or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why Can't He Close the Deal?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Can't He Close the Deal? - Page 4

post #121 of 141
How can anyone, believing they are of sound mind, rationalize support for Bush and his Administration.

As a great philosopher once said,
"Stupid is as stupid does"
post #122 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

How can anyone, believing they are of sound mind, rationalize support for Bush and his Administration.

As a great philosopher once said,
"Stupid is as stupid does"

That pretty much sums up Bush Derangement Syndrome right there. It's characterized by not just disagreeing with the President's policies on a given issue, but going so far as to berate and ridicule anyone that supports those positions, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that someone can "support" the President while disagreeing with him. In fact..no..I'll go further. you've got BDS so bad that you'll ridicule anyone who doesn't flat out condemn everything the administration has done.
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 #123 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akumulator View Post

That's exactly right Addabox.

My question is... why does anyone reply to posts created by Trumptman, SDW and the like? They are not looking for honest answers. They are posting loaded questions.... like their only goal is to ruffle feathers, nothing more. It's a waste of time and energy to respond. Has either of them ever conceded a point? There is no real discussion where they're involved.

My other question...... do either of them even own a Mac? \

Well said Akumulator. Trumptmann, in particular, has a trick where he ignores the smarter arguments and answers the dumber ones. Like he'll post a thread about how Al Gore is a hypocrite because he has a large house so therefore global warming must be a myth. So then lots of liberal posters will come in and say "I do agree that Al Gore is being a hypocrite but that has nothing to do with the reality of global warming.". Then Trumptmann will just ignore those posters and argue with the ones who make any slight defense of Al Gore. Two pages later in the thread he'll be pretending to be flustered because we won't admit Al Gore is a hypocrite and will be using his posts to just to random shots at anything related. It's a standard trick of all types of radicals to argue against the dumbest response you get rather than the most challenging response.
post #124 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

Well said Akumulator. Trumptmann, in particular, has a trick where he ignores the smarter arguments and answers the dumber ones. Like he'll post a thread about how Al Gore is a hypocrite because he has a large house so therefore global warming must be a myth. So then lots of liberal posters will come in and say "I do agree that Al Gore is being a hypocrite but that has nothing to do with the reality of global warming.". Then Trumptmann will just ignore those posters and argue with the ones who make any slight defense of Al Gore. Two pages later in the thread he'll be pretending to be flustered because we won't admit Al Gore is a hypocrite and will be using his posts to just to random shots at anything related. It's a standard trick of all types of radicals to argue against the dumbest response you get rather than the most challenging response.

So...trumpt is a radical now?
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 #125 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That pretty much sums up Bush Derangement Syndrome right there.

Did Krauthammer actually come up with that phrase or did it originate in the 90's, CDS, to describe those that had an irrational hatred of Clinton that survives to this day.

There you go, all of this right left hate started with Clinton, it's all his fault.
Sounds like a recent computer ad I saw recently.
Quote:
that someone can "support" the President while disagreeing with him.

If it was possible, would you vote for him again?
Quote:
you've got BDS so bad that you'll ridicule anyone who doesn't flat out condemn everything the administration has done.

When it's deserved, yup.
post #126 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

Well said Akumulator. Trumptmann, in particular, has a trick where he ignores the smarter arguments and answers the dumber ones.

SDW does that more often, also leaving threads when the truth becomes to much for his sensibilities.
post #127 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Did Krauthammer actually come up with that phrase or did it originate in the 90's, CDS, to describe those that had an irrational hatred of Clinton that survives to this day.

There you go, all of this right left hate started with Clinton, it's all his fault.
Sounds like a recent computer ad I saw recently.

Irrational? No. I really disliked Clinton because: 1) I didn't approve of most of his policies and 2) I thought he was a person of poor character and an egomaniac.

Quote:

If it was possible, would you vote for him again?

Good question, actually. It depends on who he was running against. I've not been pleased with him during his second term, so I kind of doubt it.

