or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore - Page 3

post #81 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by cs54 View Post

Nice to see those cute kids who owe a gazillion dollars in debt already. I feel like an alien in my own country. I have a totally different view of what government should and should not be than the Obama voter. The US is sadly no different now than the has-been powers in Europe.  

I am a citizen of the US officially but that is it. My country left me behind. It has been a slow decline but Tuesday made it official. No turning back. Not angry. Just sad.

The most socialist countries in Europe are not in debt, nor are their people. Hmm... Maybe they're on to something. Of course, they don't run trillion dollar war efforts or allow lobbyists to dictate spending policy.

Meanwhile, the best example of free market government in the world is Somalia. I haven't heard much about that country, but I'm sure it must be a nice place.
post #82 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There will be plenty of time for analysis about the "why" of last night's election.  Clearly, I was wrong...as were several pundits I have come to respect for their expertise.  Say what you will, Karl Rove and Dick Morris know their jobs and have always delivered accurate results. But I'm sure we will discuss the reason for the outcome later.  

 

What I don't understand is the "how."  

 

I waited a bit to think about this post before responding. Feelings are obviously running high after the election, and there is understandably a lot of disappointment on the Republican side. My own political views are too centrist to be much offended by left- or right-wing governments, although for now the right fringe scares me more than the left. I don't know which outcome would have been better for the country long term, and we will probably never know, but while I have no doubt that the confusion that you write about is real, I'm surprised by the depth of it. It also seems to me to lack objectivity and to unreasonably pigeonhole half of the voting population as freeloaders, so, as someone who ended up voting Democrat even though I strongly suspect that a Romney administration would have benefitted me financially (at least short term), I thought I would suggest some counterpoints to your thinking.

 

Quote:
How is that we reelected a President who has failed in almost all measures of his job? 

Which measures (do you mean metrics?) are you referring to? He obviously did not achieve all that he or the rest of the country wanted, but, for example, if you consider the economy and employment, it is not at all clear that different policies would have been better. Lots of opinion and hypothesizing, and lots of disagreement. He did achieve other things though, and even if you don't like all of them, he was voted in on a platform to do them.

 

Quote:
How is that we reelected a former community organizer with a radical past? 

 That's not remotely objective. Do you have something against community organizers? Radical how, exactly, and by whose standards?

 

Quote:
How is it that people voted against an experienced governor and business leader with a sterling personal background, and voted for the guy that ran a small, angry and divisive campaign?

That seems like a false comparison. Even if one were to accept as accurate your description of Romney, to many observers it was he who ran the more angry and divisive campaign.

 

Quote:
How is it that for the first time since FDR, we re-elected a President with more than 7.3% unemployment?

Perhaps because that is only one factor, was regarded by many as being due to pressures beyond our control at this time, and was outweighed by other factors on this occasion? Individual statistics like that are largely meaningless.

 

Quote:
How is it that the American people ignored Benghazi? 

I'm not sure that they did ignore it. But I don't think that many people viewed it in the absolutely damning light that you and some others do. It was a tragic event, but I don't think most people saw the malfeasance that you are convinced lay behind it and its aftermath.

 

Quote:
How did we reelect the President when the top concern of voter was the economy and only 4 in 10 said we were on the right track with it?

Even accepting that as an accurate estimate, the question is imprecise, the answer open to interpretation, and even as the top concern it can be outweighed by many lower ranked concerns. For example, rising debt may well define our economy as being on the wrong track for some people, but does not necessarily imply that they blame the current administration for the effect.

 

Quote:
How were the final national polls off by at least 5%?

They really were not off unless you bought into the flawed theories about skewed polls. All that noise about needing to correct for oversampling Democrats in a random poll was mathematically unsupportable. You can only correct samples for known distributions (such as age, gender and ethnicity), not for the unknown that you are trying to measure. Besides voting intention, the only true additional unknown was turnout, and the arguments that the Republicans were motivated while the Democrats were not was a strange assumption, and underestimated how scared many moderates now are of the Republican party's right-wing fringe.

 

Quote:
How was the anecdotal evidence so wrong?  

It was not wrong - it was anecdotal and open to just the selective interpretation that it received to support the prejudices of the commentators that you trust.

 

Quote:
I don't recognize a country that voted for pessimism instead of optimism.

Your pessimism is other people's optimism. You must realize that Democratic supporters probably feel exactly the same way.

 

Quote:
I don't recognize a country that voted for More Free Crap™, trillion dollar deficits, and higher taxes.

You are projecting your opinion that that is what they voted for. That's not what they think they voted for, and is a gross oversimplification of the choices facing the country.

 

Quote:
I don't recognize a country that voted for a man who went overseas and apologized for America...

 

No - this is just partisan sophistry - you don't recognize a diplomatic initiative that was intended (whatever its outcome) to try to reduce the negative image of the US in many parts of the world and, consequentially, reduce the support base for terrorist organizations.

 

Quote:
...a man who was caught on an open mic essentially telling Vladimir Putin he'd give away the store on missile defense after his last election

While the open microphone was unfortunate, his comments to Medvedev that there would be more flexibility to deal with this issue after the election are not remotely telling anything of the sort to the Russians.

 

Quote:
I don't recognize a country that reelected a man who promised skyrocketing energy prices and bankrupt coal companies...and delivered on his promise.

A convenient target, but energy prices are not really within the control of the US government, because domestic production is expensive. Coal has suffered somewhat due to environmental regulation, but also heavily due to competition from natural gas production.

