or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault - Page 4

post #121 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Oh, good grief, no. The GOP needs to suffer the crushing death blow of a full 8 years of Obama for them to begin to understand what it would mean to get back following the Constitution, bring back the troops from overseas, stop the insane drug war and reduce the size and reach of government. They won't get it until they have been decimated and the neo-cons and corporatist oligarchy calling the shots right now is played off.


Spam, with all due respect, your posts should carry disclaimer: Warning: This Member is a Ron Paul Revolutionite.

And really, that's OK with me. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says. I also think he's wrong on several front, one of which being troop deployments. I also don't think that country--center right as it is---will embrace his agenda in total. The GOP should focus on spending, size of government, security and real tax reform. Leave the social wedge issues alone (abortion, gay marriage, etc.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sorry but you were shoveling crap like this before the last election.


Well I guess you won't get it until they lose again. However that'll just make their reform take that much longer. You probably wouldn't like a republican party that operated like they were designed to anyway.



"Crap like this?" You mean polling data from universally respected sources? I presented you with current data from Ramussen, Gallup and others...all showing serious problems for your party and a growing advantage for the GOP. Now, while it very well may change (as I have said many times before), one cannot deny what the data shows right NOW.

As for 'losing," I've already mentioned that you'll shift that definition to fit the events of the day. Beyond taking control of both houses, you'll pronounce them "losers." Even then, you might post that "I told you SDW...they should have one by more....this shows how screwed up the party is.

The only thing we can do is look at the current data and trends. These show that Republicans taking one or both houses is a possibility, though far from a certainty. The trends show that the President has lost popularity faster than any President in history. They also show he is the most unpopular President at this point in his first term...ever. Congress is hugely unpopular as well. Local polling shows many Democratic Senators are at risk of losing their seats, including Dodd and Reid, of all people. Even Boxer is in a fight in CA.

But you won't listen to any of this, because you've created a nice little scenario where in your mind, you can't lose the argument no matter what happens. If the GOP wins, it should have been by more. If they take one house, it should have been two. If they take a large number of seats but don't take control, you'll claim victory.

Most importantly, if events transpire that cause the political landscape to shift within the next year (delivering a dem victory), you'll claim that you were right all along..
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #122 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Spam, with all due respect, your posts should carry disclaimer: Warning: This Member is a Ron Paul Revolutionite.

And really, that's OK with me. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says. I also think he's wrong on several front, one of which being troop deployments. I also don't think that country--center right as it is---will embrace his agenda in total. The GOP should focus on spending, size of government, security and real tax reform. Leave the social wedge issues alone (abortion, gay marriage, etc.)






"Crap like this?" You mean polling data from universally respected sources? I presented you with current data from Ramussen, Gallup and others...all showing serious problems for your party and a growing advantage for the GOP. Now, while it very well may change (as I have said many times before), one cannot deny what the data shows right NOW.

As for 'losing," I've already mentioned that you'll shift that definition to fit the events of the day. Beyond taking control of both houses, you'll pronounce them "losers." Even then, you might post that "I told you SDW...they should have one by more....this shows how screwed up the party is.

The only thing we can do is look at the current data and trends. These show that Republicans taking one or both houses is a possibility, though far from a certainty. The trends show that the President has lost popularity faster than any President in history. They also show he is the most unpopular President at this point in his first term...ever. Congress is hugely unpopular as well. Local polling shows many Democratic Senators are at risk of losing their seats, including Dodd and Reid, of all people. Even Boxer is in a fight in CA.

But you won't listen to any of this, because you've created a nice little scenario where in your mind, you can't lose the argument no matter what happens. If the GOP wins, it should have been by more. If they take one house, it should have been two. If they take a large number of seats but don't take control, you'll claim victory.

Most importantly, if events transpire that cause the political landscape to shift within the next year (delivering a dem victory), you'll claim that you were right all along..

Wel we'll just have to wait and see won't we? I'lll be sure and remember this for future reference. Of course by then you'll say you really weren't saying that of something.

Quote:
I told you SDW...they should have one by more

Isn't that " Won " by more. But I'm sure you have such a good grasp of the issues you meant that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #123 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Oh, good grief, no. The GOP needs to suffer the crushing death blow of a full 8 years of Obama for them to begin to understand what it would mean to get back following the Constitution, bring back the troops from overseas, stop the insane drug war and reduce the size and reach of government. They won't get it until they have been decimated and the neo-cons and corporatist oligarchy calling the shots right now is played off.


Well handling our own business aka "Isolationist" sentiment is at an almost all time high so there is plenty of support to be found in bringing the troops back from overseas and ending Pax America. I agree with almost all the other issues as well. The difference of view is that I don't believe the Republican Party needs to be destroyed to make it happen. There is a reason I started the Boomer thread. I don't think Republican values have become weak, rather I think that Boomer values as filtered through the Republican Party are very weak. That generation has always exempted itself from the rules and it is no surprise that this is true even when they are Republicans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sorry but you were shoveling crap like this before the last election.

Well I guess you won't get it until they lose again. However that'll just make their reform take that much longer. You probably wouldn't like a republican party that operated like they were designed to anyway.

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............

Can't you at least very the sentence structure of the dogma? It sounds like a cut/paste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Spam, with all due respect, your posts should carry disclaimer: Warning: This Member is a Ron Paul Revolutionite.

And really, that's OK with me. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says. I also think he's wrong on several front, one of which being troop deployments. I also don't think that country--center right as it is---will embrace his agenda in total. The GOP should focus on spending, size of government, security and real tax reform. Leave the social wedge issues alone (abortion, gay marriage, etc.)

