Conservative Republicans- PHONIES!!! - Page 2

It just occurred to me that Democrats are so used to attacking Republicans and Republicans are so used to attacking Democrats that when someone like myself enters the debate who is not affiliated with either major party and sees the blaring faults in both, they don't quite know how to react.

I'm proud of you for standing up and defending what you believe in, Northgate. I didn't know you felt that threatened by my presence here, but I assure you I try to maintain a civil dialogue, even when I am so easily dismissed or criticized for my assertion that I am not a Republican or Democrat.

I wouldn't worry about it. From the way you sound you haven't totally left the republican side of things.

I'm thinking he sounds a lot like jubelum who's also a member on trumptman's blog page.

But no matter we've heard guys like him before.

Man, you beat me to it. I was just going to say I thought he/she was Jubelum. I used to call him out on the carpet all the time about his baloney "centrism" (which I remember used to piss him off royally).

Threatened? Not at all.

You may not technically be a Republican or a Democrat. There have been many people who come and go around here who claimed not to be either. One thing ALWAYS remained consistent though. They were definitely ALL conservatives who bashed liberals very consistently and stood up for the Wingers as much as possible.

And I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that 90% of your policy positions from here on out will be in the "conservative" category.

Oh I never said I wasn't conservative. I'm just not a Republican or Democrat. But why do you assume that all Republicans are conservative and all Democrats are liberal?

In terms of political party affiliation, I am a Constitutionalist--a member of the Constitution Party.

Obviously some of my own beliefs coincide with those of the Republican Party. Doesn't mean I'm a Republican.

Likewise, some of my beliefs conincide with those of the Democrat Party. Doesn't mean I'm a Democrat.

You're a Democrat, right? Do you realize that there are people within your own party who did not vote for Obama and do not support his policies? Does that, in your eyes, make them Republican?

Actually I'm still registered independent. But I've told that to you before in your old guise.

Wow, the guy believes the 19th century is the one when the years started with 19.


This dude knows his history alright.
Wagons west, was a scandal.
Maybe building rail lines.
Or was it slavery?
Or Carhartt made too many overalls.
The gold rush perhaps?

I could continue but there is clearly no point.

Please ignore their bullcrap. You don't have to be or prove anything to have the right solution or an opinion about it.


Who cares, go argue with the five year old former member voices in your head via PM's. You can ask all the new members you don't want to go around with this again while complaining there is no one here via PM.


Who cares, go argue with the five year old former member voices in your head via PM's. You can ask all the new members you don't want to go around with this again while complaining there is no one here via PM.


Who cares, go argue with the five year old former member voices in your head via PM's. You can ask all the new members you don't want to go around with this again while complaining there is no one here via PM.


Who cares, go argue with the five year old former member voices in your head via PM's. You can ask all the new members you don't want to go around with this again while complaining there is no one here via PM.


Who cares, go argue with the five year old former member voices in your head via PM's. You can ask all the new members you don't want to go around with this again while complaining there is no one here via PM.

You still can't figure me out, can you?

Figuring you out happened a long time ago.

Keep telling yourself that. There's nothing to figure out. I have been completely straightforward with you from the start.

And frankly, I don't have to prove anything to you.

Kind of sad when you're more interested in trying to discredit me than discuss the issues...or do any meaningful investigation into the people running our country.

Sad, but not surprising.

Discuss the issues with you? Why should I? You haven't addressed a single point I've brought up so far. You just ignore and return with more rhetoric.

How can you have a discussion with someone who's talking at you not with you?

I apologize. What questions/points did you have?

Here's a good example :


Or how about the things that Obama inherited from Bush discussion :


To which you said nothing.

You're very vocal about your oppostion to Obama's approach.

But what solutions would you offer the american people for this economic crisis?

If this is true, what should Bush have done? Declare an unconstitutional war based on a few reports? Oh wait...Bush did that...except after 9/11. But I thought you were against that.

What would you have done?