 

Quote:
In the America I grew up in, this election wouldn't even have been close.  We had better judgement.  We demanded more of our leaders than "it could have been worse.

You have a short memory perhaps, and unrealistic expectations. We are in a time of economic damage limitation. Perhaps McCain could have done better, but where is the evidence. Perhaps Romney would do better, but he did not make the case well enough.

 

Quote:
We didn't hate business, the rich and oil companies. 

Now you are descending into silly political slogans. Do you really believe that stuff? On another thread Obama is being labelled as one of the rich.

 

Quote:
We didn't essentially take over auto companies and give them to the unions.

Or save them from bankruptcy, which is the alternative view of what happened.

 

Quote:
We wouldn't tolerate a President who called his opponent a "bullshitter" and whose campaign all but called his opponent a murderer.

Do you really believe that Romney's campaign was more honest or less aggressive than Obama's? I have to say that was not remotely my impression. Obama is widely regarded as a murderer by the right wing for his pro-choice stance, for example. You would tolerate a President who himself referred to half the population as moochers though? See how easy it is to twist things?

 

 

The bottom line is that there are perfectly reasonable and defensible opinions on both sides. There is also plenty of partisan bullshit on both sides, but it is a mistake to focus on that. It's also a mistake to assume that everyone who doesn't share your political views is either morally bankrupt or an idiot. I can assure you that is not the case.


Edited by muppetry - 11/8/12 at 8:12pm
post #83 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Meanwhile, the best example of free market government in the world is Somalia.

 

Stop lying.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #84 of 455

I'm looking forward to the fiscal cliff. Let the chips fall where they may. If you go bankrupt, homeless, that is what you deserve. The soup kitchens will be open. Not to worry.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #85 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Meanwhile, the best example of free market government in the world is Somalia.

Stop lying.

Instead of simply being a dick, why don't you simply correct me if I'm wrong.
post #86 of 455
You're looking forward to increased crime? Go watch Mad Max. Don't **** with people's lives to get your Wild West hard on.
post #87 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Instead of simply being a dick, why don't you simply correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Why do I need to stop being a dick if you're going to be one. Don't bullshit us and claim you're not being a dick when you make such a bullshit claim. It's the classic leftist anti-market play. It looks stupid. Sadly I know you're not that stupid, but you insist on playing that card.

 

But okay...I'll play along:

 

You're wrong. Now, stop lying.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #88 of 455
Free market "anarcho-capitalists" want government to be completely out of the financial lives of the people. Like Somalia. Free market "anarcho-capitalists" want road building and security and education to be run in the private sector. Like Somalia. Free market "anarcho-capitalists" want government to be localized and denationalized. Like Somalia.

But Somalia isn't an example of what you want.

Bullshit.

Somalia is exactly what you're asking for in terms of governance. You just don't like the result. Just like austerity in Europe.
post #89 of 455
If I'm wrong, give me an example of another country that is closer to what you are pushing for. And explain how Somalia differs from what you are pushing for. Thanks.
post #90 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I waited a bit to think about this post before responding. Feelings are obviously running high after the election, and there is understandably a lot of disappointment on the Republican side. My own political views are too centrist to be much offended by left- or right-wing governments, although for now the right fringe scares me more than the left. I don't know which outcome would have been better for the country long term, and we will probably never know, but while I have no doubt that the confusion that you write about is real, I'm surprised by the depth of it. It also seems to me to lack objectivity and to unreasonably pigeonhole half of the voting population as freeloaders, so, as someone who ended up voting Democrat even though I strongly suspect that a Romney administration would have benefitted me financially (at least short term), I thought I would suggest some counterpoints to your thinking.

 

It's not just about emotion or Republicans vs. Democrats.  It's not just about that fact that Obama won and he wasn't my guy.  It's about a populace that actually reelected him.  How you can say you're not sure we'd be better long term is beyond me. 

 

 

Which measures (do you mean metrics?) are you referring to? He obviously did not achieve all that he or the rest of the country wanted, but, for example, if you consider the economy and employment, it is not at all clear that different policies would have been better. Lots of opinion and hypothesizing, and lots of disagreement. He did achieve other things though, and even if you don't like all of them, he was voted in on a platform to do them.

 

What measures?  Economic growth.  Unemployment.  Fiscal discipline.  National security.  Basic competence.  Post-partsisan, post-racial promises.  Come on.  

 

 


 

 That's not remotely objective. Do you have something against community organizers? Radical how, exactly, and by whose standards?

 

It's completely objective.  He wasn't qualified for the office compared to his challenger.  And radical?  Black Liberation Theology?  Redistributive change through the courts?  His history of supporting redistribution of wealth?  Associations with characters like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers?  Once again, come on.  Get real. 

 

 

 


 

That seems like a false comparison. Even if one were to accept as accurate your description of Romney, to many observers it was he who ran the more angry and divisive campaign.

 

Romney wasn't a successful businessman and leader in general?  As for angry and divisive, I don't know what planet you live on with that comment.  Romney never attacked Obama personally.  He didn't call him a "bullshitter."  He didn't say "voting is the best revenge."  Obama ran on the GOP's "war on women" and so much more.  Please.  

 

 


 

Perhaps because that is only one factor, was regarded by many as being due to pressures beyond our control at this time, and was outweighed by other factors on this occasion? Individual statistics like that are largely meaningless.

 

Excuses.  He promised unemployment would be 9,000,000 jobs better than it is.  And a fact is a fact.  Presidents don't get reelected with these kinds of results.  Or apparently, they do now.  

