Mitt & 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by Britt, Dec 26, 2011.

  1. Britt

    Britt Well-Known Member

    Can anyone nail down this box of jello?? He seems to have changed positions a few times depending on the group he is addressing... like all politicians.:down:
  2. pickled egg

    pickled egg If you don’t hear from me

    He was for it before he was against being against it when he was unable to support it due to his previously stated opposition to opposing the opposition's position opposing what he was for when he was against it.

    I think. :confused:
  3. mfbRSV

    mfbRSV Well-Known Member

    Not likely. Check out some google results...
  4. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    Mitt is a "centrist" from a Northeastern state (read: pile of shit). He doesn't give a flying fuck about individual rights vs. the state. He's just another technocrat and statist.
  5. H8R

    H8R Bansgivings in process

    With an explanation like that you should seriously consider going into politics. You'd be a natural. :D
  6. b-sav

    b-sav Well-Known Member

    I see this word "technocrat" being thrown around here on the beeb a lot. I googled it. Here is what I cut and pasted from Wiki...

    "Technocracy is a hypothetical form of government in which science would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers and technologists who have knowledge, expertise or skills would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen and economists.[1] In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field."

    Is this really what you mean or are just throwing around big words?
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2011
  7. panthercity

    panthercity Thread Killa

    You're just... MEAN!
  8. Orvis

    Orvis Well-Known Member

    My God! I'm doomed. I actually understood that. :(
  9. sheepofblue

    sheepofblue Well-Known Member

    Most progressives claim this. That is why many of Obama's people think a centrally planned economy is able to be more efficient, science :crackup:
  10. Super Dave

    Super Dave Exhausted and Abused

    Can we vote in some kind of object to public office? Maybe a chair or a lamp... They wouldn't need health care, and nothing would get done. It would be a step in the direction of just getting most of us left the hell alone...
  11. tophyr

    tophyr Parkour Champion

    I don't see anything wrong with that definition of a technocracy. Sounds pretty good to me.

    ... pay no attention to what I do for a living..
  12. Motofun352

    Motofun352 Well-Known Member

    I think we should have a write in campaign for a dog. The opposition could run a cat. People would what they're getting for their vote. The side benefit is they're more loyal and they can be trained not to shit the place up. :up:
  13. sheepofblue

    sheepofblue Well-Known Member

    Nope the morons of the world actually think the government can fix things, this includes the politicians AND voters.
  14. pickled egg

    pickled egg If you don’t hear from me

    You really think the politicians *think* they can fix things?

    Oh, you don't mean "fix" as in repair, you mean "fix" as in "arrange for their own benefit". Gotcha. :up:
  15. charles

    charles The Transporter

    Sadly, I believe you are correct...we now have an 'oligarchy' that took control of the country; they have nothing but kind words for the people, and more than enough benefits for themselves.
  16. Super Dave

    Super Dave Exhausted and Abused

    OMG! Think of the opportunities for the parties and the special interest groups! LOL!

    On one end, the Home Appliance Party! Another, House Pets! The debates could be put on pay per view...and pay the national debt.
  17. R Acree

    R Acree Banned

    Vote for the Tupperware party.
  18. panthercity

    panthercity Thread Killa

    Sorry, I already voted for the Mary Kay party.
  19. Super Dave

    Super Dave Exhausted and Abused

    :crackhead: :Poke: :D
  20. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    That definition is too narrow and overly optimistic. I would define a technocrat as "Someone who wants to replace market economics in the economy in general or an economic sector with central planning done by bureaucrats, scientists, economists, and other purported experts". I also like to throw around big words, but the description is apt.

    Mitt isn't a bad guy, and I'm sure he'd make a good President, certainly better than Bammers. However, that is NOT what we need right now. Mitt is still a statist, and an accommodator.

    What we need is someone who will completely and totally repudiate the Obama philosophy, and genuinely fight to shrink government. Mitt will certainly try, but he will be much too accommodating, will make big compromises with the left, and his policies will become so watered down as to have no effect. As a stopgap to prevent Obama from doing more damage, Mitt is definitely perfect, but he will not try to dismantle the Washington machine, just tweak it.

    I want someone with fire in their belly and hate in their heart for Obama's politics and economic philosophy, apparently, so does the rest of the electorate, which is why Mitt's support has never gone above what, 30%?
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2011

Share This Page