When is the United States going to recover from Democratic Rule? - Page 3

Originally Posted by trumptman

As we so enjoyed being reminded last election, it is the size of what is being discussed that determines the suitability. Detroit serves over a million people which makes it bigger than Alaska, bigger than Delaware which VP Biden served as a Senator for so long. The population of Detroit is larger than that wonderful state Howard Dean served called Vermont.

What a convenient double-standard. We care about Wasilla in the fall but who gives a crap about Detroit in the spring.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Allegations and musings can be used to force disclosure of information that is of no relevance except to try to embarrass or discredit.

If I accuse you of screwing the neighbor's wife and your only alibi has to show you couldn't be doing that because you were being taking a bribe or embezzling company money, then you are screwed.

politicians and their staffers frequently have reason to dissemble, about issues far more important than an extra-marital affair. Too often, though, the press treats public statements from elected officials' offices -- especially those purporting simply to provide information, like the Appalachian Trail line -- as self-evidently accurate. It's as if, despite everything, some in the press can't quite bring themselves to believe that politicians might try to mislead people.

Originally Posted by trumptman

The press won't even investigate legitimate claims against Democratic politicians but will investigate false claims against Republicans.

Find for me who initiated the claims about Sanford missing.

Both were forced to reveal embarassing information to address claims not related at all to their service in office.

Score some points?!?! How does one score points by disclosing embarrassing information?

Originally Posted by JavaCowboy

As a Canadian, I find the partisan bickering between Democrats and Republicans hilarious. The context of the arguments is that there is a supposed wide ideological gulf between the two parties. One is right, the other is left. One is liberal, the other is conservative.

I acknowledge there are some important policy differences between the two parties, but in the grader scheme of the political continuum, they're trivial.

Consider the following facts:

1) Both parties oppose gay marriage, and one of the parties keeps breaking promises for gay rights.
2) Both parties favour the death penalty.
3) Both parties are totally behind the military campaign in Afghanistan (other NATO countries are split).
4) Both favour violations of Americans' privacy rights.
5) Both favour strict pro-corporate copyright policies.

etc....

So there are some minor differences such as their positions on gun control, abortion and stem cell research. Nonetheless, from my point of view, both parties largely operate on a consensus.

Originally Posted by dfiler

If a Democrat listens to only NPR or a Republican only watches Fox News, they are almost assured to become more extremist and convinced of their own ideals.

Originally Posted by Flounder

I know it's popular to say NPR is some bastion of liberalism, but I really find it quite even-handed. To compare NPR to Fox News is a bit beyond the pale.

Originally Posted by JavaCowboy

As a Canadian, I find the partisan bickering between Democrats and Republicans hilarious. The context of the arguments is that there is a supposed wide ideological gulf between the two parties. One is right, the other is left. One is liberal, the other is conservative.

I acknowledge there are some important policy differences between the two parties, but in the grader scheme of the political continuum, they're trivial.

Originally Posted by dfiler

LOL, i tend to agree. But I'm trying to be even handed here. My point was better made by not painting one side as worse than the other.

Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their grand-daughters to live under sharia law.

The "smart money" says that the way for the Republicans to win elections is to appeal to a wider range of voters, including minorities

Ronald Reagan won two elections in a landslide by being Ronald Reagan--and, most important of all--explaining to a broad electorate how what he advocated would be best for them and for the country. Newt Gingrich likewise led a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives by explaining how the Republican agenda would benefit a wide range of people.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

That article is absolutely shit. But hilariously shit.



Well yes. But we should all be worried that the British won't reclaim the United States. Where will we be then. We should also be worried that the Norwegians won't invade Alaska and make it a communist republic.

This, however, is absolutely priceless, and convinces me that the Republican party is fucked beyond any redemption.



Yes. Yes, you fucking idiot, this is how EVERY ELECTION IN EVERY DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD IS WON. This is how the Democrats won. They made proposals. The Republicans declared them "socialist." Obama won anyway.