 

 


 

I'm not sure that they did ignore it. But I don't think that many people viewed it in the absolutely damning light that you and some others do. It was a tragic event, but I don't think most people saw the malfeasance that you are convinced lay behind it and its aftermath.

 

I don't see how they could not.  Benghazi and it's handling from start to finish was incompetent and dishonest.  It was clearly a terrorist attack, and Obama knew it. He denied it and blamed a video he knows was not responsible.  He sent Ambassador Rice on 5 Sunday talk shows to claim it was a mob that got out of control, when we clearly know that was false.  He knew it was false.  The State Dept. knew.  The FBI knew.  Everyone with a brain knew.  

 

 


 

Even accepting that as an accurate estimate, the question is imprecise, the answer open to interpretation, and even as the top concern it can be outweighed by many lower ranked concerns. For example, rising debt may well define our economy as being on the wrong track for some people, but does not necessarily imply that they blame the current administration for the effect.

 

I'm simply quoting the exit polling data.  It makes no sense.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
They really were not off unless you bought into the flawed theories about skewed polls. All that noise about needing to correct for oversampling Democrats in a random poll was mathematically unsupportable. You can only correct samples for known distributions (such as age, gender and ethnicity), not for the unknown that you are trying to measure. Besides voting intention, the only true additional unknown was turnout, and the arguments that the Republicans were motivated while the Democrats were not was a strange assumption, and underestimated how scared many moderates now are of the Republican party's right-wing fringe.

 

Yes, they were.  Rasmussen and Gallup both had Romney leading by 1-2 points.  He lost by 1-2 points.  They were significantly wrong.  

 

 

 

Quote:
It was not wrong - it was anecdotal and open to just the selective interpretation that it received to support the prejudices of the commentators that you trust.

 

30,000 people at rallies vs. 2,500 at Obama's.  Romney signs vastly outnumbering Obama signs in PA and OH.  I saw this myself along with many others.  It's anecdotal, not empirical.  But it's real.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Your pessimism is other people's optimism. You must realize that Democratic supporters probably feel exactly the same way.

 

 

If you judge the Obama campaign as optimistic, that's your problem.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

You are projecting your opinion that that is what they voted for. That's not what they think they voted for, and is a gross oversimplification of the choices facing the country.

 

 

Yeah, it really is what they think they voted for.  Not all, of course.  

 

 

 

Quote:
No - this is just partisan sophistry - you don't recognize a diplomatic initiative that was intended (whatever its outcome) to try to reduce the negative image of the US in many parts of the world and, consequentially, reduce the support base for terrorist organizations.

 

Jesus Christ. He went on Arabic TV and said we had been dismissive and derisive.  He said we had "dictated" to other nations and fallen short of our ideals.  How you don't view this as apologetic is beyond me.  It was a disgrace.  

 

 

 

Quote:
While the open microphone was unfortunate, his comments to Medvedev that there would be more flexibility to deal with this issue after the election are not remotely telling anything of the sort to the Russians.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.  

 

 

 

Quote:
A convenient target, but energy prices are not really within the control of the US government, because domestic production is expensive. Coal has suffered somewhat due to environmental regulation, but also heavily due to competition from natural gas production.

 

Not directly.  But Obama's policies have clearly impacted them.  Keystone pipeline.  Reduction of federal land leases.  Open rhetorical hostility to traditional fuels.  

 

 

 

Quote:
You have a short memory perhaps, and unrealistic expectations. We are in a time of economic damage limitation. Perhaps McCain could have done better, but where is the evidence. Perhaps Romney would do better, but he did not make the case well enough.

 

I didn't claim McCain would have done better, as there is no way to prove that.  And I wasn't only referencing the economy.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Now you are descending into silly political slogans. Do you really believe that stuff? On another thread Obama is being labelled as one of the rich.

 

 

This is what Obama has been all about from day one.  He openly stated his intention to make new coal plants unfeasible.  He openly stated that energy prices would skyrocket under his leadership.  His administration has consistently railed against oil companies, business and the rich.  The Democratic party funded and supporter Occupy Wall Street.  Welcome to reality.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Or save them from bankruptcy, which is the alternative view of what happened.

 

Where in the hell does the United States Government have the right to "save" a company from bankruptcy?  I'm frankly not sure you even know what the term means.  Bankruptcy is a protection under the law. Do you even realize what happened with GM?  The government took over the company, screwed the secured bond holders, and gave the company to unions.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Do you really believe that Romney's campaign was more honest or less aggressive than Obama's? I have to say that was not remotely my impression. Obama is widely regarded as a murderer by the right wing for his pro-choice stance, for example. You would tolerate a President who himself referred to half the population as moochers though? See how easy it is to twist things?

 

Abortion was not raised by Romney.  Obama's personal background was not raised.  Romney did not call half the population moochers.  Seems like this was your interpretation.  See how easy it is to twist things?  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
The bottom line is that there are perfectly reasonable and defensible opinions on both sides. There is also plenty of partisan bullshit on both sides, but it is a mistake to focus on that. It's also a mistake to assume that everyone who doesn't share your political views is either morally bankrupt or an idiot. I can assure you that is not the case.

 

Do you honestly believe that Obama was reelected because of principled disagreement?  Obama was reelected because his robotic followers, genuine liberals and minority turnout exceeding that which the pundits many trusted predicted.  If you honestly think that millions in the inner cities voted for Obama because they took an honest look at his positions and policies and concluded he was the best option, you live in fantasy land.  They voted to keep their black President.  Let's call it what it is.  

