or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows. - Page 8

post #281 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Jeez... after all this you're STILL in denial about why we hate Bush. We hate Bush because he's a terrible president and he and his administartion are a bunch of dishonest, warmongering Judeo-Christian American supremists capable of neither social tolerance, socioeconomic empathy, nor environmental concern. Get a clue.

That's the kind of thinking I'm talking about. It's fine to disagree with policy, but when one makes statements like the above, one cannot be expected to be taken seriously.
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 #282 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
wow Naples. You like that "satanic" rock and roll eh? I find it sad that you try to label anyone who disagrees or doesn't like Bush a "liberal",in a disparaging manner. Unless of course you mean the "liberal" label as a compliment. If you do, I am more than happy to accept it. Compared to you and SDW I definitely am.

Just for your info., I'm a registered Republican. I like to view myself as a McCain Rep. A moderate . However I'm not a fanatic and I can criticize an administration that I view as too extreme for the good of the COUNTRY. In fact ANY Democrat will get my vote and the votes of most of my friends this year.

SDW and Naples: do you guys agree with Perle, that "compassionate moderate" when he suggests in his latest book that we should "Regard Saudi Arabia and France not as friends but as rivals maybe enemies"?I have a feeling I already know the answer to that one.

I think you'd be surprised at some of my positions. And yes, I think Saudi Arabia and France should be treated as rivals, 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 #283 of 654
What part or where is Coatsville? I'm from a little town in the center of the state called Clearfield. near State College
post #284 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
And yes, I think Saudi Arabia and France should be treated as rivals, btw.

Why should they be treated as rivals? What are we fighting over?
post #285 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
What part or where is Coatsville? I'm from a little town in the center of the state called Clearfield. near State College

Coatsville is in Chester County, nearish to West Chester.

As for myself I am literally on the opposite side of west chester...where the walls bleed orange...
post #286 of 654
Since SDW has been PMing me saying he doesn't believe it:

.Rep Cole with supporting Kerry=supporting Hitler (also kerry=osama)
.Post article on dean=hitler
.Hitlery Clinton
.femi-nazis
.the old famous Clinton=Hitler (or have you forgotten?)

Not to mention:
vote for dems=vote for terrorists, terrorists support kerry, liberals=terrorists.

So where's the disparity? It's that dems and liberals don't use Goebbels-like tactics to drench the media with each and every incident.
post #287 of 654
I think it's funny that they're going after Kerry for wanting to cut 1.5 Billion OVER 5 YEARS in fat from a 30 Billion intelligence budget in 1995... the 1.5 Billion was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors for a program that was already phased out. Also they claim he was the only sponsor, yet for 1995 there isn't any cut in intelligence bill only with Kerry's name on it.


But in 2001... this was going on too... via http://atrios.blogspot.com/ and http://www.rememberjohn.com/ashcroft.html

In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Mr. Ashcroft did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators.

Mr. Ashcroft proposed cuts in 14 programs. One proposed $65 million cut was for a program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training to localities for counterterrorism preparedness.


It's good that now the blogosphere is so huge and Google so efficient that it only takes an army of fact checkers to find quotes and articles to counter the Bush's campaign mantras... reporters don't even have to work very hard, all they have to do is hit some blogs... read a few articles and boom they have their proverbial grain of salt... well bags of salt.

I suspect that Bush's 2001 budget closet has some cobwebs he'd rather not have found. His response will be... "But that was BEFORE 9/11!"

Yeah and so was 1995.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #288 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
But in 2001... this was going on too... via http://atrios.blogspot.com/ and http://www.rememberjohn.com/ashcroft.html

In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Mr. Ashcroft did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators.

well . . . I guess they can say two things:

One: Ashcroft isn't Bush and you will be voting for Bush . . . um . . . we'll see about that liabil . . .i mean.. Aschroft fellow . .

Two: ok, ok, let's start this campaign over . . .. starting now!

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #289 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I think it's funny that they're going after Kerry for wanting to cut 1.5 Billion OVER 5 YEARS in fat from a 30 Billion intelligence budget in 1995... the 1.5 Billion was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors for a program that was already phased out. Also they claim he was the only sponsor, yet for 1995 there isn't any cut in intelligence bill only with Kerry's name on it.


