> Genesis wrote:

> It's about dumping the elections, lol... Have fun, thee poor of heart.

Exactly.  Stick to the topic, or make a new thread on health care.  Stop screwing with this thread.

> Genesis wrote:

> And Zarf, what's more fantastic about this isn't the fact that you agree or disagree with the war or the Health Care plan, it's everyone's taking free shots at the plan under the assumption that it will hurt their own pocket. Shouldn't everyone be granted health care? Is it socialism to think all citizens should have medical care?

I never said anything about my own pocket, actually.  Read everything I said.  My arguments were specific to large businesses.

By the way, I'm not rich.  In fact, I'm poor as hell. 

Nope!

Fudged?

> Genesis wrote:

> So you'd rather have a good ol' war for no good reason instead of tyring to create a national health care system which can provide for your population because "a war is temporary"? I'm guessing you find it amusing when people say they're on the K-Y jelly plan getting it up the you-know-where then. Because that's what happens to everyone who can't afford insurances or propper care of any kind. No wonder blacks and latinos are regular Democrats constituencies.

Come to think of it: DD, Zarf, Yell, Little Paul, Justinian: are you all white with decent incomes? Because you sure as hell sound like it. Biggots? Hmmm.

Even though I tend to agree that self-accomplishment is the best way to run a life and a society, you have to do it on balanced terms unless you want riots on your hands. And trust me, the World and the USA aren't exactly balanced atm.

Oh btw, if you guys are so keen on wars and democracy, take a trip to Zimbabwe and dethrone Mugabe. I don't know much about economics, but I think a 1000% inflation rate isn't good.

Genesis, this is a GOP strategy thread.  I know it's odd, but for the purpose of this topic, you actually have to assume particular issues in order to actually talk about the topic.

If you would like to debate the Iraq war, bring it.  But not here.  Make a new thread, please. 

And you're missing the whole point of that statement anyway.  I'm only talking about the cost of health care/war relative to potential R&D.  Essentially, the Iraq war isn't going to last forever, so it won't permanently trade off with R&D.  It's an isolated incident.  National health care, however, would be permanent.

I'm not even saying X is better than Y.  I'm saying that R&D is better than either, but that the Iraq war doesn't actually trade off anyway.

@Noir

Wars are temporary.  Health care would be a permanent thing, especially since once a major government institution is created, its own policies make it extremely difficult to later end that program if we later realize the program is stupid.

> BC Teufelshund (DevilDog) wrote:

> "You are wrong there. If McCain wins, it will not be the Republicans that give him the victory. It will be the independents. He is gonna lose A LOT of votes from his base due to his liberal ideas, but the independents will overwhelmingly fix that deficit. They will not however do the same for the house and senate. Two different beasts when it comes to them voting. If we had that chance, it would have happened in 2006."

Answering this below:

"You are partly true about number one. Not everyone listens to radio hosts like they watch radio. Fox can only do soo much, but a lot of ppl still watch CBS, ABC, CNN and etc. That still creates a problem."

Alright, then.  You don't change what people watch, only the content they're watching.  Which brings me to my 8 point list below.  If the media can run any positive spin for Obama or any negative spin for McCain whatsoever, your strategy fails anyway.

"The Fairness Doctrine will never pass (thank god). Whether they like it or not, it would be infringing on our freedom of speech. It would be constitutinally illegal to say that if you have one point of view on for X hours, you have to have opposite point of view on for same hours. That is blocking freedom of speech and they cannot do it."

1: In particular on the Fairness Doctrine, I'll give you this one.  I just did a little research on it to discover that it actually did have constitutionality rulings against it in the past.  However, just a note: just like in economics, past performance in the Supreme Court is no indication of future performance.  Obama would have a shot at picking Supreme Court justices, slanting the court in his favor.  Each justice he picks puts us one step closer to the Fairness Doctrine being passed.  It's a long shot, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
2: However, you still didn't answer that the Dems could establish rules to favor the Democrats in the 2012 election.  A little gerrymandering of districts and the GOP could be locked out of the House.  With some creative campaign financing laws, Democrats could easily take away key Republican advantages.  Even if talk radio remains a powerful entity, it can't overcome both competitive media with liberal slant and inherently biased rules in the election.  This could only really be stopped if Republicans hold either the House, Senate, or the Presidency.