Well this is absolutely the point. Most Republicans have no problem with the Paul-ites/Libertarian/Tea Party values. None at all.

Quote:
"Crap like this?" You mean polling data from universally respected sources? I presented you with current data from Ramussen, Gallup and others...all showing serious problems for your party and a growing advantage for the GOP. Now, while it very well may change (as I have said many times before), one cannot deny what the data shows right NOW.

As for 'losing," I've already mentioned that you'll shift that definition to fit the events of the day. Beyond taking control of both houses, you'll pronounce them "losers." Even then, you might post that "I told you SDW...they should have one by more....this shows how screwed up the party is.

The only thing we can do is look at the current data and trends. These show that Republicans taking one or both houses is a possibility, though far from a certainty. The trends show that the President has lost popularity faster than any President in history. They also show he is the most unpopular President at this point in his first term...ever. Congress is hugely unpopular as well. Local polling shows many Democratic Senators are at risk of losing their seats, including Dodd and Reid, of all people. Even Boxer is in a fight in CA.

But you won't listen to any of this, because you've created a nice little scenario where in your mind, you can't lose the argument no matter what happens. If the GOP wins, it should have been by more. If they take one house, it should have been two. If they take a large number of seats but don't take control, you'll claim victory.

Most importantly, if events transpire that cause the political landscape to shift within the next year (delivering a dem victory), you'll claim that you were right all along..

Here is another little piece of information that he will ignore.

Bush closes the gap.

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

This house of Democratic ad-hom cards is falling fast.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #124 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Well handling our own business aka "Isolationist" sentiment is at an almost all time high so there is plenty of support to be found in bringing the troops back from overseas and ending Pax America. I agree with almost all the other issues as well. The difference of view is that I don't believe the Republican Party needs to be destroyed to make it happen. There is a reason I started the Boomer thread. I don't think Republican values have become weak, rather I think that Boomer values as filtered through the Republican Party are very weak. That generation has always exempted itself from the rules and it is no surprise that this is true even when they are Republicans.



ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............

Can't you at least very the sentence structure of the dogma? It sounds like a cut/paste.



Well this is absolutely the point. Most Republicans have no problem with the Paul-ites/Libertarian/Tea Party values. None at all.



Here is another little piece of information that he will ignore.

Bush closes the gap.

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

This house of Democratic ad-hom cards is falling fast.

Quote:
Can't you at least very the sentence structure of the dogma? It sounds like a cut/paste.

Hey according to SDW's logic his lack of understanding of the difference between " One " and " Won " invalidates anything else in his post! Since you and he are buddies that probably means your stuff is invalid also!

Seriously trumpy things are going to go the way I'm predicting. A part of you knows that. This presidency would be a tough row to hoe for anyone so dropping popularity is to be expected. It won't go on forever. All we need is for the economy to turn around and all of that will go away. People vote with their pocket books. But you already know that.

Quote:
I think that Boomer values as filtered through the Republican Party are very weak

I think maybe you have issues you're so caught up in blaming your parents you have a fixation ( and that pathetic thread ou have to keep propping up ). Just wait until you hit 50 and there's some young pup nipping at your heals. Things won't seem so cut and dried then I'll guarantee that! I was 35 when I started working at my current job. You'd be surprised how fast a couple of decades can go!

Don't worry. The republicans will be back ( oh by the way it won't be with Huckabee since he pardoned that guy that murdered 4 policemen in Seattle recently ) in about 7 years or so.

And Ron Paul please!

Quote:
This house of Democratic ad-hom cards is falling fast

Talk about cut and paste! Just saying something over and over again won't make it happen. But I suppose if you keep saying for the next 7 years it might!

However I'm guessing we'll be doing this same dance well into the next decade. Oh well!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #125 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

All we need is for the economy to turn around and all of that will go away. People vote with their pocket books. But you already know that.

Is that all? \ Well when that happens let me know...

At the current rate this economy does not look to be turning around very quickly. What happens to the value of the dollar when much of that debt gets called in by other nations?

I fear the day...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #126 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Is that all? \ Well when that happens let me know...

At the current rate this economy does not look to be turning around very quickly. What happens to the value of the dollar when much of that debt gets called in by other nations?

I fear the day...

Noah no one expects this to turn around quickly duh! It didn't get into this situation quickly and it will take years to recover but I'm betting we'll see definite signs before that.

Other nations are having their own probelms. This is a global crisis remember? There's no telling when or if that will happen.

Also like I've said I fully believe if it does turn around the Republicans line will be " Well it would have done that anyway " or they'll take credit for it in some way.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #127 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Noah no one expects this to turn around quickly duh! It didn't get into this situation quickly and it will take years to recover but I'm betting we'll see definite signs before that.

Your quote was clear:
Seriously trumpy things are going to go the way I'm predicting. A part of you knows that. This presidency would be a tough row to hoe for anyone so dropping popularity is to be expected. It won't go on forever. All we need is for the economy to turn around and all of that will go away. People vote with their pocket books. But you already know that.

Your post seems to say that you feel this will turn around before the next election. That was the point you were arguing. I really hope you are right, honestly. 4 more years of Obama would be well worth some financial security in this nation. However, the indicators that people seem to be pointing to are usually blips caused by stimulus funds that seem to go away almost as fast as they appear. Or the drop in unemployment that occurs as people who are unemployed for so long they simply fall off the roles...

Quote:
Other nations are having their own probelms. This is a global crisis remember? There's no telling when or if that will happen.

Right, and when they become more fiscally needy, when will they call back their debt from us to help pay for their peoples needs?

Quote:
Also like I've said I fully believe if it does turn around the Republicans line will be " Well it would have done that anyway " or they'll take credit for it in some way.