But in 2001... this was going on too... via http://atrios.blogspot.com/ and http://www.rememberjohn.com/ashcroft.html

In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Mr. Ashcroft did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators.

Mr. Ashcroft proposed cuts in 14 programs. One proposed $65 million cut was for a program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training to localities for counterterrorism preparedness.


It's good that now the blogosphere is so huge and Google so efficient that it only takes an army of fact checkers to find quotes and articles to counter the Bush's campaign mantras... reporters don't even have to work very hard, all they have to do is hit some blogs... read a few articles and boom they have their proverbial grain of salt... well bags of salt.

I suspect that Bush's 2001 budget closet has some cobwebs he'd rather not have found. His response will be... "But that was BEFORE 9/11!"

Yeah and so was 1995.

NAIL ON THE F'CKING HEAD!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #290 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
If that is the case then I will say I was wrong in my thinking.

Decades of pacifism and inspection did not change anything, nor did almost 9 years of clinton policy. In fact the argument can be made that it was because of that policy we arrived at 9/11.

You can criticize Bush till you're blue in the face. But at least give him credit for trying a different tack.

Oh what's the use...

Let's all just be honest with one another. Just preface what you say with "we hate Bush because he is an illegitimate president and Gore should have won. We are very bitter and we want revenge." That would at least be an intellectually honest statement.

No. We hate Bush because of his actions while in office. The fact that he's performing just like I expected he would before he was elected is besides the point.
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 #291 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's the kind of thinking I'm talking about. It's fine to disagree with policy, but when one makes statements like the above, one cannot be expected to be taken seriously.

I'll pull a Scott here...

So tell me where you can irrefutably a single one of my points.

Dishonest? Check (exaggeration of WOMD threat and linking Saddam to 9/11 most obvious).

Warmongering? Check (the UN said "not yet" and they chose to act anyway).

Judeo-Christian American supremists? (check on all counts -- they certainly believe America holds the high ground, even when they're attacking other countries who have not been proven to be a threat beyond reasonable doubt).

Incapable of social tolerance? (check -- anti LBGT equality, support racial profiling, anti-choice).

Incapable of socioeconomic empathy? (check -- biggest tax cut to the rich in history, while the middle and lower classes received almost nothing in percentile comparison).

Incapable of environmental concern? (check -- pulled out of Kyoto, rolled back or reduced the scale of dozens of energy saving and pollution reducing initiatives).

Now compare this to Clinton, please.
post #292 of 654
I don't hate Bush. I just think he's been a terrible President and needs to go back to his hobby ranch and clear some brush.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #293 of 654
I hate Bush('s policies)
post #294 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're missing the point: While I am criticized as being polarized, you and others truly believe that every action Bush has taken has been wrong. It's completely ridiculous. You give Clinton credit for the 1990's economy, and do not fault him for the recession...which began before he left office. You refuse to recognize that the economy is growing and in recovery despite low unemployment, high GDP growth and markets on the rise. You cannot accept that many of the previous admins polices have contributed directly to current affairs...especially North Korea and even Iraq.

I can at least point to Clinton and say he was intelligent and well spoken. He did some good things, even though I disagreed with him on nearly everything. Some frequent posters in this thread could never speak of Bush that way. Yet somehow, I'm the blind one. OK. Gotcha.


Sigh........

Ok, one more time.........

The economy is cyclic. Clinton was elected at a time when the cycle would naturally return to " Better times ". He then made that into the longest running bull market in US history. He caught the ball and ran with it.

Bush was elected when the market was on a natural downslide. He turned that into the worst unemployment since WWII, and a much longer recession. Which we are coming out of it with ( once again ) a gigantic deficit that our children will be paying for and still lagging unemployment. He dropped the ball.

The president can't affect the cycles. He can however affect how pronounced the cycle is through the way he handles it.

Clinton wanted to pay for our debts and balance the budget ( it's been a long while since any president has been able to do that ).

Bush spent money like a drunken sailor ( ok I'll admit I got that old saying from groverat but I love the picture it paints ) on every little personal whim he had.

In a microcosmic way it's like getting out of debt, losing your job, and then using your credit cards to solve all your problems so that you're in debt for the rest of your life.

Got it now?


