Rank the Republican contenders by order of craziness.

Argus · November 22, 2011

All ?

Come on Argus, not all.

Some may not be suitable for the job, but they are not nutjobs.

Cain , Romney , Gingrich to name three aren't. They may have failings (who doesnt), they may not be suitable for the job based on past experiences, but none of them are nutjobs.

Cain couldnt have risent o his level in business by being nuts.Romney might be a bit pious and Gingrich's compass went screwy for a while, but that is not nutjob material

Cain's economic plans are ludicrous. At a time of growing awareness of the problems of income disparities he wants to increase taxes on the poor and decrease taxes on the rich. Gingrich thinks the child labour laws are some kind of socialist plot -- as is the Congressional budget office. What do you call that? Charmingly quirky? Romney is the least nuts of the lot, I'll grant you that. But the man is so two faced and changeable I'm surprised he can even convince himself to wear the same colour of socks on the same day.

Argus · November 23, 2011

And by the way, allow me to observe the absurdity that the new front runner to lead the party of God, morality, and family values is a corrupt serial adulterer who's made millions in bribe money off the likes of Freddie Mack. LOL :lol: :lol:

Edited November 23, 2011 by Argus

guyser · November 23, 2011

Cain's economic plans are ludicrous. At a time of growing awareness of the problems of income disparities he wants to increase taxes on the poor and decrease taxes on the rich. Gingrich thinks the child labour laws are some kind of socialist plot -- as is the Congressional budget office. What do you call that? Charmingly quirky? Romney is the least nuts of the lot, I'll grant you that. But the man is so two faced and changeable I'm surprised he can even convince himself to wear the same colour of socks on the same day.

None of that I have a quibble with.

Some of thier ideas may be nutty, but the person themself are not nutjobs per se

guyser · November 23, 2011

It doesn't have to be the exact same thing to qualify as votes for God. Presidente Fox put his own spin on the exact same idea, so I don't know why it doesn't count.

Fox introduced religion after ignoring a long standing tradition not to. Thats why I said disingenuous .

If this year was the first time religion was played in American elections, then we would not be talking about it.

For instance, religion plays a big role in the politics of India, Philippines, Ireland, and several other nations if one just looks for it.

Ireland I imagine is correct, but India and the Philippines are not western nations. (India of course has religion ingrained in politics)

bush_cheney2004 · November 23, 2011

Fox introduced religion after ignoring a long standing tradition not to. Thats why I said disingenuous .

His motives were his own...I do not need to question his "devotion" any more than that of American or other nation's candidates.

If this year was the first time religion was played in American elections, then we would not be talking about it.

Yes we would, if only because the American election cycle gets such scrutiny by non-Americans. Nevertheless, it is not an unusual circumstance in many nations around the world. America is not unique in this respect.

Ireland I imagine is correct, but India and the Philippines are not western nations. (India of course has religion ingrained in politics)

The Philippines was dominated for over 300 years by a "western nation", then the USA. And it is specifically because of this "western" dominance that religion came to the fore in politics, and still does today. Bishops in the PI are on the government payroll.

I would like to reiterate that, unlike the Americans, several nations have structural nods to religion in their very constitutions (e.g. Canada), if not an outright national church (Norway). Why are the Americans held to a different standard?

blueblood · November 23, 2011

And when most Americans died in their fifties that was okay, I suppose. Most Americans don't die in their fifties any more. You nostalgic for that, too?

Lifespans have gone up by a decade this generation. Do you like the idea of lots of old people eating dog food and freezing to death in unheated homes?

And don't tell me about history. The world is changed and so has America. Those old people don't have seven married children to look after them any more.

You can thank technology and increased wealth generated in society for longer lifespans, not gov't spending.

You can set your guilt trip back to stun, it's by people listening to the likes of you that society is broke today. Medicine sometimes tastes bad.

Argus · November 23, 2011

You can thank technology and increased wealth generated in society for longer lifespans, not gov't spending.

You can set your guilt trip back to stun, it's by people listening to the likes of you that society is broke today. Medicine sometimes tastes bad.

Phhht. I'm a conservative and always have been. You won't catch me advocating for new, untried schemes of government. No, you catch me urging caution, or urging we return to things which worked.

In the US that would be, returning to the days when Americans paid enough taxes to support the government they wanted.