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 #91 of 455

We've been through this before.

 

Your analysis of Somalia is overly simplistic ignoring other factors that are at play there (including many years of periodic US intervention in attempting to setup a government and incenting warlords to fight for control to become the latest beneficiary of US foreign aid and protection.) There are also certainly cultural issues to be considered. You also continue to make the classic mistake of assuming that any people/society/country sans government would devolve into what Somalia is now and fail to examine the long terms situation in Somalia before during and after a longer period of anarchy. To the extent that Somalia is an example, it actually showed some remarkable progress sans its previous dictatorial socialist (US-backed) government. But, yes, it has also been plagued by other issues that have slowed or even reversed this progress. Further, if there is a cultural disposition toward theft and violence in any way, no society, no matter how it is structures (with or without a State) will ultimately survive.

 

As far as other examples...I've previously mentioned Hong Kong (which you immediately retort with the fact that they have public transportation, universal health care and public housing as if these are some sort of end of conversation trump cards.) 1rolleyes.gif There are others such as Singapore, Chile, Mauritius that have greater economic freedom.

 

None of these are anarcho-capitalist countries. None fully exists that I'm aware.

 

Is there any place that is exactly and perfectly an anarcho-capitalist country? No. But then that's not really an argument against it any more than "no one has ever landed a man on the moon" was a valid argument before someone did. Or "no one has ever flown around the world" until someone did. It is not proof that one could not come about, grow and sustain itself. It's only proof that it hasn't happened yet.

 

Sitting back and throwing out the Somalia card is intellectually dishonest and I suspect you either know this, or you really believe it. I have never considered you dumb enough to really believe it though.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #92 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

See post #90.

 

OK - well I tried. All your rebuttals are posed in the context of your own opinions, which is fine, but they are just your opinions or your slant on events. Yet you quote them all as if they were irrefutable facts, and that is the primary source of your confusion. And then you assume that I'm claiming to be quoting facts at you, when all I'm doing is giving examples of contrary opinions, some of which I hold and some I disagree with myself. For example - as you may remember - I don't think Romney intended to label half the population as moochers, but he said it, and I used that as an example as how things can be twisted to suit a viewpoint. You completely misunderstood my point.

 

I mostly respect your political point of view, apart from your closing paragraph which looks like undisguised, ugly racism, but I am completely unable to comprehend how you cannot accept that others can validly disagree with you. You state up front that it is beyond you that I do not hold the same views as you. This must seem like an exceptionally polarized and confrontational world.


Edited by muppetry - 11/8/12 at 10:12pm
post #93 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Do you honestly believe that Obama was reelected because of principled disagreement?  Obama was reelected because his robotic followers, genuine liberals and minority turnout exceeding that which the pundits many trusted predicted.  If you honestly think that millions in the inner cities voted for Obama because they took an honest look at his positions and policies and concluded he was the best option, you live in fantasy land.  They voted to keep their black President.  Let's call it what it is.  

Yeah, why wouldn't Latinos, Asians, and blacks logically vote for an inclusive, non-judgmental, multicultural, candidate instead of a racist, religious bigot? Crazy to think otherwise.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #94 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Do you honestly believe that Obama was reelected because of principled disagreement?  Obama was reelected because his robotic followers, genuine liberals and minority turnout exceeding that which the pundits many trusted predicted.  If you honestly think that millions in the inner cities voted for Obama because they took an honest look at his positions and policies and concluded he was the best option, you live in fantasy land.  They voted to keep their black President.  Let's call it what it is.  

Yeah, why wouldn't Latinos, Asians, and blacks logically vote for an inclusive, non-judgmental, multicultural, candidate instead of a racist, religious bigot? Crazy to think otherwise.

 

 

Actually what is clear is that quite the opposite has happened. First one need not be "white" to be racist. Racists and racism can come in any color or culture. It appears larger portions of these groups have actually bought into the tribalism argument and even at risk of their own finances or economic decline, they are voting against their economic interest to support their tribal asperations.

 

This thinking is self reinforcing and hard to break. It is why the bluest parts of the country look like third world war zones. The people that helped bring about that result, they get re-elected no matter the outcome. Are you Marion Berry and busy smoking crack instead of fixing D.C. Don't worry, you'll get your job back. Are you Jessie Jackson Jr who is fighting off campaign finance violations while only able to campaign from some rehab treatment facility for some undisclosed illness? Don't worry, your job is safe.

 

Voting the tribe instead of the pocketbook is why this election was historic for Barack Obama and why it violated so many norms. Sadly it doesn't bode well for future outcomes.

"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 #95 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Do you honestly believe that Obama was reelected because of principled disagreement?  Obama was reelected because his robotic followers, genuine liberals and minority turnout exceeding that which the pundits many trusted predicted.  If you honestly think that millions in the inner cities voted for Obama because they took an honest look at his positions and policies and concluded he was the best option, you live in fantasy land.  They voted to keep their black President.  Let's call it what it is.  
Yeah, why wouldn't Latinos, Asians, and blacks logically vote for an inclusive, non-judgmental, multicultural, candidate instead of a racist, religious bigot? Crazy to think otherwise.

The more that I read SDW's last paragraph the more it disturbs me. Apart from the racist judgement, it does appear to represent outright denial that Romney's loss was anything other than the result of a successful left-wing conspiracy to deceive and subvert combined with the block vote of the ignorant, mooching classes. And that is how much of the right is already spinning it - the blame all lies elsewhere. We were robbed.