Yes. And now Barack Obama has won by a landslide by doing exactly the same thing. The nation agreed with him.

And now, good lord, economic indicators are beginning to improve. It's too soon to say for sure that we're out of the woods, but there's actually positive news.

It's too soon to say for sure that we're out of the woods

Originally Posted by jimmac

Talon8472 in the Cheney thread seems to think that 6 months is long enough to claim that Obama has failed with regard to the economy. What is it with these people that makes them think 6 months would be long enough to tell anything for sure?

Originally Posted by trumptman

We had quite the long cold war to contain communism. Study "the continent" right now and you will see that massive immigration is being used to offset the lack of birthrate in most countries. As I often tease when discussing this with my brother, I say, America and Europe both have immigration issues, but at least our immigrants don't want to kill us or set up different courts.

So though offered in jest, you might be half-right.

Originally Posted by trumptman

If I see a peanut in a turd, I don't call it a meal. Obama ran not on a policy, but on a personality, one that is quickly being worn thin with all the celebrity coverage. When America is done with that, they will be done with him.

Originally Posted by Taskiss

Failure is in the eye of the beholder.

There are folks that believe Bush failed in New Orleans in response to the hurricane there, even though state emergencies (up to Hurricane Andrew, anyway) are usually handled through the Governors office by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Suddenly they're national issues deserving of personal attention from the president. It didn't take 6 months to lay the blame at Bush's feet even though he declared an emergency 2 days prior to landfall. The reason Bush was criticized was that FEMA failed to anticipate the extent of the emergency and that it failed to provide a successful response.

Now, a failure to anticipate the extent of the emergency and an unsuccessful response is being attributed to Obama's administration for it's handling of the economic situation.

That's apparently the price to pay if you want to sit in the oval office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...agement_Agency

In December 2008, the NBER declared that the United States had been in recession since December 2007, and several economists expressed their concern that there is no end in sight for the downturn and that recovery may not appear until as late as 2011.[8] The recession is considered the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[9][10]

Originally Posted by trumptman

Wow, that massive command of reasoning and facts certainly has done in my argument. NOT.
.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Here is the deal Frank, and I suspect you might even agree with me on this one.

You are right, Bush had the recession start on his watch and unemployment rose to 7% by the time he left office. It had gone from 4% to 6% during the election timeframe. Sure guys like me would point out the Democratic Congress during those final two years, and you wouldn't agree, but whatever in that regard.

The main point though would be that it would have been very hard for Bush to win a third term and his job approval dropped as the unemployment rate rose. The lack of fiscal control during his eight years as a definite negative as well and I'm sure that contributed to that declining job approval too.

Here is where guys like myself scratch our heads and see the logic train coming off the rails. Bush inherited a recession as well. The dot com collapse occurred right as he came into office. Bush had to fix it, and take responsibility to fix it . Obama just gets to pass blame.

Obama passed a stimulus package with the intent of limiting unemployment to 8%. Instead unemployment has risen to 9.4%. He simply declared that he couldn't have gotten it right because by his claim EVERYONE got it wrong.

Obama got it wrong.

Bush did implement tax cuts and has taken all the heat including heat from me for the fact the national deficit doubled during his term.

The scale of the Obama spending is so huge though that it is already raising government bond rates, it is crowding out the private borrowing that was supposed to be fixed by the bailouts, it is crushing the recovery before it can really get started. Adding that $787 billion is all on Obama. Go to a couple financial news aggregators for a week or two. Our president's policies are starting trade wars, they are causing people to stop buying bonds, it is making them demand a new reserve currency.

That has absolutely nothing to do with Bush.

Bush did not pass cap and trade legislation that notes that if industry flees in an attempt to circumvent it, the U.S. government will impose tariffs on the products coming in from the other country in violation of the WTO. It is Obama that did that much like how Canada filed a similar complaint related to the stimulus. This is on Obama.



Based on rainbows and butterflies I guess.