Counting the cuts which have already been announced, and the new ones from the mandatory 1.2 trillion cut which came from the failure of the 'super committee' the US military is looking like it's going to half the size it is today in ten years. That's not because of the likes of me. It's because of the likes of the rabid anti-government types who, ignoring all reality, persist in believing America pays the highest taxes on the planet by far, and that raising those taxes by even 1% would somehow throw the country into a depression and cause every rich person in the land to move to Mexico.

Fact is, Americans are acting like morons. They want to be a great country. They just don't want to pay for it. That's as dumb as the Greeks were. And given I mocked and ridiculed the Greeks why shouldn't I do the same to stupid Americans? The entire United States government could be reduced to four soldiers in a ten year old jeep, and a guy named Earl who checks the computerized readings from automated customs booths at airports every other day, and half of America would still be shrieking and howling and pulling out its hair at the enormous taxes they have to pay.

bush_cheney2004 · November 24, 2011

....Fact is, Americans are acting like morons. They want to be a great country....

The American morons already have a great country....that's why you pay so much attention to it.

There never was a "Canadian Dream"....people just skip that and go to the USA instead.

WWWTT · November 24, 2011

Cain's economic plans are ludicrous. At a time of growing awareness of the problems of income disparities he wants to increase taxes on the poor and decrease taxes on the rich. Gingrich thinks the child labour laws are some kind of socialist plot -- as is the Congressional budget office. What do you call that? Charmingly quirky? Romney is the least nuts of the lot, I'll grant you that. But the man is so two faced and changeable I'm surprised he can even convince himself to wear the same colour of socks on the same day.

Man thats freekin funny!

I read a bunch of your quotes in this thread Argus and your like a dr. Jeckyl Mr hyde character?

You sound like a lefty here.

But in Canadian politics you come off as a righty?

Maybe I'm mistakin you for someone else?

WWWTT

Michael Hardner · November 24, 2011

Man thats freekin funny!

I read a bunch of your quotes in this thread Argus and your like a dr. Jeckyl Mr hyde character?

You sound like a lefty here.

But in Canadian politics you come off as a righty?

There are other flavours.

Bonam · November 24, 2011

It hasn't been discussed in the context I'm referring to at all, so I can't help but wonder what all of those expressing their unquestioning support, who are oh-so-proud of their belief regarding Canada's lack of interest in religion, feel about Muslims, whose religion unquestionably plays a very important part in their lives, moving into Canada - in that context.

The Canadians who are oh-so-proud of Canada's lack of interest in religion make no bones about their smug superiority over those who hold religious beliefs, so it seems to me that same attitude would extend to Muslims - yet some have oh-so-tolerantly said they would be fine with Muslims someday being the majority in Canada, so how would that affect their pride regarding the un-importance that they believe religion plays in Canada? And how is their 'tolerance' consistent with their feelings of 'superiority' over people with religious beliefs? How do those who say they aren't sure leaders should hold religious beliefs reconcile their contradicting claims?

That is what I wonder - and why wouldn't I?

Because I know you've been reading these forums for years and it's been talked about here more than once. For example, I feel smugly superior to religious people, and that attitude extends to Muslims, and I would not be at all pleased with religious Muslims forming the majority in any country where I live. As for leaders holding religious positions, they are free to do so, and individual voters are free to think them unfit of getting their vote based on any criteria they wish, including disapproval of their level of religiosity. Voters get to make their choice for whatever reason they wish. Fortunately, there's no affirmative action committee looking over your shoulder when you mark the candidate you're voting for (yet).

Some hold similar positions, and others hold divergent positions, which they have also expressed.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Bonam

November 24, 2011

Because I know you've been reading these forums for years and it's been talked about here more than once.

I repeat. Not in the context I was referring to. MH got it.

For example, I feel smugly superior to religious people, and that attitude extends to Muslims, and I would not be at all pleased with religious Muslims forming the majority in any country where I live.

So clearly I wasn't referring to you, right? I was quite clear about the mindset I was referring to and am not in the least surprised at the lack of response.

As for leaders holding religious positions, they are free to do so, and individual voters are free to think them unfit of getting their vote based on any criteria they wish, including disapproval of their level of religiosity. Voters get to make their choice for whatever reason they wish.

Yes, they do.

Fortunately, there's no affirmative action committee looking over your shoulder when you mark the candidate you're voting for (yet).

Okaaaay. :huh:

Some hold similar positions, and others hold divergent positions, which they have also expressed.

Yet those I referred to have not explained their conflicting comments. Hence .... I am still wondering.

Argus · November 24, 2011

The American morons already have a great country....that's why you pay so much attention to it.