Me:
"That requires a good number of assumptions:
1: Obama would screw up everyone.  Or, at the very least, a good enough cross-section of the nation in key voting states.
2: The effects would be large enough to be visible to the everyday person, unaided by the media.
3: The negative effects would have to be felt by the time the 2012 election hits.
4: The negative effects would have to outweigh all possible potential future gains that could be claimed by the media ("Sure, the deficit is higher than ever, but this is needed for long term economic growth.  What?  No economic growth yet?  Remember, good economic policies take time to become good.")
5: There would have to be absolutely no other future issues on the ballot.  ("Sure, the deficit is enormous right now as a result of Obama.  But let's not look to the past.  Event X has happened, and we need to judge this election based on who can handle future events, not past events.")
6: The negative effects would have to be universal.  ("Sure, you're feeling the effects of this slowing economy.  But don't think of yourself.  Think of person X who did benefit as a result of this policy.  Don't you feel good that you're helping person X?"  Note: Person X only has to really be a hypothetical person, really, in order to allow people to achieve a feel-good state from their own sacrifice.)
7: Oh, and let's not forget that Obama could rig up election rules, establish the Fairness Doctrine, or do any number of things that result in shutting down the 2012 backlash.
8: Oh, and you're also assuming that the US can survive 4 years of failed policy and still walk out alive."

DD:
"I am making the assumption that his screw ups would be noticeable right away, as they likely would be. Healthcare and other entitlement programs would go over budget within a year, and their would be no hiding it."

That answers one of the arguments I made above, #3.  And, frankly, it's still answerable.  Deficits aren't an overwhelming issue right now, so why should they be so in 2012?  If the result of the programs being over budget is higher taxes, the media could positively spin it by saying the high taxes and poor economy are only a transition phase.

Regardless, you didn't answer 7 of the above arguments, which combine to shoot your whole theory to hell.

"I of course prefer McCain. He is certainly better than Obama or any other dem they could try to put in the white house."

I knew where I was going with this... but screw it.  It's not worth even typing out, because, at best, it's an individual value, rather than a universal value. 

@TheYell

Let me paint you a scenario for this US fall.  No, I'm not going to even use terrorism, Iran, or any foreign invasion.

1: Obama comes into office.
2: Obama passes his health care program, raising taxes on businesses.
3: Businesses lose discretionary spending, which cuts into their R&D programs.

Now, what's so special about these R&D programs?  Right now, we're on the verge of breakthroughs on a number of technologies, all of which are quite important for the future economy and military of any nation developing it.  Biotechnology, computer software development, nanotechnology... only a couple of the important technologies being advanced right now.  If you like, I could write a post specifically dedicated to one of these technologies, or you could just accept that future technologies are really really important.  Essentially, we're on the verge of a huge technological breakthrough, in which the first one to achieve these technologies becomes the dominant power in economics.  If we screw up for 4 years, we're left behind.

@Einstein

My 7 point list answers this.  Either you have to overcome an inherently biased media of immense power that will screw you up anyway, or talk radio would be able to force the GOP into supporting conservative candidates anyway.  My personal theory stands for the former anyway.

@ARFeh

We're assuming, for the time being, that Obama will be bad.  Consider this a GOP strategy meeting. 

Will respond to everything else in the morning...

> BC Teufelshund (DevilDog) wrote:

> Zarf, we all know that Obama would likely screw things up. Here is the problem. We get McCain for President. He will likely not be the best president and things will go wrong. Now, the house and senate are controlled by the Dems (and if you think that just because we vote in a "Republican", the house and senate will go too, you are kidding yourself. We will not win back those two unless something major happens in the next 5 months), which mean they will likely make it hard for McCain to get anything done.

