Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
29 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: One crazy down.. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bachmann is down for the count. Few more to go.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rick Perry is probably done too, although he hasn't officially suspended his campaign yet.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
Rick Perry is probably done too, although he hasn't officially suspended his campaign yet.


This ticks me off. I call no take backs. If he doesn't have a chance in the Presidential Election, then why do we still have to keep him as Texas Governor? He should have been forced to resign before running for President. Flawed.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wade Nelson
United States
Golden Valley
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
Rick Perry is probably done too, although he hasn't officially suspended his campaign yet.


This ticks me off. I call no take backs. If he doesn't have a chance in the Presidential Election, then why do we still have to keep him as Texas Governor? He should have been forced to resign before running for President. Flawed.


Why do we have to keep Bachmann? I think when you run for office then you should have to do so after you have completed your duty to your constituents.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wadenels wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
Rick Perry is probably done too, although he hasn't officially suspended his campaign yet.


This ticks me off. I call no take backs. If he doesn't have a chance in the Presidential Election, then why do we still have to keep him as Texas Governor? He should have been forced to resign before running for President. Flawed.


Why do we have to keep Bachmann? I think when you run for office then you should have to do so after you have completed your duty to your constituents.

In Roman republican politics one could not run for office while holding an office as well. The system had its advantages.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
pronoblem baalberith
United States
Pleasantville
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Is it just me or do my balls itch?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
In Roman republican politics one could not run for office while holding an office as well. The system had its advantages.


Yes. It is a good idea first of all, second, we might as well adopt everything Roman since we are on that path.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Morgan Dontanville
United States
Charlottesville
VA
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Plate of Shrimp.
badge
Here we are folks, the dream we all dream of.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Now she gets to keep all her campaign money.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wade Nelson
United States
Golden Valley
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sisteray wrote:
Now she gets to keep all her campaign money.


Local news here is reporting that the campaign is 'flat broke'. I'd like to see some documentation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Morgan Dontanville
United States
Charlottesville
VA
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Plate of Shrimp.
badge
Here we are folks, the dream we all dream of.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wadenels wrote:
sisteray wrote:
Now she gets to keep all her campaign money.


Local news here is reporting that the campaign is 'flat broke'. I'd like to see some documentation.


Ha! Looks like Cain was smarter than she was.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pronoblem wrote:
whac3 wrote:
In Roman republican politics one could not run for office while holding an office as well. The system had its advantages.


Yes. It is a good idea first of all, second, we might as well adopt everything Roman since we are on that path.

So the US is in your mind suffering massive depopulation due to low birth rate? As someone who was training to be a Roman historian before I switched fields, that is in my mind the biggest cause of Roman decline. The population was Diocletian was 10% of what it was under Augustus. This is why Roman citizenship was extended to everyone born in the empire in 212; they just didn't have enough people to man the defenses.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Serious? Lee
United States
Coppell
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Lost in thought.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
wadenels wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
Rick Perry is probably done too, although he hasn't officially suspended his campaign yet.


This ticks me off. I call no take backs. If he doesn't have a chance in the Presidential Election, then why do we still have to keep him as Texas Governor? He should have been forced to resign before running for President. Flawed.


Why do we have to keep Bachmann? I think when you run for office then you should have to do so after you have completed your duty to your constituents.

In Roman republican politics one could not run for office while holding an office as well. The system had its advantages.

Agreed! It's time for Perry to vacate and move on.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
It's just a ride...
England
Bury St Edmunds
Suffolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Obama will win the election no matter who is pitted against him.

He's been a good boy, and has done as he's been told. He will be duly rewarded.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff
United States
Marion
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MyTwoCents wrote:
MWChapel wrote:


The rest of the world is praying for a crazy to win the nomination so that Obama wins and we don't have to deal with another Republican president.

We don't much care what a president does to the USA, its what he/she does to the world that worries us, and we always feel uneasy with the GOP in power.

Mind you, I'm not at all convinced middle America is ready to elect a Mormon president, and nobody apart from Romney has a hope against Obama



If "the world is praying for a crazy to win the nomination so that Obama wins," then the world is also crazy.

This election is Obama's to lose. If the economy is about the same or better, he wins. If the economy gets worse, he loses. Thus if the GOP nominates a crazy, it doesn't necessarily guarantee an Obama victory, depending on the economy. Thus you could have "a crazy" as the president of the US. Do you really want that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
Rick Perry is probably done too, although he hasn't officially suspended his campaign yet.


Basically, he needs to win South Carolina to remain viable - and with Santorum being the social conservative option do jour, that is going to be hard.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bojan Ramadanovic
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pronoblem wrote:
whac3 wrote:
In Roman republican politics one could not run for office while holding an office as well. The system had its advantages.


