GOT concessions. He had the concessions necessary to avert lay-offs and a budget crisis and would have had the Dems right there to vote for it. But the concessions he got were not enough for him -- he wanted complete capitulation rather than taking concessions to avert the current budget crisis and then go do the hard work of actually talking to his constituents and hammering out a better, longer-term, bilateral deal. THAT was when Dems fled, something I don't condone or agree with. But don't talk as if the Dems fled first, forcing Walker to become uncompromising. It was the other way around.

At least paint the man in the light he has shone upon himself. The last thing he needs is people writing revisionist, sugar-coated history about him just six months after he displayed the worst leadership in the nation using the diplomacy of a rattlesnake.

Lord Bob September 2 2011 12:25 PM EDT

More on Rick Perry:
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=5325

QBsutekh137 September 2 2011 12:46 PM EDT

Sadly, not too surprising, and I'm willing to bet that sort of stuff happens to a lot of politicians/candidates -- in both parties. Is there a good site for finding these sorts of incestuous relations, generically? By politician? It would be nice to get some perspective on whether or not Perry's behavior is that out of the ordinary considering corporate-funded politics in this country.

This article has some nice information about Ron Johnson's, Wisconsin's other terrible leader (Senator):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/ron-johnson-wisconsin-senator_n_884049.html

That article always makes my soul throw up a little. But again, I'm not sure it's all that different from a lot of other politicians. Dems included (hence me asking about a watchdog site...)

QBsutekh137 September 2 2011 5:57 PM EDT

One more Perrty tidbit, though it maybe says more about Texas than Perry (if the two can be separated...):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/cameron-todd-willingham-execution-rick-perry_n_946654.html?page=1

QBRanger September 2 2011 6:01 PM EDT

At least paint the man in the light he has shone upon himself. The last thing he needs is people writing revisionist, sugar-coated history about him just six months after he displayed the worst leadership in the nation using the diplomacy of a rattlesnake.

Since we do not agree on much, and you are using the Huffington Post for your reference, I will only address this statement.

How the Democrats passed Obamacare is the single worst leadership in the nation using the diplomacy of a rattlesnake.

Lord Bob September 2 2011 6:15 PM EDT

Filibustering health care reform, along with everything else passed by Democrats in the House, is the single worst leadership in the nation using the diplomacy of a rattlesnake.

See, I can do it too!

QBRanger September 2 2011 6:17 PM EDT

The Democrats used the filibuster quite a lot during the Bush years.

Lord Bob September 2 2011 6:58 PM EDT

And the Republicans used reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts. What's your point?

QBsutekh137 September 2 2011 10:50 PM EDT

It's funny Ranger... I've already agreed with you on other threads that I don't think Obama and the Dems did the best they could when they forced the health care issue. We agreed on that. You probably forgot.

(it's funny, your're response is also the best my dad could do in a recent discussion. wow.)

If that's the best comeback you have (because, yeah, your sources are so much better than the HuffPost, even though I never quoted them directly on the issues you and I were talking about -- go ahead, check!), then that's cool. I'll take the win. *smile*

Don't worry, though. You can rest assured you didn't address a single one of my points, and you used flat-out, blinkered, ignorant bluster every time you could have instead tried for common ground. You held your hill! Sleep tight!

Lord Bob September 3 2011 1:42 AM EDT

I don't think Obama and the Dems did the best they could when they forced the health care issue.
As someone on the same general side as you, can I ask you what you think could have been done better?

because, yeah, your sources are so much better than the HuffPost,
Ranger posts "sources" from Hotair and Fox, but decries HoffPo. Utterly laughable. I've resorted to using a tactic out of Ranger's own playbook that admittedly is a very valid one.

Ask, "do you dispute the facts presented in the article."

He will ask this when we dismiss a Fox News article, and rightfully so. When I ask the same of him when he dismisses an article from a left-leaning news site, to the best of my memory he has refused to respond (I am open to him proving me wrong by quoting himself, however).

Another example of Ranger's "It's only OK when the Right does it" mentality.

