Russ,

I have really not liked your snarky, mean tone recently. When you decide you can talk to me with respect, rather than condescension, I'll engage you in conversation again.

EDIT: WWII discussion removed, for fear of further derailing the thread.

Dan and Steve,

I'm not sure why you think that there is some "cult of Paul". Paul's candidacy is the only one that is about something other than the person running. Try to sum up the purpose of Mitt's candidacy as anything other than "I'm not Obama". It isn't about Paul. It's about the liberty message. My problems with Paul run a mile long...after all, he is a politician that advocates state power, and I am an voluntarist.

theodorelogan wrote:But what does that have to do with invading Africa, Italy, and France, and bombing the civilian population of Germany?

On this one, I'm in accordance with Russ, even if you feel his 'tone' too snarky. Look into the history, and perhaps the answers to your questions will be found within.

Hi Dan,

If you would like to start another thread dealing with WWII, I'd be happy to join in, and I'd be interested in seeing the specific facts that you are referring to (though I consider myself well versed in the history of WWII...how can you have a revisionist view if you aren't?...I'm sure I have a lot to learn about it.) Telling someone to "learn the history" however, is a cop out (however, in this case I'll give you a pass since it seems like people are trying to get the thread back on track, but no one can resist having the last word on the subject.)

As far as Russ in concerned, the truth or falsehood of what he says indeed has nothing to do with his tone. You well know that I have disagreements with most of the members of this forum, I've certainly learned a lot from people who know more than I do, and I have been here for longer than most members. Most have the respect to treat people with common courtesy. Russ has had a rotten attitude recently (look at how he blew up at Guapo a couple pages back, and I commented on Russ' attitude in another thread a few days ago as well.) I'm sure that this is a passing thing (I don't recall Russ being quite this disagreeable in the past...I won't speculate as to the cause of his recent irritability) but I'd rather have conversations with people who are interested in having a constructive conversation, not just belittling people. If I talked to my students the way Russ has been talking to me I'd be out of a job.

theodorelogan wrote:I'm not sure why you think that there is some "cult of Paul". Paul's candidacy is the only one that is about something other than the person running.

Yeah, right. It's about the ideology. Of course, it's also about how Paul embodies that ideology, and only he can get the ideology promoted. And how we can apparently forgive any lapses on his part but not any of his rivals where the ideology is concerned.

Try to sum up the purpose of Mitt's candidacy as anything other than "I'm not Obama".

Even I can see that. He's the 'business' guy. His selling point is that he has succeeded in business (which is why Gingrich is going after how he succeeded), and in executive office as Governor. He likes big business. He says corporations are people too.

It isn't about Paul. It's about the liberty message. My problems with Paul run a mile long...after all, he is a politician that advocates state power, and I am an voluntarist.

I think it's more the whole 'no-one but Paul can win' thing which is repeated ad nauseum despite the evidence being that Romney is a better bet than any other GOP option currently in the race.

On WWII - we've been there and done it before. I'll not start a thread on it, but if you and your pals want to start one as a repository for your theories, I'll pitch in to help correct any obviously incorrect assertions.

On Russ, he sometimes gets grouchy (and when he does, he often apologises), but sometimes I think he's responding to particularly irritating behaviour. And I think he's a keen student of history who really doesn't like it when people spout misinformation about it for political ends.

On WWII - we've been there and done it before. I'll not start a thread on it, but if you and your pals want to start one as a repository for your theories, I'll pitch in to help correct any obviously incorrect assertions.

I just thought that since some people in this thread have been so insistent that I need to learn history, they might be interested in putting forth the information they feel I am lacking. I'll guess I'll just keep learning history on my own. I'm perfectly content with that.

And I think he's a keen student of history who really doesn't like it when people spout misinformation about it for political ends.

Same with me. The difference is that when I think someone is wrong, I don't belittle the person. From my perspective, a lot of people on this forum are wrong about a lot of things. But I find with I talk to people with respect and approach them with the idea that I may not be right about everything, I learn a lot and sometimes find that I'm wrong about things I thought I was right about. That's the kind of conversation I'm interested in having. I get that sometimes people are having a bad day, or you push a button or something. Again, that's why I commented about Russ' tone in another thread before. But there have just been too many posts recently from Russ (not just to me) that have shown a lack of courtesy, and I'm not interested in having a discussion at that level.

I don't believe Paul can win a Republican nomination, I don't believe he can win a national election. I think he has changed the conversation on certain points, but I'd say the whole of the conversation is worse. The Nationalist and Socialist two party system in America is running the whole thing off a cliff.

If the daily polls are right in SC .... then the predictions of romney coasting (mine) are premature. In some polls Giongrich is now ahead...
The negative ads his PACs are running about Bain..... must indeed be having some effect.
For November the question is, does all this negative advertise dig the eventual GOP winner a hole amongst Independents that they'll have trouble diggning out of during the run against Obama?

theodorelogan wrote:Russ,

I have really not liked your snarky, mean tone recently. When you decide you can talk to me with respect, rather than condescension...

I don't know what mean, snarky tone you are talking about. I can say that while I was typing the you need to learn some freaking history, it was with a smile. I mean I do think, based on this conversation and ones we have had in the past, your general knowledge and understanding of history is seriously lacking but there was no maliciousness intended in my response. My apologies if you interpreted such.