Yes. It is a good idea first of all, second, we might as well adopt everything Roman since we are on that path.


Offering citizenship for oneself and family, as well as a nice chunk of capital in exchange for 20 years of military service seems a good start...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MyTwoCents wrote:
The moderates will never vote for Santorum or Gingrich, but will vote for Romney. You are wrong, I believe


Quoted for Truth - I will more than happily vote for Romney in Nov. but would abstain/(shudder) vote for Obama (shudder again) over Santory/Gingrich
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff
United States
Marion
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MyTwoCents wrote:
Pinto wrote:
MyTwoCents wrote:
MWChapel wrote:


The rest of the world is praying for a crazy to win the nomination so that Obama wins and we don't have to deal with another Republican president.

We don't much care what a president does to the USA, its what he/she does to the world that worries us, and we always feel uneasy with the GOP in power.

Mind you, I'm not at all convinced middle America is ready to elect a Mormon president, and nobody apart from Romney has a hope against Obama



If "the world is praying for a crazy to win the nomination so that Obama wins," then the world is also crazy.

This election is Obama's to lose. If the economy is about the same or better, he wins. If the economy gets worse, he loses. Thus if the GOP nominates a crazy, it doesn't necessarily guarantee an Obama victory, depending on the economy. Thus you could have "a crazy" as the president of the US. Do you really want that?


The moderates will never vote for Santorum or Gingrich, but will vote for Romney. You are wrong, I believe


We shall see, however most, if not all, elections around here are economy-driven. If the economy tanks, a nutjob like Santorum can and would receive the nomination. Thus, I feel my position still has merit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

wadenels wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
Rick Perry is probably done too, although he hasn't officially suspended his campaign yet.

This ticks me off. I call no take backs. If he doesn't have a chance in the Presidential Election, then why do we still have to keep him as Texas Governor? He should have been forced to resign before running for President. Flawed.

Why do we have to keep Bachmann? I think when you run for office then you should have to do so after you have completed your duty to your constituents.

Believe it or not, some speculate that her leaving the Presidential primary race at this time is because Bachmannn's attempting to preserve her option to be considered as a Vice Presidential nominee.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
quelf elf
Spain
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinto wrote:
Thus you could have "a crazy" as the president of the US. Do you really want that?

I lived in the US under Reagan. That was plenty crazy, and the world survived ok.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
Utrecht wrote:
MyTwoCents wrote:
The moderates will never vote for Santorum or Gingrich, but will vote for Romney. You are wrong, I believe


Quoted for Truth - I will more than happily vote for Romney in Nov. but would abstain/(shudder) vote for Obama (shudder again) over Santory/Gingrich


I don't see the possible match up of Romney vs. Obama as two different flavors of moderates up against each other.

Truly-
If that was indeed the case, I would gladly vote for either of them, and I would be singing that this is a election year for America, when the two candidates are both Moderate Policy Wonks.

Alas, while both of them might be moderates, the key adjective that both of them share is incompetent. Romney is lurching along despite himself, with his 'What can I say to get elected??' campaign tour of 2011/12.

And Obama? He might mean well, but his political mishandling of the Presidency is just...awe inspiring. He delegated the Health Care bill to Congress, only to be shocked (SHOCKED, I say!!) when Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman decide to play hardball and threaten to derail the entire process- something which any political neophyte would know would happen. He mishandled dealing with the political anger of the TARP and stimulus packages and poured gasoline on the nascent Tea Party. And in his hand to hand combat with the hostile House, he has generally not been able to show that he has a whip hand. He might score some points now and again, but again and again, Obama demonstrates that he has no clear conception of how to run the White House, as the constant infighting between the Clintonistas and the rest of staff demonstrates.

Has nothing to do with his agenda, because I don't think he has the power to do anything. And Romney is just as bad.

When the 'moderate' candidates are complete nincompoops, it makes ANYONE else look competent.

Even Perry.



Darilian
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

wadenels wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
Rick Perry is probably done too, although he hasn't officially suspended his campaign yet.

This ticks me off. I call no take backs. If he doesn't have a chance in the Presidential Election, then why do we still have to keep him as Texas Governor? He should have been forced to resign before running for President. Flawed.

Why do we have to keep Bachmann? I think when you run for office then you should have to do so after you have completed your duty to your constituents.

Believe it or not, some speculate that her leaving the Presidential primary race at this time is because Bachmannn's attempting to preserve her option to be considered as a Vice Presidential nominee.



Well, if Romney wins the nomination, he's going to have to swing hard back to the center to have a shot at the general election.