PS. Iraq was unnecessary ( one of those personal whims ).
N. Korea is a wildcard and it's difficult to tell what would affect them. Hey here's a thought! Maybe they would be right where they are no matter who's in office over 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 #295 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't hate Bush. I just think he's been a terrible President and needs to go back to his hobby ranch and clear some brush.


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 #296 of 654
Tom Delay is even distancing himself from Bush! hehe

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...3358-2193r.htm

Tom DeLay, the Republican's House majority leader, promised to be less subservient to President Bush in future sessions, the Washington Times reported.

"I have not discussed this with President Bush or anyone else in the White House, and have no desire to," DeLay said.

"But if you don't set these conservative goals, you don't get conservative governance."

DeLay Wednesday plans to take the extraordinary step of introducing his own set of legislative and policy goals for this year and beyond.

CONT.

Sounds like he's forming his own Conservative Shadow Presidency.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #297 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't hate Bush. I just think he's been a terrible President and needs to go back to his hobby ranch and clear some brush.

This where you should have stopped:

"I don't hate Bush. I just think he's been a terrible President"

But you cannot help yourself can you?
post #298 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
What part or where is Coatsville? I'm from a little town in the center of the state called Clearfield. near State College

Halfway between Lancaster and Philadelphia, off Route 30.
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 #299 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Tom Delay is even distancing himself from Bush! hehe

Sounds like he's forming his own Conservative Shadow Presidency.

Maybe he just plans to lay down a strict conservative agenda to make Bush appear more moderate... te hehe
post #300 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Since SDW has been PMing me saying he doesn't believe it:

.Rep Cole with supporting Kerry=supporting Hitler (also kerry=osama)
.Post article on dean=hitler
.Hitlery Clinton
.femi-nazis
.the old famous Clinton=Hitler (or have you forgotten?)

Not to mention:
vote for dems=vote for terrorists, terrorists support kerry, liberals=terrorists.

So where's the disparity? It's that dems and liberals don't use Goebbels-like tactics to drench the media with each and every incident.

Yeah giant, those are the same things. Your examples are extremely isolated. Bush opponents commonly call him Hitler, as do prominent celebrities. You cannot possibly be comparing the above to the attacks on Bush, can you?
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 #301 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I think it's funny that they're going after Kerry for wanting to cut 1.5 Billion OVER 5 YEARS in fat from a 30 Billion intelligence budget in 1995... the 1.5 Billion was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors for a program that was already phased out. Also they claim he was the only sponsor, yet for 1995 there isn't any cut in intelligence bill only with Kerry's name on it.


But in 2001... this was going on too... via http://atrios.blogspot.com/ and http://www.rememberjohn.com/ashcroft.html

In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Mr. Ashcroft did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators.

Mr. Ashcroft proposed cuts in 14 programs. One proposed $65 million cut was for a program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training to localities for counterterrorism preparedness.


It's good that now the blogosphere is so huge and Google so efficient that it only takes an army of fact checkers to find quotes and articles to counter the Bush's campaign mantras... reporters don't even have to work very hard, all they have to do is hit some blogs... read a few articles and boom they have their proverbial grain of salt... well bags of salt.

I suspect that Bush's 2001 budget closet has some cobwebs he'd rather not have found. His response will be... "But that was BEFORE 9/11!"

Yeah and so was 1995.

Well, for one, John Ashcroft is not running for President, now is he? Kerry has voted against major defense iniatives and intelligence spending on many ocassions. You really need to research this guy's record. It's not just liberal, it's outright extreme. Kerry wanted a nuclear freeze bill, even as Reagan was proving that just the opposite aproach was what was needed. Kerry criticized Reagan's bombing of Libya as "disproportional". He voted against the 1991 Gulf War. He voted against the $87B war funding package, after voting FOR the war resoltution. Don't even try to paint him as "pro-national security". He's simply not.
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 #302 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
I'll pull a Scott here...

So tell me where you can irrefutably a single one of my points.

Dishonest? Check (exaggeration of WOMD threat and linking Saddam to 9/11 most obvious).

Warmongering? Check (the UN said "not yet" and they chose to act anyway).

Judeo-Christian American supremists? (check on all counts -- they certainly believe America holds the high ground, even when they're attacking other countries who have not been proven to be a threat beyond reasonable doubt).