Who cares what the Republicans say? On the same token, if it doesn't turn around the Democrats will likely say the Republicans caused the problem and exaggerated it by dragging their heels. And in the meantime, American people will be out of jobs, strapped financially, and angry at those in power.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #128 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Your quote was clear:
Seriously trumpy things are going to go the way I'm predicting. A part of you knows that. This presidency would be a tough row to hoe for anyone so dropping popularity is to be expected. It won't go on forever. All we need is for the economy to turn around and all of that will go away. People vote with their pocket books. But you already know that.

Your post seems to say that you feel this will turn around before the next election. That was the point you were arguing. I really hope you are right, honestly. 4 more years of Obama would be well worth some financial security in this nation. However, the indicators that people seem to be pointing to are usually blips caused by stimulus funds that seem to go away almost as fast as they appear. Or the drop in unemployment that occurs as people who are unemployed for so long they simply fall off the roles...



Right, and when they become more fiscally needy, when will they call back their debt from us to help pay for their peoples needs?



Who cares what the Republicans say? On the same token, if it doesn't turn around the Democrats will likely say the Republicans caused the problem and exaggerated it by dragging their heels. And in the meantime, American people will be out of jobs, strapped financially, and angry at those in power.

Quote:
Right, and when they become more fiscally needy, when will they call back their debt from us to help pay for their peoples needs?

Yes that's a big when / if question. Not a for sure definite.

Quote:
Who cares what the Republicans say? On the same token, if it doesn't turn around the Democrats will likely say the Republicans caused the problem and exaggerated it by dragging their heels. And in the meantime, American people will be out of jobs, strapped financially, and angry at those in power

If that happens ( which I don't think it will ) they'd be angry at more than Obama or the Democrats.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #129 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes that's a big when / if question. Not a for sure definite.

It is a reasonable expectation that it could happen. Nothing is for sure, but I guarantee that they are more concerned about their people than ours.

Quote:
If that happens ( which I don't think it will ) they'd be angry at more than Obama or the Democrats.

Since Obama and the Democrats are not the only ones in power, that would be an obvious statement.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #130 of 419
OMG!! BHO has really done it! Harsh language for the banks!

The horror.

From Yves Smith's blog:

Quote:
Yves here. That is a curious and revealing statement. No, you may not have run for office on a cream to the bankers, crumbs to everyone else platform, but it is certainly what you have done at every available opportunity. Start looking in the mirror and owning your policies, instead of pretending you are somehow not responsible for them. Back to the Journal:

Quote:
Relations between the banking industry and the White House were frosty from the start and have deteriorated in recent weeks, with large banks lobbying against portions of legislation that would toughen financial-market regulations and administration officials angered by some banks continued payment of high bonuses and their reluctance to lend.

Yves here. Huh? Team Obama is acting surprised that the banksters are lobbying heavily against reform. They have been doing this all the way through, even ones who were still on the TARP drip feed. Were they not awake when the banking industry gutted the most meaningful part of the new consumer protection agency for banking products, that banks be required to offer plain vanilla products? Team Obama telegraphed a bank friendly posture from the get-go, from Geithers very first statement in office, through the stress test charade, to letting the banks pay back the TARP so they could resume the critical-to-the-economy function of paying top executives big bonuses. We are supposed to take this surprise as genuine? They aided and abetted this behavior. No, what they are really surprised at is the chump public noticed and is pissed.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #131 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Wel we'll just have to wait and see won't we? I'lll be sure and remember this for future reference. Of course by then you'll say you really weren't saying that of something.

Isn't that " Won " by more. But I'm sure you have such a good grasp of the issues you meant that.

I think that's "I'll," not "I'lll." But I'm sure you know that. Also, it's "well," not "wel." But I'm sure you knew that as well.

As for my mistake, I didn't mean it. The difference is that I can admit a mistake and move on. Thank you for the correction. However, this is an excellent example of what I posted in the other thread: I seldom make mistakes like you do. The ones I do make are very occasional and caused by typing too fast, focusing on ten things at once, etc. Yours, by comparison, are ubiquitous and severe.

As for "waiting and seeing," you're right about that. No one knows for sure what will happen. That said, your next comment is puzzling. You can bookmark my comments for all I care. Write them down. Press them in a book. Why can I say this? Because, I am merely stating facts in the from of current polling data. I am not making predictions. Are you?

Speaking of which, I'm not exactly sure why you consistently refuse to acknowledge the shape of the current political landscape, regardless of its impact on future elections. This has been a pattern of yours for years, and I've never understood it. I suppose I always took it as you just trying to be "cute" in our ongoing debates. Instead of looking at where things stand currently and going from there, you seem to think a year or two ahead, always thinking "things can change" (which is obvious). It's as if you have no political frame of reference. Can you enlighten me on your thought process here?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #132 of 419
Hey SDW! It's still Bush's fault!

As you can see if you're not going to make sense ( you know deal with reality as it really is and not some SDW colored fantasy ) I really don't care anymore. And no it doesn't mean you win! It means I don't care anymore.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #133 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey SDW! It's still Bush's fault!

As you can see if you're not going to make sense ( you know deal with reality as it really is and not some SDW colored fantasy ) I really don't care anymore. And no it doesn't mean you win! It means I don't care anymore.

Obviously you do care, because you took the time to post this. It's a little like when you tell someone he or she is on ignore...but then keep responding anyway.


