Seriously, what's wrong with Jon Huntsman?

[AVG-JOE]

Science is proven through demonstrations of experiments.

If this was a slam dunk. The evidence would make it a slam dunk and debate would end.

Maybe could be and possibly is what we find in all the reports.

Get it yet?

The science of what has happened and what is happening to the atmosphere is quite repeatable and quite easily documented - the hitch comes when folks with a vested interest start trying to predict the future based on the science of what has been and what is happening to the atmosphere.

The extremes are " no effect" and " The Sky is Falling!"

Who I believe depends a lot on the vested interests behind the mouthpiece doing the predicting. As with ALL things political, if you want the truth, follow the money.

 

[AVG-JOE]

As long as money can still be made, the rightwing will never accept ANY evidence

Hell....they protected the cigarette industry for 40 years

Oh, I'm sorry, was there a Left Wing proposal to ban all cigarette sales?

Or did they just advocate raising the price to produce revenues for their coffers and their trial lawyer buddies?

Now, I don't smoke, had a lot of relatives who died of cancer, no friend to the tobacco Industry...

Whenever I hear a liberal whine about the evils of cigarettes, I am reminded of Frederick the Great's comments about Maria Theresa at the Partition of Poland. "The more she wept, the more she took!"

Here's a simple solution to the tobacco problem. Get rid of all the Cigarette taxes. Regulate tobacco like a drug. You can only get it with a doctor's prescription. The doctor is required to do regular checkups, and if he sees problems, he has to try to ween you off of them.

But liberals won't do that. Too much money for "worthy" causes involved.

This liberal sees the job of government as one of educating the populous as to the dangers of risky behaviors like smoking and then to tax industries like the tobacco industry appropriately for the health care dollars required to make sure that their customers don't scare away the tourists while hacking up a lung in in the street.

 

[AVG-JOE]

As long as money can still be made, the rightwing will never accept ANY evidence

Hell....they protected the cigarette industry for 40 years

Oh, I'm sorry, was there a Left Wing proposal to ban all cigarette sales?

Or did they just advocate raising the price to produce revenues for their coffers and their trial lawyer buddies?

Now, I don't smoke, had a lot of relatives who died of cancer, no friend to the tobacco Industry...

Whenever I hear a liberal whine about the evils of cigarettes, I am reminded of Frederick the Great's comments about Maria Theresa at the Partition of Poland. "The more she wept, the more she took!"

Here's a simple solution to the tobacco problem. Get rid of all the Cigarette taxes. Regulate tobacco like a drug. You can only get it with a doctor's prescription. The doctor is required to do regular checkups, and if he sees problems, he has to try to ween you off of them.

But liberals won't do that. Too much money for "worthy" causes involved.

Not talking about banning cigarettes

I am talking about the rightwing efforts to muddy the science linking cigarette smoking to cancer.........."There is no direct link"... "We need more study".... "we have our own scientists who disagree"

Sounds so familiar

The science of lobbying is the spinning of science for those who're willing to pay for it.

 

[bripat9643]

He's not willing to compromise his integrity and act nutty to appeal to the goofy-ass base that currently makes up what once was a political party that stood for something.

Right, he's not willing to vote against socialism.

End of story.

Congratulations. You are the base.

So you think that people who are opposed to socialism should vote for a nominee who is not opposed to socialism?

That is so beautifully liberal!

 

[bripat9643]

This liberal sees the job of government as one of educating the populous as to the dangers of risky behaviors like smoking and then to tax industries like the tobacco industry appropriately for the health care dollars required to make sure that their customers don't scare away the tourists while hacking up a lung in in the street.

Wrong. The job of government is to protect you from predators, not to protect you from yourself. If people want to smoke, that's there business. It only costs the rest of us money because turds like you impose the costs of their smoking on us.

 

[Flopper]

He seems like a sane and honorable gentleman to me. Why doesn't the right like him?

Huntsman has served in both Republican and Democrat administration. He knows more about the operation of government and foreign policy than all the Republican candidates combined plus he might be able to work with Democrats. That's certainly enough to disqualify him.

Yes, "working with Democrats" is not what Republicans want. Defeating Democrats is what they want.

60% of the time control of government is spit between the two parties. Unless one party can control all three houses for 4 years, then the president will have to work with the opposition.

No party remains in control of government more than a few years. It that party acts unilaterally, then so will the other party once it gains control. The only way the country can find it's way out of the financial mess it's in is for the two parties to work together. If they don't, then the people will demand a strong authoritarian government that can take action.

 

[Liability]

He seems like a sane and honorable gentleman to me. Why doesn't the right like him?