Quote:

When it's deserved, yup.

That doesn't add up. Go back and read what you were responding to.
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 #128 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Irrational? No. I really disliked Clinton because: 1) I didn't approve of most of his policies and 2) I thought he was a person of poor character and an egomaniac.

And my dislike of Bush started when he was running for president the first time.
I thought he was intellectually lazy, aka, dumb.
Nothing he"s done has changed my opinion.

The idea that he would surround himself with smart people turned out to be, in a lot of instances, farce.

I respect, not necessarily like arrogant people, if there is substance to go along with it.
I see nothing of substance in Bush.
Quote:
That doesn't add up. Go back and read what you were responding to.

What don't you get now?
Do you expect me to comment on all the screw ups the Administration has in it's resume?
post #129 of 141
Christ.

Before Bush cut taxes disproportionately for the benefit of the rich, we said, "If you do that the economy will suffer."
Before Bush invaded Iraq, we said, "this could turn into a long drawn out war, and the economy will suffer."
Before Bush invaded Iraq, we said, "we're going to piss off the international community, and the economy will suffer."
Now that we're in a long drawn out war, we said, "If we don't leave Iraq as soon as possible, the economy will suffer."

1. Bush cut taxes, mainly for the rich, with a little sugar added to fluff up the more naive members of the middle class, who don't care whose taxes got cut because they got their $600.

We're seeing the effects of that in the economy now.

2. We invaded Iraq. It turned out to be a long drawn out war that is costing billions a day.

The economy suffers.

3. We've lost good will bargaining power with the international community. No longer caring about "gentlemanly" limits, they raise, and raise, and raise prices of oil, and now of food, because they simply don't care about us any more because we're a nation of warhappy pricks anyway.

The economy suffers.

4. We're still in a long drawn out war, with no end in sight. No consumer confidence. No investor confidence. No confidence in the dollar.

The economy suffers.

My God man, get your head out of the sand!

Like I said.

A cycle (i.e. nothing to do with policy decisions). SDW: "No, I'm asking what Bush did to cause it. Really, I'm waiting."
Not so bad. SDW: "We're still not even in recession according to the data."
It's Clinton's Fault. (Sure to come. Stay tuned, boys and girls.)
post #130 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

h a little sugar added to fluff up the more naive members of the middle class, who don't care whose taxes got cut because they got their $600.

We're seeing the effects of that in the economy now.

Oh, so now those of us who actually saw real value in the $2400 tax cut we got (which we used to expand in business, employ, and invest) are "naive." You just keep repeating this over, and over, and over again. Look at the number of people the tax cuts affected, tonton. Look at the number of people who had THEIR money put back in THEIR pockets.

Quote:
3. We've lost good will bargaining power with the international community. No longer caring about "gentlemanly" limits, they raise, and raise, and raise prices of oil, and now of food, because they simply don't care about us any more because we're a nation of warhappy pricks anyway.

Albert Einstein in a bathrobe. Let me update you on a couple of things, because you are FLAT WRONG on this... more so than you usually are. First, the raise in the price of food has ZERO to do with "goodwill in the international community." We EXPORT food to other nations, not so much the other way around. There are production problems for wheat worldwide, driving up prices. Corn, corn products (HFCS), and thus beef, have gone through the roof for one major reason- the liberal fantasy of ethanol and toying with the free market. More of that "unintended consequences" that feel-good BS like corn ethanol brings. You are totally wrong on the food thing.

Next, lets look at oil. Again, the global market price for oil has very little to do with how countries "feel about the US because of Bush." Yet again, let me bring this up, because the left is too busy blaming This Administration to get around to two things: INDIA and CHINA. Demand is rising globally, and supply is not keeping up- regardless of if the whole world hates the eeeevil US or not. It's not like they sit over there at the oil well and say "Oh, this oil is going to American...screw Bush... we'll charge just the US more." This is a global market. But I know you know that, which makes your silliness all the more... well... silly.