Lord Bob September 3 2011 3:12 AM EDT

Speaking of shoddy, rattlesnake-style leadership:
http://www.citizenvox.org/2011/07/26/confirm-richard-cordray/

But 44 Republican senators have pledged to oppose ANY director (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) unless the bureau is weakened first.

QBsutekh137 September 3 2011 9:17 AM EDT

Yeah, LB -- isn't lack of compromise wonderful! My favorite part is that so many constituents actually WANT it that way. Many Walker supporters offer their loyalty to the man simply because he "sticks to his guns", never minding that his guns are retarded, irrational, and overall progress-destroying.

What I didn't like about the health care stuff was that it was, at least in part, ram-rodded. The Dems had the votes and pushed it through. However, at least they DID ask for help from across the aisle, and more often than not they got the response, "Nah, tear it all down and start over" rather than "OK, let's work on this."

Summary: I think the uncompromising stance we have seen from Republicans in 2011 has been worse, but can't say with a clean mind that the Dems didn't also do _some_ railroading.

QBRanger September 3 2011 10:05 AM EDT

"Nah, tear it all down and start over" rather than "OK, let's work on this."

Actually the Republican tried to work across the aisle.

Every potential amendment was struck down by Reid. He filled the tree on the law that Republicans could not get anything they wanted or needed for compromise considered.

The Democrats got Obamacare passed, legally in proper protocol. However, his poll numbers, the election of 2010 and the poll numbers of this new law tell the story of how the general public feels out this overreach of a new unpaid for entitlement.

Which is why I think Romney is the least desirable candidate for the 12 election. It will take a huge advantage the Republican have and nullify it.

QBsutekh137 September 3 2011 10:21 AM EDT

You mean the same way Boehner (and Cantor. And Ryan, And several others) said flat-out "no" to any budget agreement if it included any revenue changes whatsoever (even reasonable ones, like removing subsidies for Big Oil)?

What comes around goes around -- it's only a matter of degree. And while I have seen some recalcitrance in the Dems, it pales in comparison to the pig-ignorant obstinance I have seen from Republicans at the Federal and State level here in WI.

As far as what the voter's want, well, as I have said before: if Walker gets recalled and replaced, I fully expect you to take back a lot of what you are saying. You seem to think that when voters are mad at the Dems that that is the "voice of the people", but when they are mad at the Republicans, well, that's just people not knowing what they are doing. It's a tired, inane double standard.

QBRanger September 3 2011 10:22 AM EDT

And if Walker is not recalled, I expect a retraction from you *smile*.

QBsutekh137 September 3 2011 10:43 AM EDT

Retract what? If there is even a recall election (which is extremely likely), everything I have said will remain true. Additionally, since two Republicans have already been ousted, I can already say, with factual backing, that the "people have spoken", as you are so fond of saying about health care.

I stated that Walker and the Republicans have been bad leaders, and there has been proof of that so far. There's nothing I could possibly need to retract.

QBsutekh137 September 4 2011 11:46 PM EDT

One more fun tidbit about Gov Walker... This article sounds a lot like what I've been saying, but has some additional facts I didn't know:

http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/article_dbc796d1-5acb-5f1e-b2fb-c5b60784116e.html

The article is somewhat partisan, to be sure (it is written by a Democrat). But it also states some interesting things that can hardly not be considered empirical facts:

-- Walker does not even meet with those who oppose him. When the going gets tough, he doesn't talk. I see this as an absolute confirmation of him not doing his job.
-- Out of 376 democrat-introduced amendments to various bills going through in the Walker administration, only 1 has gone through. That's in less than 8 months people: 1 out of 376.
-- Zero Democratic bills have passed.

So yeah, Lord Bob...I was high. This is nothing like the push for health care at the Federal level. This is a complete cut-off of communication, a cut-off of even communicating about communication (The Gov's gone meta-evil!)

And the best part is that now this guy is publicly asking for people to put politics aside and reach across the table. That's like offering the last olive branch left in the land after you just went and dug out all the other olives, pissed on them, and then lit them on fire.

Class act, Scott!
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003DMj">Republican Top 3</a>