Don't flatter yourself, goober. If that was India or Russia down there, we'd be paying just as much attention.

bush_cheney2004 · November 25, 2011

Don't flatter yourself, goober. If that was India or Russia down there, we'd be paying just as much attention.

But it isn't India or Russia...booger...cause then you couldn't understand what's on TV.

Michael Hardner · November 25, 2011

Booger ? Goober ? Even made up insults are still insults.

blueblood · November 25, 2011

Phhht. I'm a conservative and always have been. You won't catch me advocating for new, untried schemes of government. No, you catch me urging caution, or urging we return to things which worked.

In the US that would be, returning to the days when Americans paid enough taxes to support the government they wanted.

Counting the cuts which have already been announced, and the new ones from the mandatory 1.2 trillion cut which came from the failure of the 'super committee' the US military is looking like it's going to half the size it is today in ten years. That's not because of the likes of me. It's because of the likes of the rabid anti-government types who, ignoring all reality, persist in believing America pays the highest taxes on the planet by far, and that raising those taxes by even 1% would somehow throw the country into a depression and cause every rich person in the land to move to Mexico.

Fact is, Americans are acting like morons. They want to be a great country. They just don't want to pay for it. That's as dumb as the Greeks were. And given I mocked and ridiculed the Greeks why shouldn't I do the same to stupid Americans? The entire United States government could be reduced to four soldiers in a ten year old jeep, and a guy named Earl who checks the computerized readings from automated customs booths at airports every other day, and half of America would still be shrieking and howling and pulling out its hair at the enormous taxes they have to pay.

You want to go to the way things worked, go back to the tax structure of the 1880s. That worked outstanding, and there wasn't massive gov't spending, yet the USA became the most powerful country in the world.

Those 1% create jobs and invest money and in case you haven't noticed, there are many country around the world that enjoy a similar standard of living to the USA and don't cost as much to live in. If the USA wants to keep that 1% Saving, spending, and investing their money, they would be wise to provide incentive to keep them there. The fact that china has 8% growth is a perfect example of what happens when the USA prices itself out of the job market.

Americans are acting foolishly, they're swallowing the snake oil people like you are selling them and are now paying the price.

Edited November 25, 2011 by blueblood

Michael Hardner · November 25, 2011

Those 1% create jobs and invest money and in case you haven't noticed,...

Not lately... the more the 1% gets, the worse things get it seems. When are they going to invest MORE rather than ask for lower taxes to keep their money here ?

blueblood · November 25, 2011

Not lately... the more the 1% gets, the worse things get it seems. When are they going to invest MORE rather than ask for lower taxes to keep their money here ?

Things are getting pretty good in Asia these days. The richer those Asians get, the better it is for everyone, especially Canadians.

They will invest when the market isn't a bloody roulette table right now. There's more to investing than day trading, the fact is that the western world is in a huge correction now, labour is too expensive here and is going to a lower cost jurisdiction, and they are getting richer. It's simple economics, consumers want the lowest prices so companies that make products will try to make them as cheap as possible, part of that involves finding the cheapest productive labour.

Or we could have it like with supply management. No imports or exports, a chosen few are allowed to produce at a set wage, and the supply has quotas which means consumers have to take the price offered to them. Meanwhile other countries around the world are poorer because there is no capital flowing to them.

Cripes, the left wants foreign aid and for people in poorer countries to become richer. When that happens in the most efficient way (the market), they get upset because someone over here all of a sudden is jobless. You can't have your cake and eat it too, there is not enough wealth generated for everyone to have the lifestyle of a doctor or a lawyer in north America, the sooner people realize that, the sooner we can go forward.

Battletoads · November 25, 2011

Seems like an insult to legitimately crazy people...

Michael Hardner · November 25, 2011

Things are getting pretty good in Asia these days. The richer those Asians get, the better it is for everyone, especially Canadians.

In theory, but the benefits of trade aren't passed around evenly.

They will invest when the market isn't a bloody roulette table right now. There's more to investing than day trading, the fact is that the western world is in a huge correction now, labour is too expensive here and is going to a lower cost jurisdiction, and they are getting richer. It's simple economics, consumers want the lowest prices so companies that make products will try to make them as cheap as possible, part of that involves finding the cheapest productive labour.

Well, too bad for us I guess. Of course these big swings can be expected to happen more and more often as markets continue to swing around wildly, can't they ?

Or we could have it like with supply management. No imports or exports, a chosen few are allowed to produce at a set wage, and the supply has quotas which means consumers have to take the price offered to them. Meanwhile other countries around the world are poorer because there is no capital flowing to them.