I think I remember hearing something about that. Not sure what relevance that has to anything, since we usually don't punish entire families for the crimes one member of the family commits.

What would you have done?


If that is true, what kind of dealings? To what extent? To what end? That statement incriminates no one. Obama associated with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Started his campaign in the guy's home. Now if Bush single-handedly orchestrated the entire 9/11 and subsequent "War on Terror" thing, then we have a problem. But conspiracy kooks have already been refuted by some pretty clear facts/evidence.

http://www.debunking911.com/


This one's an oldie but a goodie. Completely goofy, too. As if the President's immediate reaction to any crisis situation is clear evidence of some kind of guilt or culpability?

I'm not going to make excuses for his reaction because I wasn't in his shoes.


Neither do you.


The President, with the support of both Republicans and Democrats declared unconstitutional war and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. To their credit, they did take out a lot of the top leaders of Al Qaeda and have severely crippled the organization. Do the ends justify the means? That debate could fill pages by itself.


Apparently they're still alive and kicking, because here we are. Who was keeping score?


Gosh!

Been more prepared for that situation. I mean really they flew an airplane into the military HQ for the western world. You'd have thought they would be targeting it miles away in spite of the passengers because how many died at the pentigon?

And who's John Ray?

Clinton was the beneficiary of the fabulous economy generated by policies dating back to the Reagan era. In spite of Clinton, the economy did well. But the seeds of the present ecomomic turmoil were planted during his administration by BOTH PARTIES.

Under the Bush Administration, the government spent money like a drunken sailor and expanded substantially, especially after 9/11. Obama was handed a wrecked budget, and has decided to fix it by wrecking it more. And fulfilled his promise to bring our troops home by SENDING MORE TROOPS to fight in the unconstitutional war.

This mess was not created by any one president, nor will it be cleaned up by any one president.

Well that's the way you view it. My view is that we were recovering from a recession that started curiously enough during another Bush's term in office. The american people had had it with republican rule. Much like now. They voted with their pocket books in mind much like now. That's why the term " It's the economy stupid! " was coined. If it hadn't been for that Bush being the incumbant should have won a second term.

As far as Obama wrecking the budget more what do you base that on? Paul Krugman says he's not spending enough.

So what solutions would you offer?

That's some serious revisionist history there!

As your profile gives your age as 27, I suppose you can be forgiven for forgetting completely that famous little phrase, It's the economy, stupid"

I was going to bring that up but I thought I'd be accused of age discrimination. Being an old Boomer and all.

A campaign slogan. That's your historical reference? Nice.

Oh, give me a freakin' break, already!

Do you think the slogan would have WORKED if it was not true?

Geez....

Since you weren't an adult at the time, I'm not surprised you don't have a clear recollection.

Try this for your "historical reference", please.

A campaign slogan can be whatever the people want to hear and have little to do with reality.

I know about the late 80s recession.

Then what in the world led you to make the following statement, which is plainly in contradiction of that knowledge?

What contradiction? The economy was already on the upswing before Clinton took office.

You may want to take a look at this........

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accompli...tyears-03.html


Of course this was probably written before the latest downturn but you get the idea.


And


Yeah, yeah I know it was really the republicans right?

That kind of thinking reminds me of When Chekov on Star Trek used to always claim that everything came from Russia.

Hardly an unbiased source. Nice try, though.

Ok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton



And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton


Had enough?

Maybe not!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid


That could have been used with this most recent election as it's still timely and there's even another Bush!

Is jimmac actually quoting Wikipedia as a non-biased information source on politics?

Wikipedia?

Which parts of those Wikipedia links are untrue?

Again - HOW could there have been a recession in the early 1990s if "Clinton was the beneficiary of the fabulous economy generated by policies dating back to the Reagan era."?

It's a complete contradiction.
Fabulous Economy != Recession.

And all you can do when called on it is to chant "wikiwikiwikiwiki" like that stupid midget robot in the old Buck Rogers TV series?


