Free Republic

He’s another example of why the Nobel Prize means very little.

If you want another reason, read the work that got him his noble prize and then read his articles.

His work in favor of free trade and analysis got him the award, but for the last decade or so, he has essentially been bashing it (and indirectly, his own work).

I.E. He has indirectly renounced that which gave him credibility (not that it matters, the left ignores the fact that the guy is a former enron economist).

I could be wrong, but didn’t Rove handle that for W? He is worthless as a pundit, but if he took care of GOTV efforts, why not get him back. Unless this is his mess too.

Actually he didn't. It was Ken Melman (I forgot how to spell his name, but it was the guy who came out of the closet as gay and is the former chairman of the RNC)that was in charge of the GOTV and the actual implementation of the plans.

The New Coke in a military sense was a military feint followed by a knockout blow from the opposite flank.

Then it was the most expensive feint in history.

Not to many people realize this, but New Coke, was one of the most expensive and highly researched products in history. It cost a massive massive fortune, just to research and develop before even one single penny was spent on marketing.

They did numerous blind taste tests across the country, spending enormous and vast sums on this. The R and D spent on New Coke (not including marketing) makes it one of the most expensive beverage or food related projects in history.

Several executives lost their jobs in the aftermath, but the return to old classic, while being a massive success, was excessively costly.

I remember hearing somewhere that Coca-Cola once had the chance to buy the Pepsi Company. If that is true that was a pretty bad decision although it hasn’t hurt the Coke people very much.....

I read an article saying that a long long time ago. The gist was (this was a pro-coke styled article) that coke believed (rightly or wrongly) that by acquiring pepsi it would eliminate the "the contrast of choice". The thought process was that by having a pepsi or a competitor, consumers would be free or feel free to make a choice, when the consumers have no choice or feel there is no choice, there satisfaction goes down with the sole product. The way some execs saw it, at the end of the day, coke would always have competitors like juice or other beverages, but they needed to have a soda competitor so that people could compare them to someone (the analogy was how a good movie needs a villain for the hero, or a sports team needs someone to play against, because no one wants to watch a great team just practice all the time). The other knock was about costs, with the feeling that buying pepsi would have meant that coke would now have to pay for all the soda advertising in the world, but would not get all the benefits of doing so.

Not sure if this was wise or not, or even how true it is, when I read this, years and years ago, I was skeptical that this would even have been possible with anti-trust concerns and what not.

With troops in jordan the one might invade Israel, but I'll be dead and long gone before the one would bomb the maddi.

For a 2nd term, is there really, anything or anywhere he wouldn't bomb ?

Like Klintoon bombing an aspirin factory?

YES, has anyone forgotten, who his secretary of state is ?

The U.S. just sent troops to Jordan, it wouldn't be that hard, with the middle east in meltdown mode, to justify going to war (i.e. Bombing Iran, something that should have been done long ago).

He does the bombing, the media does the spin, and you get your bump. Its a risk for him, but the more likely he looks to lose, the less he has to lose by rolling the dice.

My personal pick for the October surprise ? He'll start bombing someone, or just straight out go to war.

Iran, Syria, Libya, it doesn't matter. Desperate men do desperate things, and starting a war to win an election (to exploit a "rally around the flag" atmosphere and use it to attack Romney on foreign policy, by saying its a war, and he has no experience here).

Clinton did a "wag the dog" attack on the balkans to distract from Lewisnky and got a brief bump, all Obama has to do, is just get that brief bump at the right time. Bombing someome, sending troops, going to war, thats going to be the October surprise.....

No shit, Mittens! You just figure that out?

I don't think there is anyone that doesn't know that, just people who either admit it, or deny it (and wish for it to happen, like Obama).

Before people start rushing to give him credit on being right about something, realize what kind of standard we are talking about here.

Do the "palestinians" want to destroy Israel, yes, its so obvious that pretty much anyone from the left wing to the right wing can realize it, especially when so many "palestinians" say it on their own TV.

The difference is, liberals know it, but deny it, while republicans know it, and state it, Obama knows it, he just wants it to happen.

Romney deserves about as much credit for stating this fact, as a Obama should get if he stated that, he does in fact, have 2 daughters and a shrill for a wife.

Are we going to start giving Romney credit for every single simple fact that he is right about ? If he says there are 50 states, will freepers say, well, he is right about that, that is true, and then cheer him on for knowing something that Obama got wrong ?

In the next debate, watch Romney state that Washington D.C. is in fact the capitol of the United States, and someone say, well, you know, that is true....Of course its true, stating a basic well known fact, isn't something to be impressed by, the fact that some folks are impressed by that, is frankly depressing.