Edit: I have decided to keep posting this until you respond. You utterly ignored it:


Speaking of which, I'm not exactly sure why you consistently refuse to acknowledge the shape of the current political landscape, regardless of its impact on future elections. This has been a pattern of yours for years, and I've never understood it. I suppose I always took it as you just trying to be "cute" in our ongoing debates. Instead of looking at where things stand currently and going from there, you seem to think a year or two ahead, always thinking "things can change" (which is obvious). It's as if you have no political frame of reference. Can you enlighten me on your thought process here?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #134 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obviously you do care, because you took the time to post this. It's a little like when you tell someone he or she is on ignore...but then keep responding anyway.


Edit: I have decided to keep posting this until you respond. You utterly ignored it:


Speaking of which, I'm not exactly sure why you consistently refuse to acknowledge the shape of the current political landscape, regardless of its impact on future elections. This has been a pattern of yours for years, and I've never understood it. I suppose I always took it as you just trying to be "cute" in our ongoing debates. Instead of looking at where things stand currently and going from there, you seem to think a year or two ahead, always thinking "things can change" (which is obvious). It's as if you have no political frame of reference. Can you enlighten me on your thought process here?

Well SDW here's what some are saying prediction wise.

http://2010.newsweek.com/top-10/poli...s-mansion.html
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #135 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well SDW here's what some are saying prediction wise.

http://2010.newsweek.com/top-10/poli...s-mansion.html


I really think you don't read. Not that you can't...you just don't.

1. I don't care about predictions.
2. We're not talking about predictions.
3. The clip has nothing to do with Congressional elections. Isn't what we were talking about?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #136 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I really think you don't read. Not that you can't...you just don't.

1. I don't care about predictions.
2. We're not talking about predictions.
3. The clip has nothing to do with Congressional elections. Isn't what we were talking about?

You know SDW. After reading all of your recent comments on various issues I've never been so sure you know nothing about what you're talking about.

It gives me a sense of peace, laughter, and a small sense of dismay that there are probably others out there just like you. Not many of course but some.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #137 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You know SDW. After reading all of your recent comments on various issues I've never been so sure you know nothing about what you're talking about.

It gives me a sense of peace, laughter, and a small sense of dismay that there are probably others out there just like you. Not many of course but some.

He already proved you wrong on another forum somewhere else a long time ago.

Look it up.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #138 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

He already proved you wrong on another forum somewhere else a long time ago.

Look it up.

Actually I proved him wrong recently several times. His claims that I never provide proof was also asked by trumptman. So I dredged up a post where I provided quite a bit concerning the Iraq war and the fact that he just ignored it ( like he does everytime ). Wrong.

He also likes to correct my spelling so I caught him in a glaring error. It didn't take long.
Wrong again.

And when he tried to tell us before the last election he claimed he never indicated shortly before the election that the democrats would lose. I looked that one up as well.

Wrong yet again for SDW.

He'll also be wrong about the 2010 election going really well for the Republicans and 2012 Obama will get a second term.

No SDW's track record isn't really that good from finding WMD to wiretapping.

Look it up.

And of course your claim is just more down is up, black is white, it's the sun when it's the moon logic from the conservative element here which has about as much to do with reality as FOX news does.

Pretty laughable these days really. Do you want to know what I think will happen to all the hardcore elements of the Republican party after Republican reform?

They'll break away from the main because they won't like the sanity the Republicans are moving toward and form their own party. The " We hate liberals " party or something. It'll be quite laughable to watch as they slip into obscurity. People just don't want to hear all that negative mudslinging and story telling anymore.
Sorry but that's just the way it is.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #139 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Actually I proved him wrong recently several times. His claims that I never provide proof was also asked by trumptman. So I dredged up a post where I provided quite a bit concerning the Iraq war and the fact that he just ignored it ( like he does everytime ). Wrong.

You don't provide "proof" of anything.

Quote:

He also likes to correct my spelling so I caught him in a glaring error. It didn't take long.
Wrong again.

No, you caught a minor and understandable error caused by me doing too many things at once. Everyone makes those kind of mistakes from time to time. You make glaring and frequent errors that make one wonder about your grasp of basic English.

Quote:

And when he tried to tell us before the last election he claimed he never indicated shortly before the election that the democrats would lose. I looked that one up as well.

See, there you go. Read that back to yourself and tell me it makes sense. It's nonsensical. As for the election, you're wrong. I didn't indicate the dems would lose shortly before the election. It was clear 30-60 days prior Obama would win.

Quote:

Wrong yet again for SDW.

A typical cheap debate tactic. "Why are you listening to him?!??! He's ALWAYS wrong!!!!"

Quote:

He'll also be wrong about the 2010 election going really well for the Republicans and 2012 Obama will get a second term.

Not this shit again. I've said that no one knows what the outcome will be. I haven't claimed it will "go really well" or that that Obama will not get a second term. What I've said is that BASED ON CURRENT POLLS, the GOP should do well and Obama's chances of a second term aren't good. However, things can change, as we've seen before.

Oh, and I won't hesitate to quote you on this:

Quote:

He'll also be wrong about the 2010 election going really well for the Republicans and 2012 Obama will get a second term.

Speaking of which, what are you basing that rather bold prediction on?

Quote:

No SDW's track record isn't really that good from finding WMD to wiretapping.

You can't let it go, can you? Yes, I thought there were WMD. Laugh it up, professor. The person who went with the opinion of the world intelligence community was wrong, and the stopped clock was right. Congratulations.

Quote:

Look it up.

Yes, another jimmac tactic. Ask your opponent to prove YOUR claim. Classic. With each post you make yourself more my servant.

Quote:

And of course your claim is just more down is up, black is white, it's the sun when it's the moon logic from the conservative element here which has about as much to do with reality as FOX news does.