At least I've finally heard the talking points from the left we're going to hear from now until November. Sad in their predictability... and predictable in ignoring basic market facts. I mean, hate everything right-of-center all you want, but at least tell the truth when it comes to the causes of our common problems.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #131 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Oh, so now those of us who actually saw real value in the $2400 tax cut we got (which we used to expand in business, employ, and invest) are "naive." You just keep repeating this over, and over, and over again. Look at the number of people the tax cuts affected, tonton. Look at the number of people who had THEIR money put back in THEIR pockets.

And look what it did to the economy.

Yes you're naive. Daddy gave you a chocolate bar and your brother a car. You got a chocolate bar, so you're happy. But you're really helping to pay for the car.
post #132 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And look what it did to the economy.

Yes you're naive. Daddy gave you a chocolate bar and your brother a car. You got a chocolate bar, so you're happy. But you're really helping to pay for the car.

Tell me, tonton, how exactly does giving money back to people hurt the economy. If it does, then how in the HELL did a Democratic congress pass a stimulus package the returns money to people instead of taxing them more?

What the heck good can I do the economy when I have no money to put into the economy?

And as far as your chocolate bar and car BS, guess what... my "brother" pays a HUGE amount of the tax in this progressive system. He should get back a car, considering he pays in a house.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #133 of 141
And now somehow ethanol subsidies are liberal policies. LMFAO. How long has Bush been president again? How long did he have a majority in congress that would gladly pass a bill canceling ethanol subsidies? How long did they not do so because the Republican party supports such subsidies?

Way to rewrite history.
post #134 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Tell me, tonton, how exactly does giving money back to people hurt the economy. If it does, then how in the HELL did a Democratic congress pass a stimulus package the returns money to people instead of taxing them more?

What the heck good can I do the economy when I have no money to put into the economy?

And as far as your chocolate bar and car BS, guess what... my "brother" pays a HUGE amount of the tax in this progressive system. He should get back a car, considering he pays in a house.

No money to put into the economy? Well then I guess you're not eating, not paying rent or a mortgage, not driving or taking public transport, not buying media, not buying guns and ammo and magazines about guns and ammo...

Saying that if you're paying taxes you don't have money to put back into the economy is a big fat lie.
post #135 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And now somehow ethanol subsidies are liberal policies. LMFAO. How long has Bush been president again? How long did he have a majority in congress that would gladly pass a bill canceling ethanol subsidies? How long did they not do so because the Republican party supports such subsidies?

Way to rewrite history.

Two words: Albert Gore.

Do you think ethanol would even be on the table if it were not for the PR liberal protection racket that goes with it? If you are not for it, you are for killing moms and dogs and dirty water and dirty air. The left wins support through manipulation, then claims "they went along." Kinda like, I dunno, a WAR I know about.

Reason and example enough of why it does not pay to compromise principles. One bit.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #136 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Two words: Albert Gore.

Do you think ethanol would even be on the table if it were not for the PR liberal protection racket that goes with it?

Yes. There are plenty of liberals who are against ethanol subsidies. And I don't see Al Gore as a champion of this particular kind of fuel, at least the way it is currently refined.

Ethanol was an excuse where conservatives could further subsidize farms (a pet project for conservatives) under the guise of environmentalism. And there are plenty of fools who bought it. Democrats and Republicans alike.
post #137 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No money to put into the economy? Well then I guess you're not eating, not paying rent or a mortgage, not driving or taking public transport, not buying media, not buying guns and ammo and magazines about guns and ammo...

Saying that if you're paying taxes you don't have money to put back into the economy is a big fat lie.

Kirby Puckett playing table tennis... here we go again. And again. And again.

If I am taxed to a point where people are laid off, the government misses income- from me and the employee. If my clients are taxed highly and cannot buy as much, I make less, so does the government because of the lack of money moving.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how we can "tax our way to prosperity" and how higher taxes help the economy. Tell my why taxes are not high enough. Tell my why you trust money more in Washington than you do in the hands of the people that earn it. I'm all ears.