I really hope that the mainstream Republican Party does not end up going there, and thankfully there are already indications that clearer minds will prevail.
post #96 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Do you honestly believe that Obama was reelected because of principled disagreement?  Obama was reelected because his robotic followers, genuine liberals and minority turnout exceeding that which the pundits many trusted predicted.  If you honestly think that millions in the inner cities voted for Obama because they took an honest look at his positions and policies and concluded he was the best option, you live in fantasy land.  They voted to keep their black President.  Let's call it what it is.  
Yeah, why wouldn't Latinos, Asians, and blacks logically vote for an inclusive, non-judgmental, multicultural, candidate instead of a racist, religious bigot? Crazy to think otherwise.

The more that I read SDW's last paragraph the more it disturbs me. Apart from the racist judgement, it does appear to represent outright denial that Romney's loss was anything other than the result of a successful left-wing conspiracy to deceive and subvert combined with the block vote of the ignorant, mooching classes. And that is how much of the right is already spinning it - the blame all lies elsewhere. We were robbed.

I really hope that the mainstream Republican Party does not end up going there, and thankfully there are already indications that clearer minds will prevail.

You know for years I've tried to reason with both Trumptman and SDW. However they just don't get it at all. They're still living as if the world agrees with them. It doesn't. It's sort of a microscopic example of a macroscopic problem in government with the far right. As I've said the Republicans can continue to drag their heels and not even look at compromise ( they say they will but when it come right down to it that's just not the case ) but if they do they'll find less and less of them will be looked on favorably and less and less of them will remain in office. Perhaps some of that has to happen before they'll take this seriously. I really hope it doesn't have to come to that but if it does the voters aren't going to be looking at Obama for the blame. And to think of the trouble it would cause surely they can see the fire they're playing with by not considering compromising.

 

With these two here however I think they're just too polarized to have an open mind.

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 #97 of 455
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

You know for years I've tried to reason with both Trumptman and SDW. However they just don't get it at all. They're still living as if the world agrees with them. It doesn't. It's sort of a microscopic example of a macroscopic problem in government with the far right. As I've said the Republicans can continue to drag their heels and not even look at compromise ( they say they will but when it come right down to it that's just not the case ) but if they do they'll find less and less of them will be looked on favorably and less and less of them will remain in office. Perhaps some of that has to happen before they'll take this seriously. I really hope it doesn't have to come to that but if it does the voters aren't going to be looking at Obama for the blame.

 

With these two here however I think they're just too polarized to have an open mind.

 

First of all, it isn't like winning the presidency automatically makes one person right and another wrong. Was SDW "right" from 2000-2008 and you were just horribly wrong and ill-informed?

 

There are things that are objectively right or wrong. Voting isn't one of them. People vote for all manner of reasons.

 

As an example we've discussed the health of Baby Boomers going into retirement. As a generation, they are less healthy than the prior generation in the same age frame. People like yourself have reasoning that amounts to, "don't point fingers because the generationss that follow are even worse." We know for example that the nation faces a growing epidemic of obesity.

 

I'm not obese. I go to the gym several times a week. I participate in all manner of activities from hiking to century bike rides. The majority can choose to be fat and I will still choose to be fit. The majority can choose to refinance their houses and treat them as ATM's to buy exotic vacations. I didn't and won't do that. Instead I own several rentals, purchased at very reasonable pre-bubble prices that continue to perform well and will into the future.

 

The point is being in the majority doesn't make one person right and another deluded. Society can decline. Countries can stop being world leaders or even stop being fiscally sound or solvent. I'm going to always keep my eye on the real number be it my bank account, my waistline or my recommendations for what the country does in terms of governance.

 

Everything reverts to the mean. There is no free lunch. Even if the majority tells me these two things aren't true, they will still be true.

"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 #98 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

With these two here however I think they're just too polarized to have an open mind.

 

From the guy who was MIA from PO for a while and only came back to gloat after it was clear Obama had won reelection. lol.gif

 

Have you considered the possibility that your attempts to "reason" with those who disagree with you are exacerbating the polarization rather than mitigating it?

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 #99 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK - well I tried. All your rebuttals are posed in the context of your own opinions, which is fine, but they are just your opinions or your slant on events. Yet you quote them all as if they were irrefutable facts, and that is the primary source of your confusion. And then you assume that I'm claiming to be quoting facts at you, when all I'm doing is giving examples of contrary opinions, some of which I hold and some I disagree with myself. For example - as you may remember - I don't think Romney intended to label half the population as moochers, but he said it, and I used that as an example as how things can be twisted to suit a viewpoint. You completely misunderstood my point.

 

I mostly respect your political point of view, apart from your closing paragraph which looks like undisguised, ugly racism, but I am completely unable to comprehend how you cannot accept that others can validly disagree with you. You state up front that it is beyond you that I do not hold the same views as you. This must seem like an exceptionally polarized and confrontational world.

 

I presented my viewpoint.  That's why we are here.  If you have a contrary viewpoint, then present it.  If you don't, then please don't try to speak for others or "educate" me as to how other people have different views.  It's condescending, and unnecessary.  

 

With respect to my closing paragraph, go ahead...tell me you disagree.  Minority turnout was massive.  Obama got 99% of the vote (yes, really) in Philadelphia over 85% last time.  Tell me a huge majority of blacks and other minorities didn't vote for Obama because he was black.  

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 #100 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

With these two here however I think they're just too polarized to have an open mind.

 

From the guy who was MIA from PO for a while and only came back to gloat after it was clear Obama had won reelection. lol.gif

 

Have you considered the possibility that your attempts to "reason" with those who disagree with you are exacerbating the polarization rather than mitigating it?