This is classic jimmac. Rhetorical, meaningless, partisan crap like:

"You're wrong!"
"Everything you say is wrong!"
"The opposite of of everything you say is true!" "EVERYTHING"
"Sorry, no one's buying today."
"Yes but we've been through this before."
"Cycles!"


Quote:

Pretty laughable these days really.

See above. What is laughable and why the reference to "these days?"

Quote:
Do you want to know what I think will happen to all the hardcore elements of the Republican party after Republican reform?

No.

Quote:

They'll break away from the main because they won't like the sanity the Republicans are moving toward and form their own party. The " We hate liberals " party or something. It'll be quite laughable to watch as they slip into obscurity. People just don't want to hear all that negative mudslinging and story telling anymore.
Sorry but that's just the way it is.

Damn, you told us anyway. Instead of taking issue with your prediction, let's look at its content more closely.

Quote:
They'll break away from the main

The "hardcore" elements are the base of fiscal conservatism.

Quote:
because they won't like the sanity the Republicans are moving toward

Sanity? Like big government? Righto. They tried that, and look where it got them.

Quote:

and form their own party. The " We hate liberals " party or something.

That's a knee-slapper, jimmac! The party won't split in two.

Quote:

It'll be quite laughable to watch as they slip into obscurity.

www.pollingreport.com
www.rasmussenreports.com
www.gallup.com


Quote:
People just don't want to hear all that negative mudslinging and story telling anymore.

True. They don't. That's why the polls say what they do....about Democrats.

Quote:

Sorry but that's just the way it is.

Two classics in one post. You're on FIRE!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #140 of 419
[QUOTE=SDW2001;1537401]
Quote:
You don't provide "proof" of anything.



No, you caught a minor and understandable error caused by me doing too many things at once. Everyone makes those kind of mistakes from time to time. You make glaring and frequent errors that make one wonder about your grasp of basic English.



See, there you go. Read that back to yourself and tell me it makes sense. It's nonsensical. As for the election, you're wrong. I didn't indicate the dems would lose shortly before the election. It was clear 30-60 days prior Obama would win.



A typical cheap debate tactic. "Why are you listening to him?!??! He's ALWAYS wrong!!!!"



Not this shit again. I've said that no one knows what the outcome will be. I haven't claimed it will "go really well" or that that Obama will not get a second term. What I've said is that BASED ON CURRENT POLLS, the GOP should do well and Obama's chances of a second term aren't good. However, things can change, as we've seen before.

Oh, and I won't hesitate to quote you on this:



Speaking of which, what are you basing that rather bold prediction on?



You can't let it go, can you? Yes, I thought there were WMD. Laugh it up, professor. The person who went with the opinion of the world intelligence community was wrong, and the stopped clock was right. Congratulations.



Yes, another jimmac tactic. Ask your opponent to prove YOUR claim. Classic. With each post you make yourself more my servant.



This is classic jimmac. Rhetorical, meaningless, partisan crap like:

"You're wrong!"
"Everything you say is wrong!"
"The opposite of of everything you say is true!" "EVERYTHING"
"Sorry, no one's buying today."
"Yes but we've been through this before."
"Cycles!"




See above. What is laughable and why the reference to "these days?"



No.



Damn, you told us anyway. Instead of taking issue with your prediction, let's look at its content more closely.



The "hardcore" elements are the base of fiscal conservatism.



Sanity? Like big government? Righto. They tried that, and look where it got them.



That's a knee-slapper, jimmac! The party won't split in two.



www.pollingreport.com
www.rasmussenreports.com
www.gallup.com




True. They don't. That's why the polls say what they do....about Democrats.

Quote:

Sorry but that's just the way it is.[/I]

Two classics in one post. You're on FIRE!

Quote:
You don't provide "proof" of anything

What about the paragraph or two I reposted for trumptman from a few years ago that talked about the Iraq war? It wasn't so kind to bush but at that site they worked in nothing but facts complete with references. That's ok. We all knew you meant proof that you liked.

Well? I just reposted this recently and I'm not looking it up for you. As I know you follow conversations here I'm sure you read it.

Show me a poll that ( not shows Obama's popularity has decreased ) shows republicans are gaining in strength. With Obama's having trouble they should be having a field day shouldn't they?


By the way I've read your polls and it seems that basing your claim on if people think global warming exists? No I read the rest and it hardly seems damning but more importantly it doesn't show what I was talking about. Significant gains by the GOP because of what's going on. Just because Obama's approval ratings have decreased doesn't mean an automatic gain for the GOP.


Also if there aren't really big gains right now it's still so early it really doesn't mean much. Polls right before the next election will mean more but if they haven't changed in the positive alot of r the GOP candidates it won't translate into a big win for them. As I've already stated it's expected that a few seats will go to them. They need more than that to turn this around in the fashion you're describing.

Quote:
Sanity? Like big government?

This comment was aimed at the extreme factions of the GOP. The more colorful elements and their mouth pieces like Rush, Hannity, Beck, and so on. Yes I know those guys aren't in charge but they act like it. That's part of the problem. I don't hate the Republicans. I just hate what part of them has become. But they're on the way out trust me on this.
They have to be to make the GOP viable again. As I've stated before the GOP is there to balance the country when the Democrats get out of hand ( and what you're seeing now is a reaction to the Republicans being out of hand for years and it'll go away as well ). That's the way it works. Can't have one without the other. The problem comes from one side wanting to be in power forever and having nothing but their agendas.

About your other comments I can't help it if you can't tell the truth.

As for my prediction there's even political cartoons that show the Republicans are embarrassed by these extreme factions. They realize they're keeping them from winning elections. That's not what I would count as a positive. So by all means keep up the dog and pony show!