Incapable of social tolerance? (check -- anti LBGT equality, support racial profiling, anti-choice).

Incapable of socioeconomic empathy? (check -- biggest tax cut to the rich in history, while the middle and lower classes received almost nothing in percentile comparison).

Incapable of environmental concern? (check -- pulled out of Kyoto, rolled back or reduced the scale of dozens of energy saving and pollution reducing initiatives).

Now compare this to Clinton, please.

Dishonest? No evidence of your claim.

Warmongering? 17 UN resolutions.

Judeo-Christian American Supremists: Are you saying we don't hold the high ground? Hmmm. you sound Kerry himself.

Incapable of social tolerance: LGBT equality as manadated by WHAT? Racial profiling for terror purposes....wait for it....WORKS. Anti-choice? Gee jimmac, imagine this: NOT EVERYONE AGREES IT SHOULD BE A CHOICE. It's called a debate. I just love when those who don't support murder-at-will are called "anti-choice".

Socioeconomic "empathy": Here we go again "Bush hates the poor". Nevermind that the bottom tax bracket was reduced 5 marginal points. Each and every American who pays taxes got tax relief....including you and I. My rate has gone from 28% to 25%.

Environment: Kyoto is an anti-American pile of shit. It exempts 80% of the world's biggest polluters because they are "developing". "Bush hates the environment". Really now jimmac...it's a bit old.
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 #303 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yeah giant, those are the same things. Your examples are extremely isolated.



http://www.google.com/search?q=hitle...utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...=Google+Search

In fact, compare the search for "clinton hitler" with "bush hitler." With the latter, almost every hit is something denouncing the comparison, whereas every hit I saw when scanning "clinton hitler" was an actual attack.
post #304 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by giant


http://www.google.com/search?q=hitle...utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...=Google+Search

In fact, compare the search for "clinton hitler" with "bush hitler." With the latter, almost every hit is something denouncing the comparison, whereas every hit I saw when scanning "clinton hitler" was an actual attack.

Whatever. Are you honestly basing you claim on a Google search? Funny, it seems you were the first one attacking me when I did a similar search for news articles with the labels "liberal" and "conservative"....proving that the latter is used twice as often.
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 #305 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
What part or where is Coatsville? I'm from a little town in the center of the state called Clearfield. near State College

Halfway between Lancaster and Philadelphia, off Route 30.

Maybe you should meet for coffee. You could get to know eachother better.
post #306 of 654
Quote:
[i]Don't even try to paint him as "pro-national security". He's simply not. [/B]

This is simply assinine. Are you suggesting that John Kerry is "anti-national security"? To say someone is not "pro-national security" suggests that one prefers a lack of security. This use of labels is a great trick played by fearmongers on both sides, but I'd hope easy labels are eschewed by the presumably educated people on this board.

Furthermore, you're right, John Aschroft isn't running for Prez., but he holds a position of trust and power in the current administration and is therefore a comp. - Bush is responsible for his nomination to the post and bears responsibility for his choice. Also, as the chief law enforcement officer in the country, I would argue that Ashcroft's lapse in judgment about security is every bit as eggregious as Kerry's, if Kerry's is eggregious at all.
-thoth
You can fly?!?
No. Jump good.
Reply
You can fly?!?
No. Jump good.
Reply
post #307 of 654
From your PM
Quote:
SDW2001 wrote on 03-09-2004 08:12 AM:
giant,

...Show me who compared a Democrat to Hitler, and I'll be satisfied. If you can't, then I suggest you back off.

I already showed you a whole, whole bunch, kiddo.
post #308 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Halfway between Lancaster and Philadelphia, off Route 30.

Maybe you should meet for coffee. You could get to know eachother better.

Well thanks, that is a great idea.
post #309 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Sigh........

Ok, one more time.........

The economy is cyclic. Clinton was elected at a time when the cycle would naturally return to " Better times ". He then made that into the longest running bull market in US history. He caught the ball and ran with it.

Bush was elected when the market was on a natural downslide. He turned that into the worst unemployment since WWII, and a much longer recession. Which we are coming out of it with ( once again ) a gigantic deficit that our children will be paying for and still lagging unemployment. He dropped the ball.

The president can't affect the cycles. He can however affect how pronounced the cycle is through the way he handles it.

Clinton wanted to pay for our debts and balance the budget ( it's been a long while since any president has been able to do that ).

Bush spent money like a drunken sailor ( ok I'll admit I got that old saying from groverat but I love the picture it paints ) on every little personal whim he had.

In a microcosmic way it's like getting out of debt, losing your job, and then using your credit cards to solve all your problems so that you're in debt for the rest of your life.

Got it now?


PS. Iraq was unnecessary ( one of those personal whims ).
N. Korea is a wildcard and it's difficult to tell what would affect them. Hey here's a thought! Maybe they would be right where they are no matter who's in office over here.

1. What did Clinton do to run with the ball as you put it? Raise taxes?

2. What did Bush to cause a recession? (BTW, it doesn;t matter how times I post this, you don't listen: UNEMPLOYMENT WAS NEVER "THE HIGHEST" SINCE WWII....NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. It didn't even reach 1991 recession levels. Your statement is patently false.

3. Please show me how balancing the budget (accomplished by the Republican Congress in part) helped the economy and unemployment. It didn't. It's nearly a separate issue.
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 #310 of 654
Kyoto is not an 'anti-American pile of shit'. All the EU states are adhering to the figures on C02 emissions anyway, even though America isn't. Sweden and the UK are doing the best, Denmark the worst- they're something like 15% behind.

America, which is the world's biggest polluter, is 30% off its Kyoto targets. While this is something for another thread, I really don't understand where this 'Kyoto is anti-American' nonsense comes from.
post #311 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Wow, Gilsch I see you take everything that someone says about the democratic party personally

Reeeeaallly? After reading your little tirade I would say it is you who is taking this personally. LOL 'Visceral"? "venomous"? "twisted mentality"? "revenge for Gore's loss"?
Yeah, you're really not taking any of this personally.
Quote:
I disagree with the overall tone that the democratic party is emanating, I disagree with their visceral and venomous hatred for this president. The more you guys speak the more it is apperant. I disagree with the twisted mentality that they promote, namely, revenge for Gore's loss.

You sound like you're on the verge of tears there. You ok?
Quote:
I disagree with how every argument with a liberal democrat ends with "Well there are no WMD's so therefore GWB is evil, he needs to go".

So you go around looking for arguments with those "hateful" "liberals"? Isn't there a far right Christian website you could go hang out at instead? Would be much healthier than just arguing with people the whole day. I like your over simplification of arguments. "Liberals" here, "liberals" there. You sound like Rush Limbaugh. And that's no compliment.
Quote:
I disagree with the fact that GWB is evil but people like SH and UBL are just bad guys and most liberals will not identify them as evil. That fact actually is a little scary.

Here we go again. You see those evil "liberals" everywhere don't you? And ALL "liberals" think alike eh? Are you trying to sound like Rush Limbaugh on purpose or is it just a subconscious thing?? Great job.[QUOTE]I have said many times, there is room for conservative and liberal thinking in politics as well as in real life, but both sides need to realize that the other provides checks and balances.[.QUOTE]You're making sense on here finally. However, from your consistent, borderline obsessive, use of the "liberal" tag, I'm forced to think your "checks" and "balances" apply to others and not you.
Quote:
So as far as disagreeing with you, I am not sure we disagree about as much as you think, but your (meaning a lot of you here) tactics and methods are extremely divisive and wrong. I will rail against what I think is wrong. Get used to it

Interesting. One minute you're saying you doubt I'm actually a Republican, the next you're saying we actually don't disagree as much as I think.That would make you, according to you...a LIBERAL!! Listen dude. From your posts I can say that I am -VERY- happy to not share most of your positions. You will "rail" against what you think is wrong? Scary. It's the "you're either with us or against BS line of thinking again". Hook, line and sinker. Karen Hughes LOVES you.
post #312 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Reeeeaallly? After reading your little tirade I would say it is you who is taking this personally. LOL 'Visceral"? "venomous"? "twisted mentality"? "revenge for Gore's loss"?
Yeah, you're really not taking any of this personally. You sound like you're on the verge of tears there. You ok? So you go around looking for arguments with those "hateful" "liberals"? Isn't there a far right Christian website you could go hang out at instead? Would be much healthier than just arguing with people the whole day. I like your over simplification of arguments. "Liberals" here, "liberals" there. You sound like Rush Limbaugh. And that's no compliment.Here we go again. You see those evil "liberals" everywhere don't you? And ALL "liberals" think alike eh? Are you trying to sound like Rush Limbaugh on purpose or is it just a subconscious thing?? Great job.Interesting. One minute you're saying you doubt I'm actually a Republican, the next you're saying we actually don't disagree as much as I think.That would make you, according to you...a LIBERAL!! Listen dude. From your posts I can say that I am -VERY- happy to not share most of your positions. You will "rail" against what you think is wrong? Scary. It's the "you're either with us or against BS line of thinking again". Hook, line and sinker. Karen Hughes LOVES you.