Rudy, to me, and as a New Yorker, was a liberal,while despised by democrats, it was more over the party then the ideology. Simply put, Rudy hates the democratic party, he doesn't hate their ideas, he just hates them (which is one of the reasons for the viceral hatred that he garners).

That said, when he ran for President, one of his campaign promises, and one he was most likely to keep, was to appoint strict constructionists to the bench, though to be frank, on economic matters, he showed alot of conservative viewpoints, and he was in the hawk camp on foreign policy, but on social issues, he was to the left of Bill Clinton, and John McCain and everyone else (I could name a dozen democrats who are more conservative then him). I wouldn't mind seeing him as a republican senator or governor (for NY, and only NY), but on the federal level, only DHS, and thats it.

Deomcrats that ‘defect’ can only be genuine if they were part of the now near extinct species of conservative democrats aka ‘Bluedogs’. They were conservatives in a historically democrat district that had since turned liberal, and they find a need to make the crossover in order to be true to their values.

Ronald Reagan was one such democrat ‘defector’ although he ably characterized the ‘defection’ as “I did not leave the democrat party, that party left me”.

How would you categorize Rudy Guiliani ? He was a liberal democrat that got sick of the machinations of the party, he was not then, nor is now, a conservative. Never the less, Reagan saw fit to make him a U.S. Attorney and supported him there.

My personal opinion, is that while Rudy isn't a "Rat Infiltrator", he is absolutely a liberal who would love to turn the GOP to the left, like Chris Christie...to many people mistake partisanship with ideology.

Rudy is no conservative, but while he may be very partisan (at least now) with the GOP, he sure as hell is liberal (In NYC, he ran on not only the republican partys line, but also the now defunct Liberal party ballot line).

Bet on a 3rd Party—the Democratic Party will insist upon it—the only question is whom they will fund to lead the thing—I do not think Ron Paul will do it—he’s an American and will see though the DNC plan to re-elect Obama. It might well be a Libertarian of some sort. Its 100% possible if Mittens gets the nod—Maybe 65% possible if Newt gets it. BUT it will happen.

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson has already declared his intent to seek the nomination of the libertarian party and run for the Presidency....i.e. he is already declared as running 3rd party.

I have no idea what any of that means, LOL.

I don’t know anything about coding, but my guess, either start with the easiest ones to learn, and move up, or learn the most popular ones first, or something like that (I’m kind of hoping the easy ones are the popular ones, lol).

correct my error, I meant “code academy” not to be confused with “codeacademy” (2 different places, one is online, the other is brick and mortar and based in chicago).

I'm actually going to try and learn a little bit about coding this year. My plan so far is to start with "codeaccademy", move on to "treehouse" and then try "code school". I do want to learn, and figure this might as well be the year. I just don't know really where to learn, and have heard these places mentioned a few times.

This isn't an endorsement (thank God), but it is his opinion/prediction, and if Romney can/does win south carolina, then the GOP can go to hell, and it'll clearly be a sign that the tea party has lost.

If a liberal can win the republican party nomination for President, then what good is the republican party ?

Many Obama critics claim Obama has some sort of plan to crack down on dissenters and have them interrogated and sent to prison or reeducation camps or something. But with Obama simultaneously gutting the military-if one is an aspiring dictator, their natural instinct is to spend more money strengthening the military-it makes one wonder he plans on doing that if he is in fact planning it. Does he think the Secret Service could go after all of the millions, tens of millions even, who dont approve of him ? Will he expect to issue written orders to American supporters to make citizens arrests and then they will just do it ?

You don't need the secret service or the military. Fear of losing your job, prosecution by local authorities for some B.S. harassment charge, or "inciting a riot", we still have a large and powerful federal law enforcement system, and enough local cops, and enough prisons, and the fear of losing ones job (and getting no benefits) that people will fall into line.

Here is what I *think* a Zionist is: Someone who will go to any expense/effort to prevent anyone other than a Jew to reside in territories currently defined as the State of Israel. I welcome any correction you or the reader might offer. Suspect there will be some divergence of opinions/defiintions on this one. So what?

If that was correct, the term would only have existed after the creation of the nation state of Israel but it has existed long before that. Its usually used in various ways, but generally its a more politically correct term used to describe jews (usually in a negative connotation).

Famous anti-semetic literature like the "Protocols of the elders of Zion" don't even make references to Israel, and (at the risk of invoking Godwins law), the Nazis used to use the term "ZIonist" quite often, without any reference to a future existence of Israel.

Note, Martin Luther King, described anti-zionism as anti-semetism, he did not draw any other distinctions and saw the 2 as interchangeable terms.

That said, around 1/5 of the Israeli population is not of jewish decent.