If the information I cited is incorrect, then please provide some credible evidence contradicting the statistical reality that there was a recession in the US in the early 1990s.

Come on! You and I both know there are hundreds of popular sources that everyone uses that you wouldn't like. And yes Northgate is right. Which of those items on Wikipedia are untrue then?

When it comes down to it none of the arguments these guys have washes. It's that kind of thinking that lost them the election. Believeing something that isn't true. And if the facts don't support that belief then change them.

Oops! I said again didn't I!

It's obviously a matter of perspective, isn't it? While you are busy trying to prove how Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong, I'm approaching it from the perspective that they are BOTH wrong.

You are convinced that the Democrats are "right" (correct), so everything you see and read is interpreted from that perspective. Likewise, those who are convinced the Republicans are "right" (correct) interpret things through that prism.

I believe the Clinton took credit for a good economy, the fundamentals of which were created by the Reagan tax cuts and policies enacted before Clinton ever took office, and that policies enacted during the Clinton era actually laid the foundations for our present crisis. Bush only exacerbated things.

Anyone can post anything in a Wikipedia article with plenty of "evidence" to back up any view. I mean, look at the differing views on the Great Depression and the volumes that have been written on it.

"exacerbated" was he using his left or his right hand?

So you are saying the Bush admin was unable to see that the country was damaged by Clinton policies for 8 long years. Non of their experts had the knowledge to find the flawed Clintonian rules that caused this country to become Chinese food, on hawk to communists. While after Clinton the country was sporting a fiscal surplus.

Oh I forgot Bush spent 3.5 of the 8 years on vacation. Sorry my bad.

No, I'm saying the Bush Administration had a big government, globalist agenda and their economic policies furthered that agenda.

Same with Obama.

Same with Clinton.

All big government globalists.

You know? I was going to register as some other idiot like the others but what the fuck...

Back for this spell. Because I'm so damn insignificant now for such a sadly damaged forum as this...but Appleinsider wished me a happy birthday this weekend...

Is it just me, or has Jon Stewart gotten better now that he has something to defend rather than just attack?

I truly enjoy that he's come out in defense of the progressive tide in our politics. A lot of the younger people have grown up in a political environment so polarized that we naturally assume that one side is just as bad as the other. An environment where we're quick to criticize, but not to defend.

But that will only ever get you halfway there. Stewart helps me remember that although both sides have dirt on them, one of them is nonetheless demonstrably better than the other. That professional jaded detachment doesn't accomplish anything. That we won't get anywhere unless we choose where we stand and wade into the fray.

Jon Stewart is real. He is the truth. And he may have changed journalism and reporting the truth to a whole new level.

But I could be wrong. Anyway, did anyone watch the Bill Moyers' interview with William K. Black?

Quite telling I must say. He should have been appointed Head of Clusterfuck Abatement for this financial crisis. Because the blame shouldn't go to Obama, or anyone else...just ourselves. Or Bush or Clinton or Reagan even...they have all been phonies, everyone we praise, vilify and rant on. Phonies. Not a true original yet in the bunch.

No, not even Reagan... I have to laugh here...We all have to...



Guess what? Maybe, just maybe we've all been gamed, ponzied and lobotomized by all fronts. Left, Right and Libertarianly fucked up the ass my fellow PoliticalOutsider nonesuches.

Go back to arguing about Apple and how well served and priced they are, how more superior they are. Because Apple's just hardware and the reason you and I have one is because we are all just BOOMERS.

See you in I guess...1,382 days. Or until Hell freezes over. I will lurk, someday this forum will be worth posting again (looks over shoulder).

So! Hassan? Many blessings. Jimmac, FormerLurker, Northgate, etc.? Keep up the good fight.

Trumptman and all your aliases?

Ok. I guess I crafted another solid, true and irrefutable argument that you or your aliases won't read or care about ("agree to disagree", etc...). Therefore...



Party. Like. 1999.

Drive by posting from someone who loves the drive by media.