Well I have been here longer than you ( at least in active posting ) so I've been trying for literaly over a decade and I just gave up for awhile because I could see the closer we got to election time the stronger the rhetoric would become. There was really no point in my posting until it was over. Then all could see ( well maybe see but not admit ) that I was right. Obama would get a second term and the mood of the voters in this country just weren't reflecting what the far right wanted to hear. And now here we are. Yes I had a little fun with gloating. However go back and read some of the things certain individuals here said to me. What I did was mild in comparison.

 

Believe me when I say I wish I was wrong about the partisan nature of some here.

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 #101 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

You know for years I've tried to reason with both Trumptman and SDW. However they just don't get it at all. They're still living as if the world agrees with them. It doesn't. It's sort of a microscopic example of a macroscopic problem in government with the far right. As I've said the Republicans can continue to drag their heels and not even look at compromise ( they say they will but when it come right down to it that's just not the case ) but if they do they'll find less and less of them will be looked on favorably and less and less of them will remain in office. Perhaps some of that has to happen before they'll take this seriously. I really hope it doesn't have to come to that but if it does the voters aren't going to be looking at Obama for the blame.

 

With these two here however I think they're just too polarized to have an open mind.

 

First of all, it isn't like winning the presidency automatically makes one person right and another wrong. Was SDW "right" from 2000-2008 and you were just horribly wrong and ill-informed?

 

There are things that are objectively right or wrong. Voting isn't one of them. People vote for all manner of reasons.

 

As an example we've discussed the health of Baby Boomers going into retirement. As a generation, they are less healthy than the prior generation in the same age frame. People like yourself have reasoning that amounts to, "don't point fingers because the generationss that follow are even worse." We know for example that the nation faces a growing epidemic of obesity.

 

I'm not obese. I go to the gym several times a week. I participate in all manner of activities from hiking to century bike rides. The majority can choose to be fat and I will still choose to be fit. The majority can choose to refinance their houses and treat them as ATM's to buy exotic vacations. I didn't and won't do that. Instead I own several rentals, purchased at very reasonable pre-bubble prices that continue to perform well and will into the future.

 

The point is being in the majority doesn't make one person right and another deluded. Society can decline. Countries can stop being world leaders or even stop being fiscally sound or solvent. I'm going to always keep my eye on the real number be it my bank account, my waistline or my recommendations for what the country does in terms of governance.

 

Everything reverts to the mean. There is no free lunch. Even if the majority tells me these two things aren't true, they will still be true.

 

I agree with nearly everything you wrote there, but despite that I think you are missing the point that I and others are trying to make. No one is arguing that winning the election makes the Democrats right, or that being in the majority makes one right - we are commenting on the futility and arrogance of those asserting that the election winners and/or the current majority are absolutely wrong and the flat refusal even to consider that there might be other valid points of view than their own. 

 

I was not very impressed with aspects of the Bush administration's approach to foreign policy or the economy, but I would never consider dismissing those who supported him in the way that SDW is dismissing those who support Obama. In a similar vein I was appalled at those politicians whose stated goal over the past 4 years was to frustrate and defeat all efforts at government by the Democrats, and who were willing to declare publicly that ensuring that Obama was a one-term president was more important than trying to work with the elected President to further the interests of the US.

post #102 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK - well I tried. All your rebuttals are posed in the context of your own opinions, which is fine, but they are just your opinions or your slant on events. Yet you quote them all as if they were irrefutable facts, and that is the primary source of your confusion. And then you assume that I'm claiming to be quoting facts at you, when all I'm doing is giving examples of contrary opinions, some of which I hold and some I disagree with myself. For example - as you may remember - I don't think Romney intended to label half the population as moochers, but he said it, and I used that as an example as how things can be twisted to suit a viewpoint. You completely misunderstood my point.

 

I mostly respect your political point of view, apart from your closing paragraph which looks like undisguised, ugly racism, but I am completely unable to comprehend how you cannot accept that others can validly disagree with you. You state up front that it is beyond you that I do not hold the same views as you. This must seem like an exceptionally polarized and confrontational world.

 

I presented my viewpoint.  That's why we are here.  If you have a contrary viewpoint, then present it.  If you don't, then please don't try to speak for others or "educate" me as to how other people have different views.  It's condescending, and unnecessary.  

 

With respect to my closing paragraph, go ahead...tell me you disagree.  Minority turnout was massive.  Obama got 99% of the vote (yes, really) in Philadelphia over 85% last time.  Tell me a huge majority of blacks and other minorities didn't vote for Obama because he was black.  

 

You did indeed state your viewpoint, and very clearly. But until it ceases to be simply that everyone who disagrees with you is completely and irretrievably wrong or stupid or black then there is no more to discuss.

post #103 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Tell me a huge majority of blacks and other minorities didn't vote for Obama because he was black.

As Chris Rock said, black people didn't vote for Obama because he's black. They voted for him because he's black and qualified. They wouldn't have voted for any old dumbass because they were black.
post #104 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post


As Chris Rock said, black people didn't vote for Obama because he's black. They voted for him because he's black and qualified. They wouldn't have voted for any old dumbass because they were black.

 

 

I bet a lot of whites voted for Mittens because he was white.  Some people I have met wouldn't care if he were qualified or not when the only other candidate was not white.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #105 of 455

Complete ignorance if the White's were thinking this .Narrow minded all the way.
 

post #106 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

You did indeed state your viewpoint, and very clearly. But until it ceases to be simply that everyone who disagrees with you is completely and irretrievably wrong or stupid or black then there is no more to discuss.