The government taxing and spending limitless amounts of money cannot make an economy work... they have a name for that when it has been tried, you know.

You see this eternal lowest common denominator- eating, rent, etc. You rarely reference small businesses (like mine, that employ most of the people in this country) and entrepreneurs and how your socialist policies affect THEM. You pretend that people either work for a big corporation that should take care of their every need, or they depend on the government for basic subsistence. Well, tonton, there is a whole other world out here full of "little people" (like you claim to care about) that are being squeezed by income taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes, and the myriad of other taxes that end up, in total, seriously reducing the quality of life we are able to enjoy... and reducing our access to both social mobility and business growth. What you claim to be part of the solution is actually part of the problem- in fact, it is a huge problem.

Your clamoring for higher taxes will, if successful, put a single mother of two out of a job. And a disabled veteran. Right here in my office. By your hand, not mine. And I will also have to cut healthcare benefits for my employees. That's the "unintended consequence." So go ahead, raise the cap gains. Raise the min wage. Raise the employment taxes. Raise the income taxes. Be my guest. But don't act with shock and anger when I put hard-working lower-middle class people out the door without a job. Hey, you have a solution for that as well, I know... a government check. Business owners understand this situation. But, as usual, my case would be held up as "conservative greed" by die-hard leftists... even though it is what I have to do to stay in business, and continue to employ the rest and provide for my family.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #138 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Ethanol was an excuse where conservatives could further subsidize farms (a pet project for conservatives)

The current subsidy system is a complete mess, full of pork and political payoffs for whores on both sides of the isle, as you stated. But subsidies... a pet project for conservatives?

Pelosi's farm subsidies bill, 2007

Pelosi juggles $286 Billion farm bill, 2008.

Quote:
The stalemate has dragged on for months and caused fits for Pelosi, who pushed through the House version of the bill last summer hoping the crop subsidies would help newly elected Democrats from Republican-leaning farm states. Most farm bills pass with little notice outside farm country and the industry press.

Her problems have only increased since summer as the commodity boom has accelerated, fueled by ethanol subsidies and growing demand from India and China. Corn prices have nearly tripled in two years, and wheat prices are so high that U.S. bakers called for an export embargo.

The White House farm bill:

Quote:
In the case of the farm bill, the Bush administration has already made its own preferences crystal clear. It proposes a strict cap on payments to individual farmers as part of a larger effort to hold down traditional subsidies. It seeks to help smaller and younger farmers and poor rural communities.

I have one juicy question here... why, in a time of record profits and high commodity prices, is Nancy Pelosi not calling farmers into hearings about the necessity of their subsidies? As people are paying record prices at the grocery store, we need these people dragged before congress to answer for their profits. They even need a "windfall profits tax," Nancy, "for the common good."

That, in itself, is very, very telling.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #139 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

The current subsidy system is a complete mess, full of pork and political payoffs for whores on both sides of the isle, as you stated. But subsidies... a pet project for conservatives?

Pelosi's farm subsidies bill, 2007

Pelosi juggles $286 Billion farm bill, 2008.



The White House farm bill:



I have one juicy question here... why, in a time of record profits and high commodity prices, is Nancy Pelosi not calling farmers into hearings about the necessity of their subsidies? As people are paying record prices at the grocery store, we need these people dragged before congress to answer for their profits. They even need a "windfall profits tax," Nancy, "for the common good."

That, in itself, is very, very telling.

It is indeed a shame that the only electable Democrats are the ones who pander to the conservatives.
post #140 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It is indeed a shame that the only electable Democrats are the ones who pander to the conservatives.

And vice versa. *coughmccaincough*
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #141 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

And vice versa. *coughmccaincough*

Touché

And again, Jubelum brings in the ammunition and argues his case well. A hell of a lot more worth reading than another poster I know.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why Can't He Close the Deal?