Sorry if the current events ( a Democrat in the Whitehouse and a resurgence of liberal values ) has the neocon's panties in a bunch! But that was to be expected.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #141 of 419
The greatest thing any government could do for it's people would be getting out of their way. Think about it. If there were no Federal government to bother us, how would we live our lives differently?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #142 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The greatest thing any government could do for it's people would be getting out of their way. Think about it. If there were no Federal government to bother us, how would we live our lives differently?

Well to be honest with that extreme it might be a little like the Wild West!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #143 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well to be honest with that extreme it might be a little like the Wild West!



Watched too many Hollywood westerns as a boy? Reading more might help.

"The Mild, Mild West":

Quote:
Between the murders on "Deadwood" and the massacres on "Into the West," the Steven Spielberg epic that seems to be playing round the clock on TNT, the popular version of the frontier looks scarier than ever. There's nothing like blood on high-def TV to illustrate Hobbes's theory that life before government was nasty, brutish and short.

But if you talk to some historians and economists about Deadwood and the rest of the West, you get a much different picture from what's on television - or what's been taught in history classes.

These revisionists' history, unlike the one now fashionable in academia, is not a grim saga of settlers exploiting one another, annihilating natives and despoiling nature. Nor is it like the previously fashionable history depicting the settlers as heroic individualists who tamed the frontier by developing the great American virtue of self-reliance.

The Westerners in this history survived by learning to get along, as Terry Anderson and Peter Hill document in their new book, "The Not So Wild, Wild West." (review) These economists, both at the PERC think tank in Montana, argue that their Western ancestors were usually neither heroic enough to make it on their own nor strong enough to take it away from others.

Yes, some robbed and killed other settlers and Indians, but when they contemplated the basic economic question on the frontier - to raid or to trade? - they usually preferred trading to risking their own lives.

Quote:
"It was a rather polite and civil society enforced by armed men," Dr. McGrath said. "The rate of burglary and robbery was lower than in American cities today. Claim-jumping was rare. Rape was extraordinarily rare - you can argue it wasn't being reported, but I've never seen evidence hinting at that."


"The Wild West of Myth and Reality":

Quote:
In spite of these specific incidents of violence, the lawlessness of the Wild West has been blown out of proportion. Ironically, the myth of the lawless West began before the period was over. Dime novels written in the East in the latter part of the 19th century exaggerated, or simply made up, stories about the crimes and criminals of the West. Hollywood later perpetuated the myth, feeding the public’s desire for excitement and adventure with stories of gunfights in the street and stagecoach robberies. The true story of the Old West is boring by comparison.

Quote:
So, was there violence in the mountains, plains, and frontier towns of the old west? Absolutely. Yet, as with any wilderness, a man was just as likely, if not more likely, to die from thirst, starvation, drowning, freezing, snakebite, falling off a mountain, falling off his horse, being attacked by animals, or any one of a hundred other things. Most of the settlers moving west, whether they were farmers, cowboys, miners, or some other profession, were honest and hardworking. Just as today, outlaws existed, yet in most places and for most people, violent crime was not the daily norm that popular entertainment would have us believe. As unromantic as it may be, relatively few people in the Wild West were involved in the gunfights and stagecoach robberies immortalized in the movies.
post #144 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post



Watched too many Hollywood westerns as a boy? Reading more might help.

"The Mild, Mild West":






"The Wild West of Myth and Reality":

Now you're trying to prove that the Wild West wasn't part anarchy?

Oh Jesus!

I think I've lived around humans long enough to have some idea of what would happen.

Quote:
Yes, some robbed and killed other settlers and Indians, but when they contemplated the basic economic question on the frontier - to raid or to trade? - they usually preferred trading to risking their own lives

I think this is becoming viable only now on the whole world stage. The fact of the matter is war is becoming obsolete as our seperate economies grow dependent on each other. Yes there'll still be war for many years but on a large scale like WWII very unlikely because it's so costly. It used to be war of this scale made a lot of money for a country. Not anymore.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #145 of 419
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=jimmac;1537410]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post



What about the paragraph or two I reposted for trumptman from a few years ago that talked about the Iraq war? It wasn't so kind to bush but at that site they worked in nothing but facts complete with references. That's ok. We all knew you meant proof that you liked.

Well? I just reposted this recently and I'm not looking it up for you. As I know you follow conversations here I'm sure you read it.

Right. You reference something that I clearly didn't see, but won't repost it. And since when is "a paragraph from a few years ago" proof of anything?

Quote:

Show me a poll that ( not shows Obama's popularity has decreased ) shows republicans are gaining in strength. With Obama's having trouble they should be having a field day shouldn't they?

I did that. All one has to do is look at the trend over the last 6 months in generic balloting. But like the jimmac you are, you apply subjective and vague judgements to the data. "They should be having a field day" is a perfect example. You keep moving the goal posts so you can never lose.

Quote:


By the way I've read your polls and it seems that basing your claim on if people think global warming exists?

You'll have to restate that. I have no idea what that statement could mean.

Quote:
No I read the rest and it hardly seems damning but more importantly it doesn't show what I was talking about. Significant gains by the GOP because of what's going on. Just because Obama's approval ratings have decreased doesn't mean an automatic gain for the GOP.

I never claimed it did. I said the GOP has shown gains, which they have. I claimed issue polling was moving in a very bad direction for dems. I said that if Obama's approval rating and these previously mentioned trends continue, it's going to be bad for dems. That's all.

Quote:


Also if there aren't really big gains right now it's still so early it really doesn't mean much. Polls right before the next election will mean more but if they haven't changed in the positive alot of r the GOP candidates it won't translate into a big win for them. As I've already stated it's expected that a few seats will go to them. They need more than that to turn this around in the fashion you're describing.

My lord. This is what I've been saying all along! We don't know what will happen. All we have is current data. The current data is bad for democrats. Just acknowledge it already.

Quote:


This comment was aimed at the extreme factions of the GOP. The more colorful elements and their mouth pieces like Rush, Hannity, Beck, and so on. Yes I know those guys aren't in charge but they act like it. That's part of the problem. I don't hate the Republicans. I just hate what part of them has become. But they're on the way out trust me on this.

Why should I do that?

Quote:
They have to be to make the GOP viable again. As I've stated before the GOP is there to balance the country when the Democrats get out of hand ( and what you're seeing now is a reaction to the Republicans being out of hand for years and it'll go away as well ). That's the way it works. Can't have one without the other. The problem comes from one side wanting to be in power forever and having nothing but their agendas.

If that doesn't sum up your worldview, I don't know what does. The GOP is an also-ran to you. They are there to just balance the dems. I disagree. We do agree that the GOP needs to be viable again, but we disagree on how that is achieved. I think it comes from a fiscally conservative base that avoids wedge issue. It doesn't come from a socially liberal, big government conservatism.

Quote:

About your other comments I can't help it if you can't tell the truth.

Show me where I lied or take that back.

Quote:

As for my prediction there's even political cartoons that show the Republicans are embarrassed by these extreme factions.

Cartoons? Imagine that....cartoons! Case closed!

Quote:
They realize they're keeping them from winning elections. That's not what I would count as a positive. So by all means keep up the dog and pony show!

Sorry if the current events ( a Democrat in the Whitehouse and a resurgence of liberal values ) has the neocon's panties in a bunch! But that was to be expected.

I'll take these together since they are interrelated. First, there is no liberal resurgence. The GOP lost in 2006 because they got away from their fiscally conservative roots, and from anti-war sentiment. In 2008, they lost because (once again):

1. A great message and campaign by Obama.
2. A terrible candidate on their side. (I can explain more if you like)
3. A terrible campaign by that candidate.
4. The economic crisis being at the wrong time (or right time, depending on your view).
5. Party fatigue.

Those who think the country woke up and decided it was liberal are dreaming. Those who think Sarah Palin caused McCain to lose are dreaming. McCain was haphazard in his campaigning. He was too conservative for Democrats, and too liberal for many Republicans. Obama was focused and ran a campaign based on two words. You had soccer moms and twenty-somethings vote for him because they wanted to "be progressive." None of it had to do with a basic and fundamental political shift. You're seeing that now. There is huge opposition to liberal policies. If there wasn't, we'd have a true government takeover of healthcare by now, for example. It won't pass, because the liberal platform is not viable nationally. Why do you think Democrats run as centrists in national elections?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #146 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now you're trying to prove that the Wild West wasn't part anarchy?

Oh Jesus!

I think I've lived around humans long enough to have some idea of what would happen.



I think this is becoming viable only now on the whole world stage. The fact of the matter is war is becoming obsolete as our seperate economies grow dependent on each other. Yes there'll still be war for many years but on a large scale like WWII very unlikely because it's so costly. It used to be war of this scale made a lot of money for a country. Not anymore.

Anarchy is not a natural equivalent to wanton murder or robbery. Anarchy is, and I quote, "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

I'll take that any day over the pig trough we have now.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #147 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Anarchy is not a natural equivalent to wanton murder or robbery. Anarchy is, and I quote, "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

I'll take that any day over the pig trough we have now.

Amen to that.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #148 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Anarchy is not a natural equivalent to wanton murder or robbery. Anarchy is, and I quote, "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

I'll take that any day over the pig trough we have now.

But, how will we all survive without the government telling us how to behave?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #149 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

But, how will we all survive without the government telling us how to behave?

That's a good question. I think we should follow the government as our example. That being the case, for a start, why don't we all get lots of guns and bombs...gather lots of people together, train them to kill...
post #150 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

That's a good question. I think we should follow the government as our example. That being the case, for a start, why don't we all get lots of guns and bombs...gather lots of people together, train them to kill...

Really? I was going to spend like mad on my credit card and blame my wife's first husband for all the trouble.
post #151 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Really? I was going to spend like mad on my credit card and blame my wife's first husband for all the trouble.

Well that's about right...except it can't be your credit card. Maybe your kid's credit card.
post #152 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Anarchy is not a natural equivalent to wanton murder or robbery. Anarchy is, and I quote, "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

I'll take that any day over the pig trough we have now.

Well, feel free to move to a part of the world completely absent of government. That should be quite amusing to watch.
post #153 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Well, feel free to move to a part of the world completely absent of government. That should be quite amusing to watch.

Just as our Constitution is a living document that sets forth ideals based on understanding human nature, a libertarian society would be one that respects individual liberty and minimizes the heavy hand of government.

If America were to magically become a utopian socialist, anarchist, libertarian, or whatever, society it would not remain in that state for long simply because the power of the majority or the giving of of power to a power-seeking individual is too tempting for all involved. No matter what restrictions are placed on groups or individuals they will find ways around these artificial constraints to eventually get what they want, which usually results in forcing someone to do something against their will.

My ideal is a minarchy, yours may be a socialist paradise. Thus, neither will ever be satisfied.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #154 of 419
[QUOTE=SDW2001;1537768]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


Right. You reference something that I clearly didn't see, but won't repost it. And since when is "a paragraph from a few years ago" proof of anything?



I did that. All one has to do is look at the trend over the last 6 months in generic balloting. But like the jimmac you are, you apply subjective and vague judgements to the data. "They should be having a field day" is a perfect example. You keep moving the goal posts so you can never lose.



You'll have to restate that. I have no idea what that statement could mean.



I never claimed it did. I said the GOP has shown gains, which they have. I claimed issue polling was moving in a very bad direction for dems. I said that if Obama's approval rating and these previously mentioned trends continue, it's going to be bad for dems. That's all.



My lord. This is what I've been saying all along! We don't know what will happen. All we have is current data. The current data is bad for democrats. Just acknowledge it already.



Why should I do that?



If that doesn't sum up your worldview, I don't know what does. The GOP is an also-ran to you. They are there to just balance the dems. I disagree. We do agree that the GOP needs to be viable again, but we disagree on how that is achieved. I think it comes from a fiscally conservative base that avoids wedge issue. It doesn't come from a socially liberal, big government conservatism.



Show me where I lied or take that back.



Cartoons? Imagine that....cartoons! Case closed!



I'll take these together since they are interrelated. First, there is no liberal resurgence. The GOP lost in 2006 because they got away from their fiscally conservative roots, and from anti-war sentiment. In 2008, they lost because (once again):

1. A great message and campaign by Obama.
2. A terrible candidate on their side. (I can explain more if you like)
3. A terrible campaign by that candidate.
4. The economic crisis being at the wrong time (or right time, depending on your view).
5. Party fatigue.

Those who think the country woke up and decided it was liberal are dreaming. Those who think Sarah Palin caused McCain to lose are dreaming. McCain was haphazard in his campaigning. He was too conservative for Democrats, and too liberal for many Republicans. Obama was focused and ran a campaign based on two words. You had soccer moms and twenty-somethings vote for him because they wanted to "be progressive." None of it had to do with a basic and fundamental political shift. You're seeing that now. There is huge opposition to liberal policies. If there wasn't, we'd have a true government takeover of healthcare by now, for example. It won't pass, because the liberal platform is not viable nationally. Why do you think Democrats run as centrists in national elections?

Quote:
Right. You reference something that I clearly didn't see, but won't repost it. And since when is "a paragraph from a few years ago" proof of anything?

Because you've been shoveling this same shit for years.

You know outside of my reply to your trying dodge the fact that you were wrong about your claims that I don't provide proof I really don't care SDW. Why should you worry about this when there are so many examples of you being wrong. The thing is I've finally got what the others have. That this place with all the nonsense and lack of logic is a giant waste of my time. You don't care about what the other guy is saying ( unless it treads on your Neocon toes ). All you care about is your next snappy reply or if necessary dodge. Well the world is moving on without you SDW. People don't go for the Dubbya Dog and Pony show anymore. They really don't have time for crazy shit.

In short they want reality and with it real answers.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #155 of 419
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=jimmac;1538134]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post




Because you've been shoveling this same shit for years.

Well that clears that up.

Quote:

You know outside of my reply to your trying dodge the fact that you were wrong about your claims that I don't provide proof I really don't care SDW.

I have dodged nothing. You don't prove claims, unless it's by claiming that you already proved them. \

Quote:
Why should you worry about this when there are so many examples of you being wrong.

<fingers in ears> SDW is wrong. SDW is wrong. SDW is wrong. SDW is wrong. SDW is wrong.

Quote:

The thing is I've finally got what the others have. That this place with all the nonsense and lack of logic is a giant waste of my time.

This, coming from a member who argues with vague rhetoric.

[quote]

Quote:
You don't care about what the other guy is saying ( unless it treads on your Neocon toes ). All you care about is your next snappy reply or if necessary dodge.

Most ironic and hypocritical statement in the history of AI.

Quote:


Well the world is moving on without you SDW. People don't go for the Dubbya Dog and Pony show anymore. They really don't have time for crazy shit.


Quote:

In short they want reality and with it real answers.

Do you offer those answers? I've never heard a good solution to a problem in the 8-9 years I've seen you posting here.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #156 of 419
Thread Starter 
Anyone else noticed that jimmac is on the verge of exploding with frustration? His arguments have been picked apart so badly that he has nothing left but ad-homs and cheap debate tactics. After he gets called on those, he quits. Its about time.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #157 of 419
I learned early on that once you've read one of jimmac's posts, you've read them all.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #158 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Anarchy is not a natural equivalent to wanton murder or robbery. Anarchy is, and I quote, "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

I'll take that any day over the pig trough we have now.

Oh my God, there's a forest fire about to take our homes, I wish there were some kind of... civic structure that might pay aircraft pilots to take up water and drop it on the flames and men to come with buckets and to rescue those in danger, poor souls. Why I would even contribute a little of my income to set up and maintain such a... body.
post #159 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Oh my God, there's a forest fire about to take our homes, I wish there were some kind of... civic structure that might pay aircraft pilots to take up water and drop it on the flames and men to come with buckets and to rescue those in danger, poor souls. Why I would even contribute a little of my income to set up and maintain such a... body.

Because there could never be such a thing as a private fire department or private police. Right?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #160 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Because there could never be such a thing as a private fire department or private police. Right?




A POLICE FORCE? In an ANARCHIST STATE?

A private police force. With the power to arrest people? Yes, and private courts, with the power to try people. And private prisons, to keep those people in.

Except, no, you can't have prisons in an anarchist state because, as every anarchist knows, "whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is an usurper and a tyrant and I declare them my enemy."

But this private fire department, that's just... such an excellent idea.

"We'll prevent this forest fire from burning down this house and this house, but not this one, because they subscribe to our rival fire department."

Of course, none of this would have happened if we's had a private forestry management company to dig fire channels and post safety notices.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault