or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where Does the GOP Find These People?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Where Does the GOP Find These People? - Page 4

post #121 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm sorry SDW but you seem to be able to read. I've seen the responses from myself and others here. You just don't seem to be able to accept it. If this :

" 1. People are mad.
2. McCain is Bush "

is all you got from that well the only other conclusion I can draw is either you're dense ( and I know that's not true ) or you're in denial ( again ). No matter things will unfold (Just like I explained in 06' ) wtih or without your understanding.

Those are your arguments. If you have others, please post them. Seriously...they are the central two points, and I think you know it.

Quote:

By the way the Democrats aren't going to destroy themselves. But you can go on wishing for that, stomping your feet, and holding your breath! I assume you're fond of the color blue.

No, you're right: They're not going to destroy themselves, they are destroying themselves.

Quote:

Here's another log on the fire.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...ans/index.html

Poll: 70 percent in U.S. say things are going badlyStory Highlights
Americans haven't been so pessimistic since end of last Bush presidency

Poll shows McCain with edge on terrorism, Iraq, immigration

Clinton and Obama have lead on domestic and economic issues



Yes I know you'll ignore this one also. However in some corner of that brain of yours you must know these things have consequences.

All that does is confirm what I MYSELF have been saying: It's supposed to be a very tough year for Republicans. I don't disagree.


Quote:

And before you start counting on the part of this article that says McCain has the military edge :

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...oll/index.html

CNN poll: Economy far ahead of war as top issue in 2008 race

So people will be voting with their pocket books this time ( what a surprise! ). You do remember what happens next from history right? Or maybe you'll want to wait for " doesnt really understand economics McCain?

Now hold on...wasn't you in the other thread arguing that Iraq was going to seriously influence the election? You can't have it both ways.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #122 of 518
Didn't know this and have to wonder why McCain wouldn't be on board.
Doing the Troops Wrong
or not enough.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/op...hp&oref=slogin
Quote:
At the top of the list of no-brainers in Washington should be Senator Jim Webbs proposed expansion of education benefits for the men and women who have served in the armed forces since Sept. 11, 2001.

I can see Bush being against it, just because he's Bush, but a veteran hero type?
Quote:
The benefits have not kept pace over the decades with the real costs of attending college. Moreover, service members have to make an out-of-pocket contribution something over $100 a month during their first year of service to qualify for the watered-down benefits.

Was this always the case?
Quote:
The Bush administration opposes the new G.I. bill primarily on the grounds that it is too generous, would be difficult to administer and would adversely affect retention.

Support the troops unless it costs to much. Give the money to Blackwater and like, it's easier.
Quote:
Whats important to keep in mind is that the money that goes to bolstering the education of returning veterans is an investment, in both the lives of the veterans themselves and the future of the nation.

Hey SDW, did you get that iPhone yet?
post #123 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Didn't know this and have to wonder why McCain wouldn't be on board.
Doing the Troops Wrong
or not enough.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/op...hp&oref=slogin

I can see Bush being against it, just because he's Bush, but a veteran hero type?

Was this always the case?

Support the troops unless it costs to much. Give the money to Blackwater and like, it's easier.

Hey SDW, did you get that iPhone yet?

If the bill does exactly as Herbert says, McCain should support it. But there may be some legit objections wrt retention and even cost. What I object to is the notion that if McCain opposes it, he doesn't really support the troops. That's an unfair characterization.

By the way, the "bipartisan" bill is sponsored by two relatively liberal Dems and two mostly liberal Republicans--both whom now oppose the Iraq war. BTW, Lautenberg was the guy who won Torecelli's seat in NJ. He wasn't supposed to be allowed on the ballot according to state law, but the courts rewrote said law and let him run anyway. Just FYI.
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 #124 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Those are your arguments. If you have others, please post them. Seriously...they are the central two points, and I think you know it.



No, you're right: They're not going to destroy themselves, they are destroying themselves.



All that does is confirm what I MYSELF have been saying: It's supposed to be a very tough year for Republicans. I don't disagree.




Now hold on...wasn't you in the other thread arguing that Iraq was going to seriously influence the election? You can't have it both ways.

This is wishful thinking on your part and Iraq and the economy are tied together. The only reason the economy's on top is because it's hitting home now. Which of course won't bode well for the republicans in the next election.

If you ask " Why? " you haven't been paying attention.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #125 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This is wishful thinking on your part and Iraq and the economy are tied together. The only reason the economy's on top is because it's hitting home now. Which of course won't bode well for the republicans in the next election.

If you ask " Why? " you haven't been paying attention.

SDW: "No, seriously... how does Iraq affect the economy?"

post #126 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

SDW: "No, seriously... how does Iraq affect the economy?"

A claim was made. I'm asking for support of that claim. "You're just stupid" is not an acceptable response. Shit, I even argued the other side FOR you. Try and keep up.
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 #127 of 518
Seven Questions: Joe Stiglitz on How the Iraq War Is Wrecking the Economy

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz talks to FP about Wall Street bailouts, Americas mountain of debt, and what U.S. taxpayers will end up paying for Iraq.

Quote:
Foreign Policy: What does $3 trillion mean for the average U.S. taxpayer?

Joseph Stiglitz: If you divide it by the [number of] U.S. households, it comes out to around $25,000 [per household]. Its a lot of money. But we actually talk about a range of total costs, between $3 trillion and $5 trillion.

Its basic arithmetic, but you break the costs down into the various categories. Once you start doing that, its very hard to come up with a number under $3 trillion. We view our estimate as very conservative. Some of it is pretty straightforward and totally noncontroversial: the amount that the U.S. government admits is going into Iraq. But almost everything beyond that requires some forecasting, like troop deployment. And there are also numbers that we have not included that are hard to get out of the government. For instance, the government provides insurance for contractors [working in Iraq]. Nobody will insure them, so the government winds up paying the premium. And then the insurance policies have an exclusion for hostile action. Most of the contractors who die, die in hostile action, so the government winds up paying not just the premiums, but also the benefits. Thats an example where the governments accounting makes it very hard to tease out.

Two big costs are having to pay more for recruiting, and replacing our materiel that is wearing out. The big items going forward on the budgetary side are the costs of replenishing the armed forcesthats called resetand disability for returning veterans. We know that the number of disabled soldiers coming home is much larger, and we know that cases of [post-traumatic stress disorder] increase with longer and repeat deployments.

FP: You mentioned reset and veterans care. Are there any other large costs that are frequently overlooked or not included when we talk about the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan?

JS: Part of the overlooked budgetary costs is interest, because we are going to have to pay interest on what weve borrowed [to pay for the war]. And there is also Social Security disability pay. Thats something that normally would be left out. One of the things that we dont include but should be included is Medicaid. Because many of the disabled soldiers returning home have low incomes, they are eligible for Medicaid. We also argue that the war has had an adverse effect on the economy. If there is a negative effect on the economy, then that is going to decrease tax revenues.

On the nonbudgetary side are the costs that are borne by families. One in 5 families has someone who is seriously disabled, and someone has to take care of them. There is also the fact that the National Guard has been pulled out of their homes and away from jobs. They face an enormous disruption and are not being fully compensated.

FP: How does war spending exacerbate the economic downturn in the United States?

JS: To the extent that the war caused the price of oil to go up, and the fact that the war expenditures dont stimulate the economy as much as domestic expenditures would have, the economy is weaker. The Fed has let forth more liquidity, which allows consumption to go up and savings to go closer to zero or negative. So, we have more of a mountain of debt in order to offset the negative effects of war spending, and that mountain of debt is now the problem were dealing with. There is a clear connection between the two. Were spending money abroad that we could have spent at home.

This Joe Stiglitz seems to be a pretty smart guy, why aren't you reading what he is saying?

Why do I have to keep posting this?
post #128 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

A claim was made. I'm asking for support of that claim. "You're just stupid" is not an acceptable response. Shit, I even argued the other side FOR you. Try and keep up.

Oh for god's sake!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #129 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh for god's sake!


What an excellent, well thought out reply.
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 #130 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Seven Questions: Joe Stiglitz on How the Iraq War Is Wrecking the Economy

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz talks to FP about Wall Street bailouts, Americas mountain of debt, and what U.S. taxpayers will end up paying for Iraq.



This Joe Stiglitz seems to be a pretty smart guy, why aren't you reading what he is saying?

Why do I have to keep posting this?

OK, let's go with that:

Quote:
To the extent that the war caused the price of oil to go up,

That's not proven at all

Quote:
and the fact that the war expenditures dont stimulate the economy as much as domestic expenditures would have, the economy is weaker.

Unsupported. And, it's a false dilemma. Who is to say we'd use the money for "domestic expenditures?"

Quote:
The Fed has let forth more liquidity, which allows consumption to go up and savings to go closer to zero or negative.

What does that have to do with the war?

Quote:
So, we have more of a mountain of debt in order to offset the negative effects of war spending,

That much is true.

Quote:
and that mountain of debt is now the problem were dealing with. There is a clear connection between the two.

No, there isn't. There is somewhat of a connection...we just don't know the nature of it.

Quote:
Were spending money abroad that we could have spent at home.

Rhetorical nonsense. Even if so, that doesn't mean those war expenditures "wrecked the economy."


Let's leave it there. Next?
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 #131 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's leave it there. Next?

Sure genius.

Eat this...The Economic Impact of the Iraq War and Higher Military Spending

Quote:
May 2007, Dean Baker

In order to get an approximation of the economic impact of the increase in U.S. military spending associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, CEPR commissioned the economic forecasting company Global Insight to run a simulation with its macroeconomic model. It produced a simulation of the impact of an increase in annual U.S. military spending equal to 1 percent of GDP, approximately the actual increase in spending compared with the pre-war budget. Global Insight's simulation shows higher military spending raises interest rates, which reduces net exports, housing construction and car sales, thereby slowing the economy and job creation.

More...Report Shows Increased U.S. Military Spending Slows Economy

Quote:

For Immediate Release: May 1, 2007

Contact: Lynn Erskine, 202-293-5380 x115

Washington, DC: The Center for Economic and Policy Research released a report today estimating the economic impact of increased U.S. military spending comparable to the spending on the Iraq war. The report, presenting the results of a simulation from the economic forecasting company Global Insight, shows the increased level of military spending leads to fewer jobs and slower economic growth.

For the report, The Economic Impact of the Iraq War and Higher Military Spending, by economist Dean Baker, CEPR commissioned Global Insight to run a simulation with its macroeconomic model. Global Insight's model was selected for this analysis because it is a commonly used and widely respected model. It estimated the impact of an increase in annual U.S. military spending equal to 1 percent of GDP (approximately equal to the military spending increase compared with pre-September 11th baseline).

The projections show the following:

-- After an initial demand stimulus, the effect of increased military spending turns negative around the sixth year. After 10 years of higher defense spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in the baseline scenario with lower defense spending.

-- Inflation and interest rates are considerably higher. After 5 years, the interest rate on 10-Year Treasury notes is projected to be 0.7 percentage points higher than in the baseline scenario. After 10 years, the gap would rise to 0.9 percentage points.

-- Higher interest rates lead to reduced demand in the interest-sensitive sectors of the economy. After 5 years, annual car and truck sales are projected to go down by 192,200 in the high military spending scenario. After 10 years, the drop is projected to be 323,300 and after 20 years annual sales are projected to be down 731,400.

-- Construction and manufacturing are the sectors that are projected to experience the largest shares of the job loss.

"It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy," said Baker. "In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment."

The report recommends that Congress request the Congressional Budget Office produce its own projections of the economic impact of a sustained increase in defense spending.

Yes, over a year ago. The projections are becoming reality.

Also...Joseph Stiglitz predicted all of this 5 fucking years ago.

The myth of the war economy

Quote:
War is widely thought to be linked to economic good times. The second world war is often said to have brought the world out of depression, and war has since enhanced its reputation as a spur to economic growth. Some even suggest that capitalism needs wars, that without them, recession would always lurk on the horizon.

Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy. That conflict contributed mightily to the onset of the recession of 1991 (which was probably the key factor in denying the first President Bush re-election in 1992).

The current situation is far more akin to the Gulf war than to wars that may have contributed to economic growth. Indeed, the economic effects of a second war against Iraq would probably be far more adverse. The second world war called for total mobilisation, requiring a country's total resources, and that is what wiped out unemployment. Total war means total employment.

The man is a genius, where you, on this subject, are not. Next...?
post #132 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Sure genius.

Eat this...The Economic Impact of the Iraq War and Higher Military Spending



More...Report Shows Increased U.S. Military Spending Slows Economy



Yes, over a year ago. The projections are becoming reality.

Also...Joseph Stiglitz predicted all of this 5 fucking years ago.

The myth of the war economy



The man is a genius, where you, on this subject, are not. Next...?


There are numerous points with which I disagree, whether they are written by "geniuses" or not.

1. "Global Insight's simulation shows higher military spending raises interest rates, which reduces net exports, housing construction and car sales, thereby slowing the economy and job creation."

--It would seem to me that interest rates have plummeted. Hello? Exports are on the rise as well, the trade deficit notwithstanding.

2. "It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy," said Baker. "In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment."

---Really. I'd like to see how that is true. The government doesn't consume per se...people do. The government doesn't invest on the scale the private sector does, either.

3. Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy. That conflict contributed mightily to the onset of the recession of 1991 (which was probably the key factor in denying the first President Bush re-election in 1992).

---There is no evidence whatsoever that the Gulf War--on which the Pentagon made a profit---caused the recession of 1991-1992. Good lord.

Next.
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 #133 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

---The government doesn't consume per se...

It's these significant statements that make me laugh... Because it does "consume", a lot, more than ever.

There are Defense consumption expenditures, Non-defense consumption expenditures, Federal consumption expenditures, Government Consumption Expenditures...

But it doesn't make you or I a genius on the matter. We are not Nobel Prize winning economists.

Perhaps we should start here...

National Income and Product Accounts

or here...GOVERNMENT CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURES AND GROSS INVESTMENT:

Quote:
The official item in the National Income and Product Accounts maintained by the Bureau of Economics Analysis measuring government purchases undertaken by the government sector. Government consumption expenditures and gross investment averages between 15-20 percent of gross domestic product. As might be expected, this percentage tends to be ebb and flow with the political winds. Some political leaders prefer more government activity, others less. However, this percentage is even more dependent on military conflicts and wars that require massive government activity. The other official expenditures included in the National Income and Product Accounts are personal consumption expenditures, gross private domestic investment, and net exports of goods and services.

Government consumption expenditures and gross investment is the official government measure of government purchases undertaken by the government sector. It seeks to quantify that portion of gross domestic product that is purchased by the government sector and which is used to pursue government functions. These expenditures purchase a wide range of goods and services, from aircraft carriers to army boots, from administrative salaries to ammunition, from school buildings to street lights.

I believe that the current administration has been spending/consuming like a coked out whore with a FEMA debit card.
post #134 of 518
SDW: "All those highly respected and accomplished economists are wrong and I'm right. I disagree with what they say."

"So seriously, tell me how the war affects the economy."



I'm sorry, SDW, but your level of denial is just bordering on ridiculousness...
post #135 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


I'm sorry, SDW, but your level of denial is just bordering on ridiculousness...

Unfortunately about par for the Republican party these days.
post #136 of 518
Thread Starter 
oof. nasty.
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 #137 of 518
Oh Huckabee, how we miss thee...

Quote:
"That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak. Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."

Video.
post #138 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What I object to is the notion that if McCain opposes it, he doesn't really support the troops. That's an unfair characterization.

STOP THE PRESSES!

Dude, the Republican party has been screaming the exact opposite for 7 1/2 years now!

I hope everyone remembers SDW's statement above when it comes time for the next round of war funding.
"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 #139 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There are numerous points with which I disagree, whether they are written by "geniuses" or not.

And that, my friends, is why the Republican party is dying. It's called "Anti-Intellectualism" and that ideology has finally been proven a failure.
"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 #140 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Oh Huckabee, how we miss thee...



Video.

That is my greatest fear for Obama, making a joke like that at an NRA meeting, is not one of Huckabee's best attempts at humor, not by a long shot.

Not that a card carrying member of the NRA would ever do such a thing, but there are a a small number of James Earl Ray type wingnut abortion bombing skinhead Neo-Nazi crazies out there.

There's a lot of repressed racism out there with these types, and my worst fear is that one of then will come out of the woodwork and try to pop one off.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #141 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

And that, my friends, is why the Republican party is dying. It's called "Anti-Intellectualism" and that ideology has finally been proven a failure.

In hindsight, it is truly ironic that Bush may be the best thing to ever happen in American politics, the death of the Republican Party as we now know it, and the death of the noecon artists.

And they all will have Bust to thank for their demise.

A fitting end to one of the worst administrations in American political history.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #142 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

STOP THE PRESSES!

Dude, the Republican party has been screaming the exact opposite for 7 1/2 years now!

I hope everyone remembers SDW's statement above when it comes time for the next round of war funding.

Yeah, that's one of the most stunning bits of irony I've ever seen on this board.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #143 of 518
Thread Starter 
Bradley Schlozman sounds like a sweetheart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Douchebag

"Bradley J. Schlozman is systematically attempting to purge all Civil Rights appellate attorneys hired under Democratic administrations," the lawyer wrote, saying that he appeared to be "targeting minority women lawyers" in the section and was replacing them with "white, invariably Christian men." The lawyer also alleged that "Schlozman told one recently hired attorney that it was his intention to drive these attorneys out of the Appellate Section so that he could replace them with 'good Americans.'"
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 #144 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Bradley Schlozman sounds like a sweetheart.

Good thing I'll be applying there after Obama wins...
post #145 of 518
As good a place as any to post this...

Just watched This Divided State last night. Wow. For a first documentary, it was pretty well done. Amazing how the debate played out in Utah.
http://www.thisdividedstate.com/clips.htm

First time for me to really see Hannity in all his glory. What a disgusting character.

 

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 #146 of 518
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

As good a place as any to post this...

Just watched This Divided State last night. Wow. For a first documentary, it was pretty well done. Amazing how the debate played out in Utah.

First time for me to really see Hannity in all his glory. What a disgusting character.

I haven't heard about it. Was that about the Rocky/Hannity debate?

Edit:

Ah! The Michael Moore kerfluffle down at UVSC.
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 #147 of 518
Thread Starter 
Woot! Senator John Cowdery.

Quote:
The Anchorage Republican is charged with conspiracy and bribery, accused of scheming with Veco executives to win over another senator in the battle for the tax favored by North Slope oil producers.

According to the 16-page indictment, Cowdery and others conspired to give the other state senator $25,000, characterized as campaign contributions.
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 #148 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Woot! Senator John Cowdery.

You know there was once this guy on these forums. He complained that I appeared to be taking news about Democrats having ethical or criminal laps and using it to broadly paint the entire party. He told me to stop it. I wish I could find that guy now. He went on saying what is the point you are trying to prove here, that there are bad apples in all groups and that each party has people that are human in it?

I have a couple RSS feeds that send me news about Democratic crime pretty close to daily. Some of them even take glee in noting the bias since these politicians won't have the (D) next to their name always printed by the press or cited in news reports.

Perhaps I should starting asking where do the Democrats find these people again?

"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 #149 of 518
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You know there was once this guy on these forums. He complained that I appeared to be taking news about Democrats having ethical or criminal laps and using it to broadly paint the entire party. He told me to stop it. I wish I could find that guy now. He went on saying what is the point you are trying to prove here, that there are bad apples in all groups and that each party has people that are human in it?

I have a couple RSS feeds that send me news about Democratic crime pretty close to daily. Some of them even take glee in noting the bias since these politicians won't have the (D) next to their name always printed by the press or cited in news reports.

Perhaps I should starting asking where do the Democrats find these people again?

Indeed, I would welcome such a thread. It is important to know who, in either party, is a criminal. The point of this thread has always been that this particular bunch of GOP folks seem to be particularly criminal. Hence "where does the GOP find these people."
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 #150 of 518
Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish!

Quote:
The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.
...

One official who witnessed the extraordinary scene said afterwards: "Everyone was very surprised that he was making a joke about America's record on pollution."

Surprised? Bush has never disappointed me. He can always stoop lower than I think. Also this news will not be covered by US MSM...again...
post #151 of 518
Soon we'll be free from this dumb fucking frat boy.
post #152 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish!



Surprised? Bush has never disappointed me. He can always stoop lower than I think. Also this news will not be covered by US MSM...again...



Does anyone else need anymore proof about how this guy operates?

How he looks at his position?

How he values the american people or their ideals?

Do you even want to go near the GOP platform this election year?

I mean how much more do you need to see?

We can't afford another mistake like this man.
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 #153 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How he values the american people or their ideals?

How he values anything?

 

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 #154 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

How he values anything?

Pretty much.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #155 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish!



Surprised? Bush has never disappointed me. He can always stoop lower than I think. Also this news will not be covered by US MSM...again...

Wow! So much for that "honor and dignity" thing Republicans are so proud of, being stewards of responsible discourse and all.
"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 #156 of 518
Where does the GOP find these people.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Billbo...ican_0705.html
Quote:
TALLAHASSEE - A black Republican group has put up billboards in Florida and South Carolina saying the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, a claim that black leaders say is ridiculous.

Un-freaking believable.
post #157 of 518


Anti-Gay Alabama A.G. Caught Being Gay

Quote:
This may come as a shock, but a prominent anti-homosexual Republican attorney general has apparently been caught having homosexual sex intercourse with his homosexual gay male assistant. Bonus: The dude’s wife caught him, in their bed. This is the rumor that the AG’s office has officially denied, so now of course everybody is spilling the sordid details.

AG in question is Troy King, who, of course, is only interested in outlawing homosexuality and sex toys. His gay lover is either a college “buddy,” or a very young youngster and “Homecoming King” from Troy University. What are the odds of a dude named Troy King getting caught in bed with a Homecoming King from Troy University? This seems like a wacky sitcom plot, on a gay porn channel. (Is this what that Will & Grace was about?)

Not gay at all... I'm sure he didn't even know what was happening.
post #158 of 518
Simple. He was seduced by this degenerate (probably a Democrat operative, Satan worshipping, homo-sex pervert) to undermine the values of the GOP. Doubtless, the assistant used some mind altering deviling drugs slipped in to Troy's beverage, and then had his way with him. The wife is obviously in on it, probably just finished putting her baby in the oven, then stepped upstairs to 'accidentally' catch them in their act.
post #159 of 518
Thread Starter 
oof...
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 #160 of 518
Thread Starter 
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where Does the GOP Find These People?