That shouldn't be a problem for him to do - but if he wants to keep the frothing-at-the-mouth-right-wingers voting for him, he'll need a convincingly insane-o-conservative VP.

Enter Bachmann.

(Which is funny, as I'd been saying since something around May that a Romney-Bachmann ticket appeared the most likely Republican option)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wade Nelson
United States
Golden Valley
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XanderF wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

wadenels wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
Rick Perry is probably done too, although he hasn't officially suspended his campaign yet.

This ticks me off. I call no take backs. If he doesn't have a chance in the Presidential Election, then why do we still have to keep him as Texas Governor? He should have been forced to resign before running for President. Flawed.

Why do we have to keep Bachmann? I think when you run for office then you should have to do so after you have completed your duty to your constituents.

Believe it or not, some speculate that her leaving the Presidential primary race at this time is because Bachmannn's attempting to preserve her option to be considered as a Vice Presidential nominee.



Well, if Romney wins the nomination, he's going to have to swing hard back to the center to have a shot at the general election.

That shouldn't be a problem for him to do - but if he wants to keep the frothing-at-the-mouth-right-wingers voting for him, he'll need a convincingly insane-o-conservative VP.

Enter Bachmann.

(Which is funny, as I'd been saying since something around May that a Romney-Bachmann ticket appeared the most likely Republican option)



Doesn't it seem like having Bachmann on the ticket would turn more people off then on once she starts opening her mouth in public again, much like Palin did to the McCain-Palin ticket?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

quelf elf wrote:
Pinto wrote:
Thus you could have "a crazy" as the president of the US. Do you really want that?

I lived in the US under Reagan. That was plenty crazy, and the world survived ok.

Would that be the same Reagan/Bush administration whose CIA trained Osama bin Laden and the Taliban?

If so, might a retraction of the second phrase of your statement -- "and the world survived ok" -- be worth considering?


> Excerpt from the June 10, 2004 Slate Online news story by Fred Kaplan at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/...
entitled:

Reagan's Osama Connection
How he turned a jihadist into a terrorist kingpin.

Earlier this week, I cited recently declassified documents to show that Ronald Reagan did indeed play a major role in ending the Cold War. Now it's time to note that a similar set of documents shows that Reagan also played a major role in bringing on the terrorist war that followed —specifically, in abetting the rise of Osama Bin Laden.

Once again, the story concerns the fascinating relationship between Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

Gorbachev took the helm as the reform-minded general-secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1985. Within months, he had decided privately to pull Soviet troops out of Afghanistan. One of his predecessors, Leonid Brezhnev, had invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and the move was proving a disaster. Tens of thousands of Soviet troops had died; military morale was crumbling; popular protest — unheard of, till then, in Communist Russia — was rising. Part of the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was due to the fact that the Reagan administration was feeding billions of dollars in arms to Afghanistan's Islamic resistance. Reagan and, even more, his intensely ideological CIA director, William Casey, saw the battle for Afghanistan as a titanic struggle in the war between Eastern tyranny and Western freedom. (Jimmy Carter and his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had started assisting the resistance, but with not nearly the same largess or ambition.)

At a Politburo meeting of Nov. 13, 1986, Gorbachev laid his position on the table: The war wasn't working; it had to be stopped:

People ask: "What are we doing there?" Will we be there endlessly? Or should we end this war? ... The strategic objective is to finish the war in one, maximum two years, and withdraw the troops. We have set a clear goal: Help speed up the process, so we have a friendly neutral country, and get out of there.

In early December, Gorbachev summoned President Najibullah, the puppet leader of Afghanistan, to give him the news: The Soviet troops would be leaving within 18 months; after that, he was on his own.

Two months later, on Feb. 23, 1987, Gorbachev assured the Politburo that the troops wouldn't leave right away. He first had to foster a stable environment for the reigning government and to maintain a credible image with India, the Soviet Union's main ally in the region. The exit strategy, he said, would be a negotiated deal with Washington: The Soviets pull out troops; the Americans stop their arms shipments to the rebels.

However, within days, Gorbachev learned to his surprise that Reagan had no interest in such a deal. In a conversation on Feb. 27 with Italy's foreign minister, Giulio Andreotti, Gorbachev said, "We have information from very reliable sources … that the United States has set itself the goal of obstructing a settlement by any means," in order "to present the Soviet Union in a bad light." If this information is true, Gorbachev continued, the matter of a withdrawal "takes on a different light."

Without U.S. cooperation, Gorbachev couldn't proceed with his plans to withdraw. Instead, he allowed his military commanders to escalate the conflict. In April, Soviet troops, supported by bombers and helicopters, attacked a new compound of Islamic fighters along the mountain passes of Jaji, near the Pakistani border. The leader of those fighters, many of them Arab volunteers, was Osama Bin Laden.