Cripes, the left wants foreign aid and for people in poorer countries to become richer. When that happens in the most efficient way (the market), they get upset because someone over here all of a sudden is jobless. You can't have your cake and eat it too, there is not enough wealth generated for everyone to have the lifestyle of a doctor or a lawyer in north America, the sooner people realize that, the sooner we can go forward.

And conversely the right complains about foreign aid, yet supports sending jobs and money over there.

There's not enough wealth to everybody to have the lifestyle of a doctor or lawyer, yet only a few generations ago you could raise a family on a single salary. What happened ? Globalization happened.

What will happen next ? Maybe closing the borders to trade. Who knows ?

If the economy doesn't improve after long, then leftism is sure to rise again.

WWWTT · November 25, 2011

They will invest when the market isn't a bloody roulette table right now. There's more to investing than day trading, the fact is that the western world is in a huge correction now, labour is too expensive here and is going to a lower cost jurisdiction, and they are getting richer. It's simple economics, consumers want the lowest prices so companies that make products will try to make them as cheap as possible, part of that involves finding the cheapest productive labour.

Or we could have it like with supply management. No imports or exports, a chosen few are allowed to produce at a set wage, and the supply has quotas which means consumers have to take the price offered to them. Meanwhile other countries around the world are poorer because there is no capital flowing to them.

You know what?I carefully read what you have written and it seems you are fabricating a scenario.Fabricating problems with solutions that would benefit a specific target group.

WWWTT

blueblood · November 25, 2011

In theory, but the benefits of trade aren't passed around evenly.

There's not enough wealth to everybody to have the lifestyle of a doctor or lawyer, yet only a few generations ago you could raise a family on a single salary. What happened ? Globalization happened.

What will happen next ? Maybe closing the borders to trade. Who knows ?

If the economy doesn't improve after long, then leftism is sure to rise again.

the benefits of production aren't passed around "evenly" as well.

No, inflation happened. The more money around chasing things, the more prices rise to capture all that money. That and people being extremely foolish and not saving eir money which exacerbates the problem. Also, while a few people here were able to raise a family on a single salary, many people in Asia lived almost as medieval peasants. Also with two people in the family working, that created some inflation because with everybody having two incomes there was more money floating around to buy things.

If closing the borders to trade happens, growth will slow to a crawl and we would have a Japan problem.

If leftism rises again, then our economy won't improve.

blueblood · November 25, 2011

You know what?I carefully read what you have written and it seems you are fabricating a scenario.Fabricating problems with solutions that would benefit a specific target group.

WWWTT

Those are two ways of doing things. One makes everyone richer, the other makes a small group richer and gives the appearance of wealth.

Michael Hardner · November 25, 2011

the benefits of production aren't passed around "evenly" as well.

You're right... people have had to fight for a better deal and eventually peace is bought.

No, inflation happened. The more money around chasing things, the more prices rise to capture all that money. That and people being extremely foolish and not saving eir money which exacerbates the problem. Also, while a few people here were able to raise a family on a single salary, many people in Asia lived almost as medieval peasants.

I think I've acknowledged that people in other countries are doing better from trade, but let's be sure to not assume that that's some kind of motivation for trade.

If leftism rises again, then our economy won't improve.

Our economy improved in cycles for a long time... with governments far to the left of what we have today. At a certain point, people are going to stop believing the mantra of 'cut taxes and services'. It has worked for 30 or 40 years, but at a certain point taxes and services can't be cut any more. At that point, we'll have a great business environment, but we will still have economic swings, unemployment, and low wages... and after the next crash there will be nowhere left to go.

blueblood · November 25, 2011

You're right... people have had to fight for a better deal and eventually peace is bought.

I think I've acknowledged that people in other countries are doing better from trade, but let's be sure to not assume that that's some kind of motivation for trade.

Our economy improved in cycles for a long time... with governments far to the left of what we have today. At a certain point, people are going to stop believing the mantra of 'cut taxes and services'. It has worked for 30 or 40 years, but at a certain point taxes and services can't be cut any more. At that point, we'll have a great business environment, but we will still have economic swings, unemployment, and low wages... and after the next crash there will be nowhere left to go.

Your right countries doing better is not a motivation for trade, it's a result.

And we've stopped believing the mantra of tax and spend because we can't afford it. The mantra of cut taxes and spending was in place for 25 years and it had to be put in place in Canada because we maxed out the credit card and the bills had to be paid with interest.

After the next crash, the market will rebalance itself like it's done many many times in the past. Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but you have to swallow it.