1: Why the hell can't the GOP win back the House and Senate?  Look, the GOP increased the number of senators and representatives in 2004 when the presidential election was taking place.  In addition, while the House is going to be a tough call to beat, the Senate isn't too bad of a fight for Republicans, with a 49/49 divide currently, although it'll be an uphill fight since the GOP has more incumbents to defend than the Dems.  But the principle still stands that people tend to favor the senate candidates of the same party as their presidential candidates.  Knowing that, you can take back the Senate by promoting McCain.

> Especially anything that his base wants done. So now in 4 years, we have another election. Because McCain did not do well, the media will blame it all on McCain. Most people only listen to the news so they will believe the BS. The media will never tell you that congress made sure this happened and that they too are to blame, they will only let us know that McCain is.

1: If the media is left biased and powerful enough to do that, wouldn't that mean the conservative movement can't win anyway, because the media would simply overlook anything good that was done during a McCain presidency, and emphasize all the good things done during an Obama presidency?  But if there is a way to overcome media bias, can't that same tool be used like it was in the immigration debates of today, to pressure McCain on the issues which conservatives disagree based upon?

> Then in 2012 election, we could get stuck with Obama anyways. Now by then, he has had 4 more years to think of things to socialize the country further, and the people will be happy to elect him into office. Now we have a minimum of 4 years with Obama worse than he is today.

1: The media contradiction still exists here.  Your scenario is based on the media's power.  If the media powerful, your scenario is inevitable.  If other agents can overcome the media, then they can separate themselves from McCain on the issues about which they disagree with him.

> Now if Obama wins, things will likely not go good for him as Pres. The media will not be able to blame it on the republicans as the dems control the white house and the senate and house. That means for sure in 2012, we get a republican president in the white house. Not only do we get a Republican. but we likely get a much better one that McCain. This defeat by Obama will teach our party to listen to it's base and might change some of the problems with the current party. This would be great.

1: Wouldn't the media just spin the bad news, just like they've spun good news into bad news?

> But of course, I can't stand the idea of Obama winning, it truly horrors me.

> Zarf, it is not the same thing as handing a burglar the keys. It is merely saying I don't like any of my choices and in good conscience cannot support a person I do not think will do good for the country. There for I will stay home so that I have no part in what happens.

Not really.  You're still de facto supporting him for President in 2008, even if it's through silent consent.  Therefore, you're still responsible for the harms he brings.

> TheYell wrote:

> Zarf I feel you, that is where I was in 2006. But afterwards I felt the scorn of RINOs who blamed me and my honest conservative brothers for the hosing the Party took in November. I got told too often that -I-, Mr Republican, who was in the street in 1994 to rout Der Schlickmeister, was a drag on the Party. The Party couldn't afford to care about right v wrong. The Party expected me to support the Party no matter what. And then I heard it from on high. Hagel on Iraq. Specter on aborton. McCain and Bush on immigration. Rice on Hamas. Lott and Delay on pork. These were enemy positions that my Party found perfectly acceptable. That isn't why I defended the GOP to friends and family for 20 years. The purely partisan spin is pointless. The ideological battle requires a blunt separation from an organization that is no longer our vehicle.

There still isn't a single person here who has answered the question of whether the US, as a nation, can survive 4 years being screwed up, either through technological, economic, or military fallbacks in the constant race for supremacy.  Most important of all would be technology on that list: Technology advances at a constantly accelerating pace, and any lag by one power in developing important technology is only an incentive for other powers to speed up.  We need to be on our toes constantly.  We can't afford to sit on our asses and give up for 4 years.

Then answer the points I said above.  I've got about 4 reasons above that say you're just wrong here.

> BC Teufelshund (DevilDog) wrote:

> Zarf, you need to read what I said, not make things up.

I did not say this is what = am doing. i did not say I would vote for Obama. When I say throw the election, I mean just leave President blank. Or vote for another party. I don't like McCain much

Doesn't matter.  It still applies.  If I see someone break into your house and I turn away, it's no better than if I were to give him the keys to your front door.

I didn't necessarily say that you were doing this.  Any reference to "you" is a reference to "the person voting disingenuously."  Sorry for that mix-up.

But anyway, it's still a dumb idea.

At what point can a forum poster become designated as an Obama advertising spambot?