Ad-homing the source is allowed by the board rules, but doesn't improve the argument. Claiming bias doesn't address the articles claims anymore than claiming the National Enquirer is a yellow journalistic rag, made Edwards not cheat.



Actually -ly makes it an adverb which in no form modifies you, the noun. There are several good reasons to fear Islamic influence in Europe. I listed a few of them and you haven't addressed them.



I've been to Europe and I wouldn't engage in the fallacy of claiming that it made me right or made you wrong. It is an attempted personal attack and the very definition of Ad hominem circumstantial.



I'm speaking several generations from now. We are talking about 75-100 years out. Again, while I did the little vacation tour bit, I would never claim that 14 days in Europe made me right or wrong.

What is right is the math you rail against. You toss out a lot of phrases that allow you to justify closing your mind and avoid all reasoning on this matter. In the timeframe I am discussing, the vast majority of those 720 million people won't be alive. For example Italy's birthrate is a little over 1.2 depending upon the source. That is a fact and so is the fact that it takes 2.1 as a birth rate to maintain a stable population. It is also a fact that Muslim birthrates are well above replacement rates.



Don Melvin writes that, excluding Russia, Europe's Muslim population will double by 2020. He also says that in 2005, almost 85% of Europe's total population growth in 2005 was due to immigration in general.[17][19] Omer Taspinar predicts that the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim will shrink by 3.5%, due to the higher Muslim birth rate.[20] Esther Pan predicts that, by 2050, one in five Europeans will likely be Muslim.[20][21]

Professor Philip Jenkins of Penn State University estimates that by 2100, Muslims will compose about 25% of Europe's population. But Jenkins admits this figure does not take account of the large birthrates amongst Europe's immigrant Christians.[22] Additionally, this estimation depends more on the supposed inevitability of the increase of Muslim population in the West and one person's research on the future of Europeans. Therefore, while Jenkins' estimation should be considered in the process of predicting what it would be like to live in the West in the year 2100, it should also be raising doubts about the entire European population.

Other analysts are skeptical about the given forecast and the accuracy of the claimed Muslim population growth, since sharp decrease in Muslim fertility rates[23] and the limiting of immigrants coming in to Europe, which will lead to Muslim population increasing slowly in the coming years to eventually stagnation and decline. Others point to overestimated number and exaggeration of the Muslim growth rate.[24]

Tell me that that Muslims can be 20-25% of the population and still have no political clout or control. Sure things can change and everyone is speculating about the future, but you can't conjure human beings out of the air. When you take the numbers we have now and project the trends forward, that is where we arrive. If you think something will alter the trends, present that information instead of fixating about how many days you think I've spent in Italy.

Here is where guys like myself scratch our heads and see the logic train coming off the rails. Bush inherited a recession as well. The dot com collapse occurred right as he came into office. Bush had to fix it, and take responsibility to fix it . Obama just gets to pass blame.

Originally Posted by trumptman


Professor Philip Jenkins of Penn State University estimates that by 2100, Muslims will compose about 25% of Europe's population.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Other analysts are skeptical about the given forecast and the accuracy of the claimed Muslim population growth, since sharp decrease in Muslim fertility rates[23] and the limiting of immigrants coming in to Europe, which will lead to Muslim population increasing slowly in the coming years to eventually stagnation and decline. Others point to overestimated number and exaggeration of the Muslim growth rate.[24][/I]

Originally Posted by trumptman

Tell me that that Muslims can be 20-25% of the population and still have no political clout or control. Sure things can change and everyone is speculating about the future, but you can't conjure human beings out of the air. When you take the numbers we have now and project the trends forward, that is where we arrive.

Originally Posted by trumptman

[
I'm guessing that popularity = right argument is going to suddenly and hypocritically discarded soon.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I've never claimed that Obama's poll numbers make his positions right. I cite them for those that make that argument. That way when the numbers reverse, it will be hilarious to watch them suddenly discard their own argument. Then we will go from, "Republicans will never recover if they don't realize X which is why the majority of Americans support Obama" to....

I'm waiting for the second half of that. It will be fun to watch.