As for my response to Jeff, there is no apologies there. Any comments he has made to me in regards to Huntsman or Paul has been laced with scorn and saracasm. I respond in kind.

rickyp wrote:If the daily polls are right in SC .... then the predictions of romney coasting (mine) are premature. In some polls Giongrich is now ahead...
The negative ads his PACs are running about Bain..... must indeed be having some effect.

Or . . . maybe Romney's feeble Monday night performance + Newt rocking the house?

Or . . . maybe Romney's inability to decide what to do with his tax return?

In other words, you have no idea if it's Bain or Spain.

For November the question is, does all this negative advertise dig the eventual GOP winner a hole amongst Independents that they'll have trouble diggning out of during the run against Obama?

Bitter primaries doom a candidate. I mean, who could ever recover from a devastatingly accurate ad like this? Certainly, if the candidate thought to be a foreign policy expert says the world will test you frequently during your first year in office you can't win the election, right?

Settle down. There's a long way to go. You are praying the election is not a referendum on Obama--and so is he.

Actually, the polls do give one a clue as to what is affecting voters choices Steve...
From the Clemson Poll:

After choosing a candidate, respondents gave a wide variety of answers as to what they liked most about the person they selected, but the two most popular appeared to be: “he has honesty and integrity” and “his overall political ideology” — meaning conservative principles.

“Much has been made of the ‘electability’ issue of the candidates, but in our poll the response: ‘He has the best chance of beating President Barack Obama,’” was the fourth choice of voters, after “‘He has better ideas for strengthening the economy,’” said Clemson political scientist Bruce Ransom

http://www.clemson.edu/media-relations/4047

Gingrich has gone after Mitt and the various PACS have also gone after Mitt using his Bain CV and his wafffling on issues... If thats the main noise in the media, its the likely reason the numbers have changed.
I don't know about referendum on Obama, but I'll bet Barrack is cheering for a Gingrich (or Santorum) win over Mitt. Why?
Even Rasmussen has Obama 9 and 10 points up on Santorum or Gingrich....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... dates.html

Keep telling yourself it's Bain that's killing Romney. If it makes you happy, that's all that matters. Looking at your link, Newt is allegedly up 6 and a margin of error of +/- 4.7% with 20% undecided. With such a serious pollster, like yourself, I guess those numbers mean it's over? Whatever.

Oh, and NOTHING in your quote says "Bain." Not that facts will impact your opinion. Could "integrity" mean "fidelity?" We'll see.

Remember: SC is a neighboring State to Georgia. Based on what Romney did in NH, I'd say Newt still has a ways to go.

Again, if you think Obama can win based on his record, make the case. I would love to read it because I am a huge fan of satire.

Oh, for the love of Mike, they're arguing about polls again. Can we go back to the causes of WWII?

steve

Keep telling yourself it's Bain that's killing Romney. If it makes you happy, that's all that matters.

“If we identify capitalism with rich guys looting companies, we’re going to have a very hard time protecting it.”

— Newt Gingrich, Jan. 10, 2012, Fox News


Now Steve, if this doesn't resonate with Tea Party types, who resent the Wall Street Bail Out, but perversely still seem to support politicians who would deregulate the industry - guaranteeing a repeat of the collapse, then what does?
What is responsible for the pressure that Mitt seems to be caving under? Why has he performd badly? He's defending himself from only one direction and that's his background and expertise as a business tycoon. They've turned his "strength" into his weakness.
(Note that his flip flopping and support for health care manadates wasn't affecting his leading position...It was because of that invulnerability to attack on those issues that they switched to Rovian tactics and went after his business background.)
When he loses in SC, and the trends suggest he will, all the pundits will put it down to the Bain bashing. Does that make it true? Well, they are looking at the evidence they've witnessed first hand buttressed by the imperfect science of polling. What you got?

The question for Newton, if he survies to the general election, will be , "How would you protect society from "rich guys looting companies" withou effective regulation? And what will that regulation look like?" At which point he's abandoning republican dogma.

You had me convinced (earlier on this discussion thread) that Bain wasn't working... That the failure of polling to catch a shift in atttude immediatly meant that Bain wasn't a winner.... Last time I'm going to trust your judgement...
Gingrich wins SC by 7 points.

Last time you're going to trust my judgment?

When was the first?

You know conservatives the same way I know Marxists--from a distance.

Maybe Romney is not a good candidate? I cannot explain why, for example, after several days he still hasn't come up with an answer about his tax returns. To me, it's a non-issue. Few candidates, maybe none, have done a data dump this early. Gingrich released one year. Big deal.

Hey, if people don't like rich folks, I've two questions for you (note: I'm ignoring your bait to get back into the poll debate):

1. Why isn't Gingrich's half-million line of credit at Tiffany's drawing scrutiny from the unemployed, unwashed masses in South Carolina? If that doesn't smell like "one percent," what does?

2. Where was all the outrage about John Kerry who slept his way to his riches?

I suspect that the Bain stuff is hurting Romney, but it may not necessarily be because SC voters are strongly anti venture capitalists. The likelihood is that they never realy wanted to vote for Romney anyway and now that his main pitch is being questioned in the media people are starting to queston why the hell they ought to vote for him at all.