 

Stop with the false dilemmas.  If I thought my views were wrong, they wouldn't be my views.  So yes, anyone who disagrees with me is "wrong,"  That does not make him or her stupid.  In fact, I was just discussing the election with a very good friend of mine who is a committed Democrat.  We've been friends for 20 years, and never had an argument over politics.  We debate at times, but not argue.   As for the race comment, I stand by it.  Many blacks voted for Obama because he was the first black President.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post


As Chris Rock said, black people didn't vote for Obama because he's black. They voted for him because he's black and qualified. They wouldn't have voted for any old dumbass because they were black.

 

Chris Rock is an idiot, as is anyone who looks at the records of Obama and Romney and concludes Obama is more qualified.  Obama had no qualifications when he was elected.  He was a freshman Senator and former state legislator.  He worked as a "community organizer."  I mean, really Rich, get real.  Anyone who doesn't believe that blacks voted for Obama in record numbers primarily because he was black is living a dream world.  I know you'd like it not to be true, and so would Chris Rock.  But it is true.  Somewhere deep down inside, I think you know it.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

 

I bet a lot of whites voted for Mittens because he was white.  Some people I have met wouldn't care if he were qualified or not when the only other candidate was not white.

 

I'm sure some did.  But for some reason, you don't seem willing to acknowledge that reverse racism exists.  The proof is in data.  Obama has gotten larger black turnout than any candidate, ever....by far.  His numbers make the Bush-Gore race look like the year 1900 in terms of black turnout.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Complete ignorance if the White's were thinking this .Narrow minded all the way.
 

The Whites?  

 

LOL.  

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 #107 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Chris Rock is an idiot

I don't think anyone who was certain that Romney would win this election is qualified to call anyone else an idiot.
post #108 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Stop with the false dilemmas.  If I thought my views were wrong, they wouldn't be my views.  So yes, anyone who disagrees with me is "wrong,"  That does not make him or her stupid.

 

Chris Rock is an idiot, as is anyone who looks at the records of Obama and Romney and concludes Obama is more qualified.

 

Could you clarify the difference between being stupid and being an idiot?

post #109 of 455
Thread Starter 
LOL. As if I'm the only one who underestimated Democrat and minority turnout. That is the reason, plain and simple. If turnout was at 2004 or even 2008 levels, Romney would have won. Thanks for the personal attack, btw.
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 #110 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

LOL. As if I'm the only one who underestimated Democrat and minority turnout. That is the reason, plain and simple. If turnout was at 2004 or even 2008 levels, Romney would have won. Thanks for the personal attack, btw.

 

So the reason that Romney lost is that Democrats had the temerity to show up and vote when you were relying on them to stay at home and let Romney win? That was the Republican strategy?

post #111 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I agree with nearly everything you wrote there, but despite that I think you are missing the point that I and others are trying to make. No one is arguing that winning the election makes the Democrats right, or that being in the majority makes one right - we are commenting on the futility and arrogance of those asserting that the election winners and/or the current majority are absolutely wrong and the flat refusal even to consider that there might be other valid points of view than their own. 

 

I was not very impressed with aspects of the Bush administration's approach to foreign policy or the economy, but I would never consider dismissing those who supported him in the way that SDW is dismissing those who support Obama. In a similar vein I was appalled at those politicians whose stated goal over the past 4 years was to frustrate and defeat all efforts at government by the Democrats, and who were willing to declare publicly that ensuring that Obama was a one-term president was more important than trying to work with the elected President to further the interests of the US.

 

Absolutely wrong? Flat refusal? Please. Most of the criticism I've read on these forums are detailed and specific. Considering a fair number of the conservative members aren't even Republicans and a fair number have Libertarian leanings that criticism just rings hollow. The posters here are seldom if ever just posting to Rush Limbaugh or some similar source and saying it's so because it is so, because it is common sense or other such concerns.

 

If anything this must be projection because we see all manner of threads created by leftist members that consist of nothing more than false outrage and the talking point of the day. I know they are because I receive the emails they post them from. Threads about how much Sarah Palin donates, or trying to tie the entire party to one statement or gaffe from one person (exception is rule) are just nonsense.

 

There's a thread right now discussing the fiscal cliff as an example and how the bill is coming due for paying back all this borrowing or at a minimum, stopping it from proceeding at the same rate of borrowing. I've noted several of the problems with the reasoning being put out there. It is exactly what you claim to want so go seek it out.

"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 #112 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I agree with nearly everything you wrote there, but despite that I think you are missing the point that I and others are trying to make. No one is arguing that winning the election makes the Democrats right, or that being in the majority makes one right - we are commenting on the futility and arrogance of those asserting that the election winners and/or the current majority are absolutely wrong and the flat refusal even to consider that there might be other valid points of view than their own. 

 

I was not very impressed with aspects of the Bush administration's approach to foreign policy or the economy, but I would never consider dismissing those who supported him in the way that SDW is dismissing those who support Obama. In a similar vein I was appalled at those politicians whose stated goal over the past 4 years was to frustrate and defeat all efforts at government by the Democrats, and who were willing to declare publicly that ensuring that Obama was a one-term president was more important than trying to work with the elected President to further the interests of the US.

 

Absolutely wrong? Flat refusal? Please. Most of the criticism I've read on these forums are detailed and specific. Considering a fair number of the conservative members aren't even Republicans and a fair number have Libertarian leanings that criticism just rings hollow. The posters here are seldom if ever just posting to Rush Limbaugh or some similar source and saying it's so because it is so, because it is common sense or other such concerns.