LickDorka:

Huntsman is a fucking liberal RINO.

You want him?

Replace the incumbent with HIM on the liberal Democrat ticket.

He only seems sane to you because your "judgment" is bent, warped, twisted, mutilated and useless on account of your pronounced mental illness: severe liberoidalism.

Huntsman sucks.

 

[JimH52]

Huntsman has served in both Republican and Democrat administration. He knows more about the operation of government and foreign policy than all the Republican candidates combined plus he might be able to work with Democrats. That's certainly enough to disqualify him.

Yes, "working with Democrats" is not what Republicans want. Defeating Democrats is what they want.

60% of the time control of government is spit between the two parties. Unless one party can control all three houses for 4 years, then the president will have to work with the opposition.

No party remains in control of government more than a few years. It that party acts unilaterally, then so will the other party once it gains control. The only way the country can find it's way out of the financial mess it's in is for the two parties to work together. If they don't, then the people will demand a strong authoritarian government that can take action.

You know, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when a party has complete control of the WH and Congress, they over reach. We have all seen it with the GOP. We have all seen it with the Dems. And yet, it happens over and over. These frigin people are supposed to be smart. Why can't they figure that out?

As surely as the sun rises tomorrow, if the GOP gains control of Congress and the WH in 2012, they will over reach and the cycle will start over again. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Am I missing something here? Where has bipartisanship gone, or more correctly, was it ever there?

 

[Lakhota]

I know very little about the Mormon religion, so I'm not qualified to comment about possible religious tension between Huntsman and Romney. However, religion aside, I can certainly understand why Huntsman may not like Romney. I don't like Romney - nor would I like him as a Conservative. Romney is like a chameleon, constantly changing colors to match his immediate audience. I wouldn't trust him to tell me whether it was day or night. To simply say Romney is a flip-flopper is a gross understatement.

Huntsman strikes me as the smartest and most honorable of the GOP candidates. I'm guessing that if he received the GOP nomination, he would be a strong force for Obama to reckon with going into the General Election. That's just my guess...

 

[bripat9643]

60% of the time control of government is spit between the two parties. Unless one party can control all three houses for 4 years, then the president will have to work with the opposition.

No party remains in control of government more than a few years. It that party acts unilaterally, then so will the other party once it gains control. The only way the country can find it's way out of the financial mess it's in is for the two parties to work together. If they don't, then the people will demand a strong authoritarian government that can take action.

Whenever you compromise with socialists, what you get is more socialism. I've never seen "compromise" work in the other direction. When has the budget of any government agency ever been cut in real terms? When has any government agency ever been terminated?

"Compromise" is a liberal euphemism meaning "cave to more socialism" Every compromise is a victory for socialism and a defeat for capitalism.

Why would anyone with a brain support more of that?

 

[JoeB131]

More than half my point was an attempt at warped humor - I recall some sort of rift between the followers of Brigham Young and those who followed Joseph Smith when the cult was in its formative years. I don't think it was quite the rift that the arms dealers for todays Sunnis and Shiites enjoy, but I do believe a rift exists.

That being said, I have no clue (nor do I care) if Huntsman or Romney have issues in that direction - I wanted the damn joke.

After Joseph Smith was killed, Brigham Young became leader of the main group of LDS. Smith's son, Joseph Smith III, attempted to claim leadership, but he was too young at the time. Another fellow named Strang formed an offshoot group, and after he was assassinated, Smith took leadership and formed the reorganized church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints. It is today known as the Community of Christ Church. Other followers of Strang continued on with their own Church. IN addition to the Latter Day Saints cult that Romney and Huntsman belong to, there are a dozen or so offshoots.

The RCLDS stayed in IL, while the CJCLDS moved out to Utah and more hilarity ensued.

That said, I think that the animosity between the two men is personal and not theological. Both come from powerful Mormon families, and Huntsman probably wonders why he as a more accomplished governor, is putzing around at 1% while Romney is a sometimes frontrunner.

Good to know..... but was the joke funny?

Looking at in that light, yeah, it was.... I was probably being too serious..

 

[Flopper]

Yes, "working with Democrats" is not what Republicans want. Defeating Democrats is what they want.

60% of the time control of government is spit between the two parties. Unless one party can control all three houses for 4 years, then the president will have to work with the opposition.

No party remains in control of government more than a few years. It that party acts unilaterally, then so will the other party once it gains control. The only way the country can find it's way out of the financial mess it's in is for the two parties to work together. If they don't, then the people will demand a strong authoritarian government that can take action.

You know, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when a party has complete control of the WH and Congress, they over reach. We have all seen it with the GOP. We have all seen it with the Dems. And yet, it happens over and over. These frigin people are supposed to be smart. Why can't they figure that out?

As surely as the sun rises tomorrow, if the GOP gains control of Congress and the WH in 2012, they will over reach and the cycle will start over again. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Am I missing something here? Where has bipartisanship gone, or more correctly, was it ever there?

Yes, bipartisanship did exist in the past. Look at the civil rights acts of 57 and 64, the clean air and clean water act, Medicare, tax reform of 86, civil liberties act of 88, and welfare reform. All of these acts plus many more were passed with bipartisanship support. In the 21st century bipartisanship has all but disappeared. The idea that a party must capture all 3 houses of government in order for pass significant legislation is just plain unexceptionable. The country needs statesmen capable of negotiation, not political hacks catering to ideologues.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, bipartisanship did exist in the past. Look at the civil rights acts of 57 and 64, the clean air and clean water act, Medicare, tax reform of 86, civil liberties act of 88, and welfare reform. All of these acts plus many more were passed with bipartisanship support. In the 21st century bipartisanship has all but disappeared. The idea that a party must capture all 3 houses of government in order for pass significant legislation is just plain unexceptionable. The country needs statesmen capable of negotiation, not political hacks catering to ideologues.

Agreed.

And even when a given party controls both the Executive and Legislative, Senate rules still prevent a majority from passing legislation.

 

[westwall]

60% of the time control of government is spit between the two parties. Unless one party can control all three houses for 4 years, then the president will have to work with the opposition.

No party remains in control of government more than a few years. It that party acts unilaterally, then so will the other party once it gains control. The only way the country can find it's way out of the financial mess it's in is for the two parties to work together. If they don't, then the people will demand a strong authoritarian government that can take action.

You know, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when a party has complete control of the WH and Congress, they over reach. We have all seen it with the GOP. We have all seen it with the Dems. And yet, it happens over and over. These frigin people are supposed to be smart. Why can't they figure that out?

As surely as the sun rises tomorrow, if the GOP gains control of Congress and the WH in 2012, they will over reach and the cycle will start over again. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Am I missing something here? Where has bipartisanship gone, or more correctly, was it ever there?

Yes, bipartisanship did exist in the past. Look at the civil rights acts of 57 and 64, the clean air and clean water act, Medicare, tax reform of 86, civil liberties act of 88, and welfare reform. All of these acts plus many more were passed with bipartisanship support. In the 21st century bipartisanship has all but disappeared. The idea that a party must capture all 3 houses of government in order for pass significant legislation is just plain unexceptionable. The country needs statesmen capable of negotiation, not political hacks catering to ideologues.

Umm....... the Civil Rights acts were pretty much thanks to the Republican Party the last time I looked. LBJ couldn't get the Democrats to go along with him so he enlisted the opposing party to get it through.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, bipartisanship did exist in the past. Look at the civil rights acts of 57 and 64, the clean air and clean water act, Medicare, tax reform of 86, civil liberties act of 88, and welfare reform. All of these acts plus many more were passed with bipartisanship support. In the 21st century bipartisanship has all but disappeared. The idea that a party must capture all 3 houses of government in order for pass significant legislation is just plain unexceptionable. The country needs statesmen capable of negotiation, not political hacks catering to ideologues.

But those things existed at a time when both parties agreed government is the solution, not the problem. It wasn't an argument about whether the government should do something, but what the best way to do it was.

Today, the GOP, or a least a large part of it, has concluded government is the problem. It's too big, to intrusive, passes too many regulations that even their own bureaucrats don't know what it is. And to a degree, they are right. The democrats want to keep expanding government even though the tax revenues aren't their to support what they are doing now.

Too many people riding in the wagon, not enough people pulling it... that's the problem.

 

[Flopper]

You know, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when a party has complete control of the WH and Congress, they over reach. We have all seen it with the GOP. We have all seen it with the Dems. And yet, it happens over and over. These frigin people are supposed to be smart. Why can't they figure that out?

As surely as the sun rises tomorrow, if the GOP gains control of Congress and the WH in 2012, they will over reach and the cycle will start over again. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Am I missing something here? Where has bipartisanship gone, or more correctly, was it ever there?

Yes, bipartisanship did exist in the past. Look at the civil rights acts of 57 and 64, the clean air and clean water act, Medicare, tax reform of 86, civil liberties act of 88, and welfare reform. All of these acts plus many more were passed with bipartisanship support. In the 21st century bipartisanship has all but disappeared. The idea that a party must capture all 3 houses of government in order for pass significant legislation is just plain unexceptionable. The country needs statesmen capable of negotiation, not political hacks catering to ideologues.

Umm....... the Civil Rights acts were pretty much thanks to the Republican Party the last time I looked. LBJ couldn't get the Democrats to go along with him so he enlisted the opposing party to get it through.

Final version of the act was supported by both parties. In the Senate 69% of the Democrats voted yes and 82% of the Republicans. In the House 63% of the Democrats voted yes and 80% of the Republicans voted yes. This act is a good example of bipartisanship but that was different time when coalitions would form with members from both parties for the purpose of passing a particular piece of legislation.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, bipartisanship did exist in the past. Look at the civil rights acts of 57 and 64, the clean air and clean water act, Medicare, tax reform of 86, civil liberties act of 88, and welfare reform. All of these acts plus many more were passed with bipartisanship support. In the 21st century bipartisanship has all but disappeared. The idea that a party must capture all 3 houses of government in order for pass significant legislation is just plain unexceptionable. The country needs statesmen capable of negotiation, not political hacks catering to ideologues.

But those things existed at a time when both parties agreed government is the solution, not the problem. It wasn't an argument about whether the government should do something, but what the best way to do it was.

Today, the GOP, or a least a large part of it, has concluded government is the problem. It's too big, to intrusive, passes too many regulations that even their own bureaucrats don't know what it is. And to a degree, they are right. The democrats want to keep expanding government even though the tax revenues aren't their to support what they are doing now.

Too many people riding in the wagon, not enough people pulling it... that's the problem.

The problem is you can not significantly reduce the size of government unilaterally. If the GOP attempts to do that, they will have to cut into programs that the public supports. That's going to be very hard but with Democrats telling them there is a better alternative, it will be impossible. No, the only way out of the economic mess we are in is bipartisan support. Until that happens, there will be little done to solve the deficit problem.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, bipartisanship did exist in the past. Look at the civil rights acts of 57 and 64, the clean air and clean water act, Medicare, tax reform of 86, civil liberties act of 88, and welfare reform. All of these acts plus many more were passed with bipartisanship support. In the 21st century bipartisanship has all but disappeared. The idea that a party must capture all 3 houses of government in order for pass significant legislation is just plain unexceptionable. The country needs statesmen capable of negotiation, not political hacks catering to ideologues.

But those things existed at a time when both parties agreed government is the solution, not the problem. It wasn't an argument about whether the government should do something, but what the best way to do it was.

Today, the GOP, or a least a large part of it, has concluded government is the problem. It's too big, to intrusive, passes too many regulations that even their own bureaucrats don't know what it is. And to a degree, they are right. The democrats want to keep expanding government even though the tax revenues aren't their to support what they are doing now.

Too many people riding in the wagon, not enough people pulling it... that's the problem.

The problem is you can not significantly reduce the size of government unilaterally. If the GOP attempts to do that, they will have to cut into programs that the public supports. That's going to be very hard but with Democrats telling them there is a better alternative, it will be impossible. No, the only way out of the economic mess we are in is bipartisan support. Until that happens, there will be little done to solve the deficit problem.

OH, bullshit. If the GOP gets the presidency, the House and a large enough majority in the senate, we can make the changes... Whether we will or not is another matter. The GOP has this bad habit of suddenly loving government when they are in charge of it.

 

[Toro]

Interestingly, the electoral market has Huntsman as the 4th best odds to become the next President at 4.4%, trailing Obama, Romney and Newt.

Intrade - Markets

Maybe the market is telegraphing that Huntsman will be the next GOP flavour of the month after Newt inevitably collapses.

 

[Toro]

But those things existed at a time when both parties agreed government is the solution, not the problem. It wasn't an argument about whether the government should do something, but what the best way to do it was.

Today, the GOP, or a least a large part of it, has concluded government is the problem. It's too big, to intrusive, passes too many regulations that even their own bureaucrats don't know what it is. And to a degree, they are right. The democrats want to keep expanding government even though the tax revenues aren't their to support what they are doing now.

Too many people riding in the wagon, not enough people pulling it... that's the problem.

The problem is you can not significantly reduce the size of government unilaterally. If the GOP attempts to do that, they will have to cut into programs that the public supports. That's going to be very hard but with Democrats telling them there is a better alternative, it will be impossible. No, the only way out of the economic mess we are in is bipartisan support. Until that happens, there will be little done to solve the deficit problem.

OH, bullshit. If the GOP gets the presidency, the House and a large enough majority in the senate, we can make the changes... Whether we will or not is another matter. The GOP has this bad habit of suddenly loving government when they are in charge of it.

The GOP may sweep everything next year but they're not going to win 60 seats in the Senate.

So yes, there will need to be a bi-partisan solution.