In his magisterial book, "Ghost Wars" (possibly the best diplomatic history written in the past decade), Steve Coll recounts the fateful consequences:

The battle lasted for about a week. Bin Laden and 50 Arab volunteers faced 200 Russian troops. … The Arab volunteers took casualties but held out under intense fire for several days. More than a dozen of bin Laden's comrades were killed, and bin Laden himself apparently suffered a foot wound. … Chronicled daily at the time by several Arab journalists … the battle of Jaji marked the birth of Osama bin Laden's public reputation as a warrior among Arab jihadists. … After Jaji he began a media campaign designed to publicize the brave fight waged by Arab volunteers who stood their ground against a superpower. In interviews and speeches … bin Laden sought to recruit new fighters to his cause and to chronicle his own role as a military leader. He also began to expound on expansive new goals for the jihad.

Had Gorbachev thought that Reagan was willing to strike a deal, the battle of Jaji would not have taken place — and the legend of Bin Laden might never have taken off.

Reagan can't be blamed for ignoring the threat of Osama Bin Laden. Not for another few years would any analyst see Bin Laden as a significant player in global terrorism; not till the mid-1990s would his organization, al-Qaida, emerge as a significant force.

However, Reagan — and those around him — can be blamed for ignoring the rise of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan and for failing to see Gorbachev's offer to withdraw as an opportunity to clamp the danger. Certainly, the danger was, or should have been, clear. Only a few years had passed since the Ayatollah Khomeini rose to power in Iran — the shah toppled, the U.S. Embassy employees held hostage, the country turned over to the mullahs, the region suddenly destabilized. Reagan beat Jimmy Carter so decisively in the 1980 election in part because of the hostage crisis.

Gorbachev had accepted that Afghanistan would become an Islamic country. But he assumed that Reagan, of all people, would have an interest in keeping it from becoming militantly, hostilely, Islamist.

In September 1987, after the previous spring's escalation failed to produce results, Soviet Foreign Minister Edvard Shevardnadze met with Secretary of State George Shultz to tell him that Gorbachev planned to pull out of Afghanistan soon. He asked Shultz for help in containing the spread of "Islamic fundamentalism." Shultz had nothing to say. Most Reagan officials doubted Gorbachev would really withdraw, and they interpreted the warnings about Muslim radicals as a cover story for the Soviet Union's military failure.

By this time, Reagan and Gorbachev had gone some distance toward ending the Cold War. The dramatic moment would come the following spring, during the summit in Moscow, when Reagan declared that the U.S.S.R. was no longer an "evil empire." At the same time, though, the U.S. national-security bureaucracy—and, in many ways, Reagan himself—continued to view the world through Cold War glasses.

After the last Soviet troops departed, Afghanistan fell off the American radar screen. Over the next few years, Shevardnadze's worst nightmares came true. The Taliban rose to power and in 1996 gave refuge to the—by then—much-hunted Bin Laden.

Ten years earlier, had Reagan taken Gorbachev's deal, Afghanistan probably still wouldn't have emerged as the "friendly, neutral country" of Gorby's dreams. Yet it might have been a neutral enough country to preclude a Taliban takeover. And if the Russian-Afghan war had ended earlier — if Reagan had embraced Gorbachev on the withdrawal, as he did that same autumn on the massive cutback of nuclear weapons — Osama Bin Laden today might not even be a footnote in history.


_____________________________________________________


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinto wrote:

If "the world is praying for a crazy to win the nomination so that Obama wins," then the world is also crazy.

This election is Obama's to lose. If the economy is about the same or better, he wins. If the economy gets worse, he loses. Thus if the GOP nominates a crazy, it doesn't necessarily guarantee an Obama victory, depending on the economy. Thus you could have "a crazy" as the president of the US. Do you really want that?


So, all in all, the only person that gets to vote is Ben Bernanke.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CW Lumm
United States
Hampden
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hibikir wrote:
Pinto wrote:

If "the world is praying for a crazy to win the nomination so that Obama wins," then the world is also crazy.

This election is Obama's to lose. If the economy is about the same or better, he wins. If the economy gets worse, he loses. Thus if the GOP nominates a crazy, it doesn't necessarily guarantee an Obama victory, depending on the economy. Thus you could have "a crazy" as the president of the US. Do you really want that?


So, all in all, the only person that gets to vote is Ben Bernanke.


Bernanke may be the only voter, but when it comes down to it, he has two economic tools at his disposal, interest rates and the ability to print money.

So Bernanke could even cancel his own vote, leaving us with no voters at all.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.