Well I am sorry to poke holes in your theory, but I am not a republican or democrat, and I rarely listen to Rush Limbaough. You did not read me saying liberals were evil.

Ok Mr. Smart Pants, Because you are too smart for my backwards way of thinking, I will clarify. The liberal wing of the democratic party has gained control, therefore most democrats reflect their party's agenda. I think that I did use the term "Democratic Party" to identify who I was talking about. Am I right? Anyone? Anyone? That's right class. Yes I did.

Your post and lack of english comprehension or more likely overabundance of spin, proves my point quite nicely about how you and many others argue. You see you totally skipped over this part of my last post:

"I have said many times, there is room for conservative and liberal thinking in politics as well as in real life, but both sides need to realize that the other provides checks and balances.

So as far as disagreeing with you, I am not sure we disagree about as much as you think, but your (meaning a lot of you here) tactics and methods are extremely divisive and wrong. I will rail against what I think is wrong. Get used to it."

The WRONG that I am talking about railing against is your hateful, disrespectful, self assuming, character attacking, divisive and intellectually dishonest tactics. I hope I cleared that up for you.
post #313 of 654

Something isn't right here...
post #314 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The liberal wing of the democratic party has gained control, therefore most democrats reflect their party's agenda.

When did Kucinich take over the Democratic party? I hate to break it to you, but the Democrats are really pretty centrist--especially since Clinton took office. It's the right that's moving farther and farther to the extremes. Maybe it's a matter of perspective? Because the right has moved so far from the center they think the left is getting more liberal while they stay the same? Einstein, where art thou!?!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #315 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky

Something isn't right here...

That is a nice graph you made what is the source, oh yeah, who cares. Did you happen to notice that the drend was stopped and their is a slight upturn. I wonder if that coincides with teh tax cut? Hmmmm....
post #316 of 654
you called?

Anyhow. I think both parties moved off centrists, but the Republicans were certainly the less willing to be center party of the '90s and most likely made the moves away from detente when Bush took his "mandate". Look at the way they treat the "maverick" McCain who is about as centrist as they come...
post #317 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
That is a nice graph you made what is the source, oh yeah, who cares. Did you happen to notice that the drend was stopped and their is a slight upturn. I wonder if that coincides with teh tax cut? Hmmmm....

The source can be found by clicking on the image... but ah well.. its from a nytimes opinion. The "upturn" is not significant.
post #318 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
That is a nice graph you made what is the source, oh yeah, who cares. Did you happen to notice that the drend was stopped and their is a slight upturn. I wonder if that coincides with teh tax cut? Hmmmm....

Paul Krugman, Princeton economist, frequently rumored member of the Nobel short-list, and contributor to the NY Times. This graph was kind of a big deal yesterday.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #319 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
you called?

Anyhow. I think both parties moved off centrists, but the Republicans were certainly the less willing to be center party of the '90s and most likely made the moves away from detente when Bush took his "mandate". Look at the way they treat the "maverick" McCain who is about as centrist as they come...

I'd argue that Clinton and the New Democrats *forced* them to the far right, since he essentially owned the center.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #320 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
That is a nice graph you made what is the source, oh yeah, who cares. Did you happen to notice that the drend was stopped and their is a slight upturn. I wonder if that coincides with teh tax cut? Hmmmm....

Oh yeah, most economists agree that employment is a lagging indicator of economic health. If that is true what does that say. Think about it geniuses.


Maybe someone that knows about this can comment on what the lag time is historically.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.