 

If anything this must be projection because we see all manner of threads created by leftist members that consist of nothing more than false outrage and the talking point of the day. I know they are because I receive the emails they post them from. Threads about how much Sarah Palin donates, or trying to tie the entire party to one statement or gaffe from one person (exception is rule) are just nonsense.

 

There's a thread right now discussing the fiscal cliff as an example and how the bill is coming due for paying back all this borrowing or at a minimum, stopping it from proceeding at the same rate of borrowing. I've noted several of the problems with the reasoning being put out there. It is exactly what you claim to want so go seek it out.

 

You are misreading the direction of my criticism. I have no issue with any of the discussions of the problems facing the country, or with the specific arguments that you and others have been making on that subject, even when I might disagree with them. I have equally little time for the left-wing contributions of the kind that you mention. I'm referring to the arrogant refusal to accept that there are other valid points of view, and dismissing half the population as stupid, or worse. And the criticism was not directed at you, in case that was not clear from my posts.

post #113 of 455

As good a place as any.

 

Fantasyland

 

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-denial-2012-11/

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #114 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

So the reason that Romney lost is that Democrats had the temerity to show up and vote when you were relying on them to stay at home and let Romney win? That was the Republican strategy?

 

 

They tried to keep them from voting in Florida and Ohio.  Didn't work too well!

 

Rove or was is Morris who said he thought things would settle back to 2004 levels.

 

Seriously, they really don't want an intelligent populace that participates in government; the GOP would disappear.

 

To that end, the Democrats and independents and other good groups need to start a concerted effort NOW to educate the people, showing all along the way how out of touch, out-dated and simply out of it the GOP's positions are.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #115 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

You know for years I've tried to reason with both Trumptman and SDW. However they just don't get it at all. They're still living as if the world agrees with them. It doesn't. It's sort of a microscopic example of a macroscopic problem in government with the far right. As I've said the Republicans can continue to drag their heels and not even look at compromise ( they say they will but when it come right down to it that's just not the case ) but if they do they'll find less and less of them will be looked on favorably and less and less of them will remain in office. Perhaps some of that has to happen before they'll take this seriously. I really hope it doesn't have to come to that but if it does the voters aren't going to be looking at Obama for the blame.

 

With these two here however I think they're just too polarized to have an open mind.

 

First of all, it isn't like winning the presidency automatically makes one person right and another wrong. Was SDW "right" from 2000-2008 and you were just horribly wrong and ill-informed?

 

There are things that are objectively right or wrong. Voting isn't one of them. People vote for all manner of reasons.

 

As an example we've discussed the health of Baby Boomers going into retirement. As a generation, they are less healthy than the prior generation in the same age frame. People like yourself have reasoning that amounts to, "don't point fingers because the generationss that follow are even worse." We know for example that the nation faces a growing epidemic of obesity.

 

I'm not obese. I go to the gym several times a week. I participate in all manner of activities from hiking to century bike rides. The majority can choose to be fat and I will still choose to be fit. The majority can choose to refinance their houses and treat them as ATM's to buy exotic vacations. I didn't and won't do that. Instead I own several rentals, purchased at very reasonable pre-bubble prices that continue to perform well and will into the future.

 

The point is being in the majority doesn't make one person right and another deluded. Society can decline. Countries can stop being world leaders or even stop being fiscally sound or solvent. I'm going to always keep my eye on the real number be it my bank account, my waistline or my recommendations for what the country does in terms of governance.

 

Everything reverts to the mean. There is no free lunch. Even if the majority tells me these two things aren't true, they will still be true.

How many indicators do you need?1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:

First of all, it isn't like winning the presidency automatically makes one person right and another wrong. Was SDW "right" from 2000-2008 and you were just horribly wrong and ill-informed?

It's you that are ill informed. During those elections I didn't believe the other person would beat Bush. As a matter of fact ( and I've stated this before ) during Clinton's apology speech to America ( this was long before the election in 2000 ) I turned to my friend who was watching and said " Our next president will be a Republican ". How can you get so many facts wrong?1rolleyes.gif Oh that's right! You only see things as you want to see no matter how they really are.1rolleyes.gif

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 #116 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

LOL. As if I'm the only one who underestimated Democrat and minority turnout. That is the reason, plain and simple. If turnout was at 2004 or even 2008 levels, Romney would have won. Thanks for the personal attack, btw.

Ah SDW there's a reason the turnout was so big. They've had enough and they didn't want another self serving ( explitive deleated ) in there again. One every 30 or 40 years is plenty.1wink.gif

 

And SDW it's only going to get more this way. Until Republicans turn around and be like they used to be ( not just pandering to the rich and the far right ) they will continue to be unpopular. Get used to it.

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 #117 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They've had enough and they didn't want another self serving ( explitive deleated ) in there again.

 

And, yet, they voted for Obama. How ironic.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #118 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

During those elections I didn't believe the other person would beat Bush.

 

That is an utter, blatant lie.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #119 of 455

I wish my TV got the Sunday talk shows.  It would be interesting to hear how the GOP spins the election and specifically how they will rty to explain that the country is different (O'Reilly started this when he talked about whites being the minority).

 

Then, Japanese TV is full of Japanese politics, which is a royal mess, so I don't think the airwaves could handle more.


Edited by Bergermeister - 11/11/12 at 2:36am

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #120 of 455

Stop dreaming Dave.
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore