Fact: Many overseas military people had trouble with the ballots.
Fact: People with an 80% match to a felon's name or birthdate were wiped from the voter records without notification. They turned up at polls and were turned away.
Fact: Truckloads of votes went missing.
Fact: The supreme court of Florida and the supreme court of the US ruled differently in regard to recounts.
Fact: Certain third party candidates took major swing votes.
No matter who won, it would have been a fluke either way. You don't characterize it that way because you are more biased than an evil biased robot that was built with 100% pure biased titanium plated with extra biased silver and painted with biased paint colored BIAS RED.
1. The problem was the postmark. Military mail doesn't always get it...even though it is supposed to. The ballots were disqualified on that basis, even though they had physically arrived in time.
2. And this was a Republican conspiracy?
3. See number two.
4. The Supreme Court of Florida REWROTE the law. They changed the deadline in the middle of the election. Only the legislature can do this, and shouldn't in the middle of the election. The FL supreme court is one of the most liberal, activist benches in the nation. They allowed counts to go on with no clear standard. They were rebuffed by the highest authority in the land...the US Supreme Court. SEVEN of NINE justices found Constitutional problems with the recount.
5. No 3rd party candidate took "major" swing votes. Nader probably cost Gore some...but not much. No one pulled a Perot and took 19% of the vote.
Quote:
No matter who won, it would have been a fluke either way. You don't characterize it that way because you are more biased than an evil biased robot that was built with 100% pure biased titanium plated with extra biased silver and painted with biased paint colored BIAS RED.
I have to give you credit for making me laugh on that one.
I would characterize the whole thing as a disaster. Not a fluke. Then again, hopefully it WAS a fluke. I sure wouldn't want the country to go through that again. You have to remember that Bush was the certified winner of Florida the whole time. Gore was NEVER certified the winner. The vote count never put him ahead by a single vote. The first machine recount should have been the end of the discussion because it was the only one consistent with FL state law. You may not believe me, but I would say that no matter who it showed was ahead. All I have is my word on that one.
Quote:
It was Bush 41 raising taxes that helped turn the economy around in the first place and set us up for the 90s boom. He helped get our fiscal house in order. It is a shame that all of you republican sheep shun him for the one good thing he did.
I had to post that in bold so everyone could see what kind of twisted thinking we are dealing with here. RAISING TAXES helped turn the economy around? How? A balanced budget (which he didn't have BTW,) doesn't stimulate the economy, BR. The same applies to Clinton's tax increase, which was massive and affected the middle class. the economy was not stellar throughout all the 90's as you'd like to believe and keep hearing from the liberal media. The natural business cycle lead to a modest recovery through 1996, where things really started taking off. The boom was mostly caused by the technology/internet boom, low interest rates and low energy prices. HIGH TAXES sure as hell do not *help* the economy. God Almighty!
Brussell:
Quote:
I didn't say he "would have" won an electoral landslide, I said he did. He had more than twice the electoral votes of Bush in 92 and then Dole in 96. Or are you folks going to start saying only the popular vote rather than the electoral vote matters.
No one is really disputing that. Though, I don;t think "landslide" is applicable for those elections. A landslide was Reagan in 1984.
Hi, my name is jimmac. I won't take a position on anything. All I can do is attack SDW, calling his statements "garbage".
Sincerely,
jimmac
In all seriousness, do you agree or disagree with what I posted above? Do you mean to tell me that the above WILL occur again...or it won't? Are you really telling me that those factors didn;t contribute to Clinton's victory with just 43% of the vote? (btw, we had a 50% turn out...which means less than 25% of America voted for him).
Those were all unique factors. Some of them have already been ruled out. Bush hasn't raised taxes for one, which was a AMJOR reason he lost. There is no charismatic Clinton this time around. Dean is WAY more liberal than Clinton appeared to be. No one has the money to go up against Bush. There is no strong 3rd party candidate who will drain Bush of votes. We've also had 9/11 and two wars.
Take a position and defend it jimmac.
I've taken several with you. The problem is that when some tells you something that you don't want to hear......well you don't. I guess. Honestly you are the most polarized personality I've ever read on line.
I've taken several with you. The problem is that when some tells you something that you don't want to hear......well you don't. I guess. Honestly you are the most polarized personality I've ever read on line.
As other's have said, you worry me.
Well pardon me if I CAN sleep tonight knowing your opinion.
I have strong views which I can back up. That's not being polarized.
Not that I've seen. You're not exactly batting a thousand here. As to your predictions about those strong views well......where's those WOMD?
Still in check.
I suppose finding components of a centrifuge suitable for enriching uranium doesn't count? I suppose finding a warehouse of castor beans (used for making Ricin) doesn't count? From what I've read this week, there is going to be some major news on the WMD front pretty soon. The chairman of the House Intelligence Comittee was quoted as saying there have been some significant successes in finding Iraqi WMD...and said he urged the admin. to make them public.
Not that this matters. Having the opinion that there is WMD in Iraq to be found isn't really a position.
I've issued the challenge to you many times, jimmac...and you skirt it every time. Name an issue, any issue, and I will justify my opinion. In the end, you may not agree, many others may not agree, but I will have made a reasonable and logical argument for said position. I'm serious...from taxes to the use of military force, to government size and spending, to abortion, to gun control to the environment...name an issue. I don't care which.
People like you like to label anyone who disagrees with you an extremist. That's too bad, because I have liberal friends that do not do that. One of my longest and best friends is a staunch Democrat. We happen to disagree on a lot of things, but she's a reaonable and very intelligent peron whom I respect. I respect her because she can justify her positions and stances. You can't. Not only that, you often won't even TAKE a posiiton AT ALL. You'll just keep on insulting me as long as you think it gets you laughs. You'll just keep on bashing Bush with phrases like "Out the door in 2004". In other words, you'll just keep spouting off meaningless rhetoric, mostly because it's the onyl real debate tactic you have to defend whatever absurd positions you DO hold.
" I suppose finding components of a centrifuge suitable for enriching uranium doesn't count? I suppose finding a warehouse of castor beans (used for making Ricin) doesn't count? From what I've read this week, there is going to be some major news on the WMD front pretty soon. The chairman of the House Intelligence Comittee was quoted as saying there have been some significant successes in finding Iraqi WMD...and said he urged the admin. to make them public. "
" I've issued the challenge to you many times, jimmac...and you skirt it every time. Name an issue, any issue, and I will justify my opinion. In the end, you may not agree, many others may not agree, but I will have made a reasonable and logical argument for said position. I'm serious...from taxes to the use of military force, to government size and spending, to abortion, to gun control to the environment...name an issue. I don't care which. "
You're one to talk about skirting issues ( we can go back to the Clinton sex scandel / Criminal liberal media issue if you like ). However I don't have the time to mindlessly spare with someone who won't admit he's wrong no matter what facts are presented. And you are an extremist. Just ask anyone here if you don't believe me. Only an extremist would start a thread with the ridiculous title of " Bush Wins All 50 States In 2004 "
I stopped sparing with you because it's a lost cause. Well that and the fact that you call people names that disagree with you at the drop of a hat. You have a way of bending what you hear speak and see to your own liking. Saying that I don't take a position and defend myself is projection at it's best! You're very good at avoiding the subject when pinned down though. I'll give you that.
If unemployment is still this bad in early 2004, even Cartman could beat Bush. Unemployed people can vote. Itr's not like they have anything else to do.
You're right! It doesn't count! Keep up the wishful thinking on your part. it's hilarious.
Judge Judy Jimmac says so. There you have it.
Quote:
You're one to talk about skirting issues ( we can go back to the Clinton sex scandel / Criminal liberal media issue if you like ).
No, we can't. I answered that question time and time again, and then one more time just for fun. I am absolutely NOT getting into that with you. I answered it clearly and directly on multiple ocassions. Because you DISAGREED with what I posted, you announced I never answered your "question".
Quote:
However I don't have the time to mindlessly spare with someone who won't admit he's wrong no matter what facts are presented.
Not true. For God's sake, I just posted an example of someone with whom I disagree and still respect. You also don't present facts of any kind. None. Zero. If you had an argument that made any sense, I might just change my mind after all. I've acknowledged other members points in the past. I point to the thread "[Those darn borrow and spend Republicans]", in which I agreed with the basic premise of the thread. So, don't go telling me I am so blindly Republican that I can't see any wrongdoing by the party or the President. I happen to think Bush is doing a great job with most things. I think he's been a GREAT President. I'm also more than happy to tell you what he's done that I disagree with.
Though, the fact that I think he's done a great job drives you and others indiscriminately crazy with frustration and disbelief. It then causes you to label me an idiototic polarized fool for saying so. And that's the root of it, jimmac. It is not me who calls you an idiot for believing whatever it is you believe. It is YOU who calls me names for believing what I believe. Once again, the prevailing thought is that anyone who is enlightened MUST be a liberal.
Quote:
And you are an extremist. Just ask anyone here if you don't believe me. Only an extremist would start a thread with the ridiculous title of " Bush Wins All 50 States In 2004 "
Ronald Reagan won 49 States. It's not impossible at all. What I said was that in the post 9/11 political landscape, Bush MAY win all 50 states but lose the District of Columbia IF....I repeat IF the economy improves. Anyone that won't ackowledge this possibility based on HIS OWN polarized political beliefs has got to be kidding. I didn't say it WOULD happen, I started the thread to DISCUSS the possibility. But some here, namely you, can't do that....probably because the very notion of Bush winning in a landslide sends you into fits of panic. You just can't imagine how people like me could be so shit-for-brains stupid as to vote for Bush. Even sammi jo ackowledged the possibility (in her own twisted way)!
Quote:
I stopped sparing with you because it's a lost cause. Well that and the fact that you call people names that disagree with you at the drop of a hat.
Really? I called you a C%$^ because you started your response to the thread by telling me I was out of touch and childish. You couldn't just disagree, you had to add a little personal zing to it. If you think you are going to make these kind of statements and I'm not going to respond, think again. I rarely engage in name calling and you know it.
Quote:
You have a way of bending what you hear speak and see to your own liking. Saying that I don't take a position and defend myself is projection at it's best! You're very good at avoiding the subject when pinned down though. I'll give you that.
I have a way of arguing a point and ripping your unsupported, illogical and minsinformed arguments to utter shreds.
And projection? Good Lord! I ask you again:
Name an issue. Any issue.
I'll tell you my position and why I hold it. Oh, and just so we are clear: You've never "pinned me down" on ANYTHING. Ever.
If unemployment is still this bad in early 2004, even Cartman could beat Bush. Unemployed people can vote. Itr's not like they have anything else to do.
I can't agree with that. Historical average unemployment over the last 40 years is around 8.5%. We're still way below that. While I agree that unchanged unemployment will hurt Bush in 2004, I don't think that number on its own would be enough for him to lose. Now, if that number was combined with a stock market around 8,500 or less, and say GDP in the .5-1.9% range (combiend with other economic data) then Bush may be in big trouble.
But, we can't discount the other factors either, particularly the lack of a truly strong Democratic candidate. Dean is NOT going to get the nomination...that much I can just about guarantee you.
Other factors include Bush's financial strength (which will be four to five times that of ANY Dem), his 9/11 leadership, his strong commander-in-chief image, his incumbenency, willingness to campaign hard and prepare hard for debates, his solidified base, his two tax cuts and the medicare package as domestic victories and even more importantly, his pledge to "not raise" taxes by making the cuts permanent (The Dem will either have to come out for that proposal or come out for what will amount to a tax increase).
Bush's campaign will portray him as the strong military leader who lead the country through 9/11. He'll be shown as the architect of two historically large tax cuts and the medicare bill. He'll also talk about Social Security and continuing to to steward the economic recovery which, I suspect, will be in progress at the time.
You think that one number will be enough? We're not talking about 8-9% unemployment here. That would be different.
1. The problem was the postmark. Military mail doesn't always get it...even though it is supposed to. The ballots were disqualified on that basis, even though they had physically arrived in time.
Duh. Of course when I was listing off the facts surrounding the election, you automatically assumed I'd only list facts in support of Gore. I hate both parties. Both parties pulled a bunch of bogus bullshit during the election.
THERE WERE SHENANIGANS ON BOTH SIDES AND NO MATTER WHO WON IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A FLUKE!
Do you really want to get egg all over your face with a stupid "bring it on" comment? Hmm, seems like quite a few Iraqis have taken up that challenge. I have a few friends in the gulf right now and they most certainly don't appreciate Bush antagonizing a bunch of psychos.
No, we can't. I answered that question time and time again, and then one more time just for fun. I am absolutely NOT getting into that with you. I answered it clearly and directly on multiple ocassions. Because you DISAGREED with what I posted, you announced I never answered your "question".
Not true. For God's sake, I just posted an example of someone with whom I disagree and still respect. You also don't present facts of any kind. None. Zero. If you had an argument that made any sense, I might just change my mind after all. I've acknowledged other members points in the past. I point to the thread "[Those darn borrow and spend Republicans]", in which I agreed with the basic premise of the thread. So, don't go telling me I am so blindly Republican that I can't see any wrongdoing by the party or the President. I happen to think Bush is doing a great job with most things. I think he's been a GREAT President. I'm also more than happy to tell you what he's done that I disagree with.
Though, the fact that I think he's done a great job drives you and others indiscriminately crazy with frustration and disbelief. It then causes you to label me an idiototic polarized fool for saying so. And that's the root of it, jimmac. It is not me who calls you an idiot for believing whatever it is you believe. It is YOU who calls me names for believing what I believe. Once again, the prevailing thought is that anyone who is enlightened MUST be a liberal.
Ronald Reagan won 49 States. It's not impossible at all. What I said was that in the post 9/11 political landscape, Bush MAY win all 50 states but lose the District of Columbia IF....I repeat IF the economy improves. Anyone that won't ackowledge this possibility based on HIS OWN polarized political beliefs has got to be kidding. I didn't say it WOULD happen, I started the thread to DISCUSS the possibility. But some here, namely you, can't do that....probably because the very notion of Bush winning in a landslide sends you into fits of panic. You just can't imagine how people like me could be so shit-for-brains stupid as to vote for Bush. Even sammi jo ackowledged the possibility (in her own twisted way)!
Really? I called you a C%$^ because you started your response to the thread by telling me I was out of touch and childish. You couldn't just disagree, you had to add a little personal zing to it. If you think you are going to make these kind of statements and I'm not going to respond, think again. I rarely engage in name calling and you know it.
I have a way of arguing a point and ripping your unsupported, illogical and minsinformed arguments to utter shreds.
And projection? Good Lord! I ask you again:
Name an issue. Any issue.
I'll tell you my position and why I hold it. Oh, and just so we are clear: You've never "pinned me down" on ANYTHING. Ever.
A blatant lie. You still haven't answered anything. You still haven't proven how the media could be controled by liberals and fry Clinton and a chance at the next presidency at the same time. You are still in check over that one. Of course you'll always be so because you can't balance those two items.
Do you really want to get egg all over your face with a stupid "bring it on" comment? Hmm, seems like quite a few Iraqis have taken up that challenge. I have a few friends in the gulf right now and they most certainly don't appreciate Bush antagonizing a bunch of psychos.
Oh my God. No one has taken up any "challenge". Do you really think they are sitting by their TV sets witha Mecca Cola in their hands and saying "Well, THAT sent me over the top...time to become a sniper".
Quote:
A blatant lie. You still haven't answered anything. You still haven't proven how the media could be controled by liberals and fry Clinton and a chance at the next presidency at the same time. You are still in check over that one. Of course you'll always be so because you can't balance those two items.
jimmac, I answered that both a with a point-by-point list of reasons why I think that happened, and a detailed analysis of the situation. I also pointed out that one network REFUSED to air the air the story for weeks on end, even as others did. I've answered your question over and over and over and over and....wait for it....OVER again. I absolutely refuse to answer it ten times instead of just the nine times I already have. You bring it up in every thread, even though I'VE ANSWERD YOUR QUESTION IN DETAIL, and even though it has nothing to do with the thread we are in. It doesn't matter how I answer it or how many times though, because you are just going to keep saying I haven't answered it. Worse, this "point" was your ONLY argument that the media wasn't liberally biased. You actually pinned your entire argument to this one notion. Unbelieveable and pathetic, jimmac. It's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Quote:
You are so full of yourself it just not worth it. Unfortunately I feel compelled to counter your nonsense from time to time.
There you go again! First, you'd have no way of ascertaining if I am full of myself, because you don't know me. All I said is that I am willing to defend my positions.
Oh my God. No one has taken up any "challenge". Do you really think they are sitting by their TV sets witha Mecca Cola in their hands and saying "Well, THAT sent me over the top...time to become a sniper".
jimmac, I answered that both a with a point-by-point list of reasons why I think that happened, and a detailed analysis of the situation. I also pointed out that one network REFUSED to air the air the story for weeks on end, even as others did. I've answered your question over and over and over and over and....wait for it....OVER again. I absolutely refuse to answer it ten times instead of just the nine times I already have. You bring it up in every thread, even though I'VE ANSWERD YOUR QUESTION IN DETAIL, and even though it has nothing to do with the thread we are in. It doesn't matter how I answer it or how many times though, because you are just going to keep saying I haven't answered it. Worse, this "point" was your ONLY argument that the media wasn't liberally biased. You actually pinned your entire argument to this one notion. Unbelieveable and pathetic, jimmac. It's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.
There you go again! First, you'd have no way of ascertaining if I am full of myself, because you don't know me. All I said is that I am willing to defend my positions.
And what "nonsense" do you refer to?
For an example of the nonsense I was talking about read above.
Oh look! One network didn't air the story for weeks while SDW was wringing his hands over it!
Probably it wasn't aired because they had the good sense to see what a circus it was going to become. And if this was before the public denial it was the Clinton's business not ours.
At any rate it got more than ample coverage everywhere else.
From the begining.
For the better part of a year.
The reason I keep coming back to this ( as well as no WOMD in Iraq ) is because they are prime examples of your " blind spot ". You see what you want to see. Not what's really there.
Comments
besides, if he loses, that also means no Hillary for at least another 8 years, which is also great, IMO.
lol, if the Dems can field a halfway respectable canidate this time around, i'm sure i'll be voting democratic.
Originally posted by BR
Of course not because he is your guy.
Fact: Many overseas military people had trouble with the ballots.
Fact: People with an 80% match to a felon's name or birthdate were wiped from the voter records without notification. They turned up at polls and were turned away.
Fact: Truckloads of votes went missing.
Fact: The supreme court of Florida and the supreme court of the US ruled differently in regard to recounts.
Fact: Certain third party candidates took major swing votes.
No matter who won, it would have been a fluke either way. You don't characterize it that way because you are more biased than an evil biased robot that was built with 100% pure biased titanium plated with extra biased silver and painted with biased paint colored BIAS RED.
1. The problem was the postmark. Military mail doesn't always get it...even though it is supposed to. The ballots were disqualified on that basis, even though they had physically arrived in time.
2. And this was a Republican conspiracy?
3. See number two.
4. The Supreme Court of Florida REWROTE the law. They changed the deadline in the middle of the election. Only the legislature can do this, and shouldn't in the middle of the election. The FL supreme court is one of the most liberal, activist benches in the nation. They allowed counts to go on with no clear standard. They were rebuffed by the highest authority in the land...the US Supreme Court. SEVEN of NINE justices found Constitutional problems with the recount.
5. No 3rd party candidate took "major" swing votes. Nader probably cost Gore some...but not much. No one pulled a Perot and took 19% of the vote.
No matter who won, it would have been a fluke either way. You don't characterize it that way because you are more biased than an evil biased robot that was built with 100% pure biased titanium plated with extra biased silver and painted with biased paint colored BIAS RED.
I have to give you credit for making me laugh on that one.
I would characterize the whole thing as a disaster. Not a fluke. Then again, hopefully it WAS a fluke. I sure wouldn't want the country to go through that again. You have to remember that Bush was the certified winner of Florida the whole time. Gore was NEVER certified the winner. The vote count never put him ahead by a single vote. The first machine recount should have been the end of the discussion because it was the only one consistent with FL state law. You may not believe me, but I would say that no matter who it showed was ahead. All I have is my word on that one.
It was Bush 41 raising taxes that helped turn the economy around in the first place and set us up for the 90s boom. He helped get our fiscal house in order. It is a shame that all of you republican sheep shun him for the one good thing he did.
I had to post that in bold so everyone could see what kind of twisted thinking we are dealing with here. RAISING TAXES helped turn the economy around? How? A balanced budget (which he didn't have BTW,) doesn't stimulate the economy, BR. The same applies to Clinton's tax increase, which was massive and affected the middle class. the economy was not stellar throughout all the 90's as you'd like to believe and keep hearing from the liberal media. The natural business cycle lead to a modest recovery through 1996, where things really started taking off. The boom was mostly caused by the technology/internet boom, low interest rates and low energy prices. HIGH TAXES sure as hell do not *help* the economy. God Almighty!
Brussell:
I didn't say he "would have" won an electoral landslide, I said he did. He had more than twice the electoral votes of Bush in 92 and then Dole in 96. Or are you folks going to start saying only the popular vote rather than the electoral vote matters.
No one is really disputing that. Though, I don;t think "landslide" is applicable for those elections. A landslide was Reagan in 1984.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Hi, my name is jimmac. I won't take a position on anything. All I can do is attack SDW, calling his statements "garbage".
Sincerely,
jimmac
In all seriousness, do you agree or disagree with what I posted above? Do you mean to tell me that the above WILL occur again...or it won't? Are you really telling me that those factors didn;t contribute to Clinton's victory with just 43% of the vote? (btw, we had a 50% turn out...which means less than 25% of America voted for him).
Those were all unique factors. Some of them have already been ruled out. Bush hasn't raised taxes for one, which was a AMJOR reason he lost. There is no charismatic Clinton this time around. Dean is WAY more liberal than Clinton appeared to be. No one has the money to go up against Bush. There is no strong 3rd party candidate who will drain Bush of votes. We've also had 9/11 and two wars.
Take a position and defend it jimmac.
I've taken several with you. The problem is that when some tells you something that you don't want to hear......well you don't. I guess. Honestly you are the most polarized personality I've ever read on line.
As other's have said, you worry me.
Originally posted by jimmac
I've taken several with you. The problem is that when some tells you something that you don't want to hear......well you don't. I guess. Honestly you are the most polarized personality I've ever read on line.
As other's have said, you worry me.
Well pardon me if I CAN sleep tonight knowing your opinion.
I have strong views which I can back up. That's not being polarized.
Originally posted by alcimedes
bah, i want bush out. the sooner he's done, the sooner McCain gets a shot.
besides, if he loses, that also means no Hillary for at least another 8 years, which is also great, IMO.
lol, if the Dems can field a halfway respectable canidate this time around, i'm sure i'll be voting democratic.
Ditto all of that.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well pardon me if I CAN sleep tonight knowing your opinion.
I have strong views which I can back up. That's not being polarized.
Not that I've seen. You're not exactly batting a thousand here. As to your predictions about those strong views well......where's those WOMD?
Still in check.
Originally posted by jimmac
Not that I've seen. You're not exactly batting a thousand here. As to your predictions about those strong views well......where's those WOMD?
Still in check.
I suppose finding components of a centrifuge suitable for enriching uranium doesn't count? I suppose finding a warehouse of castor beans (used for making Ricin) doesn't count? From what I've read this week, there is going to be some major news on the WMD front pretty soon. The chairman of the House Intelligence Comittee was quoted as saying there have been some significant successes in finding Iraqi WMD...and said he urged the admin. to make them public.
Not that this matters. Having the opinion that there is WMD in Iraq to be found isn't really a position.
I've issued the challenge to you many times, jimmac...and you skirt it every time. Name an issue, any issue, and I will justify my opinion. In the end, you may not agree, many others may not agree, but I will have made a reasonable and logical argument for said position. I'm serious...from taxes to the use of military force, to government size and spending, to abortion, to gun control to the environment...name an issue. I don't care which.
People like you like to label anyone who disagrees with you an extremist. That's too bad, because I have liberal friends that do not do that. One of my longest and best friends is a staunch Democrat. We happen to disagree on a lot of things, but she's a reaonable and very intelligent peron whom I respect. I respect her because she can justify her positions and stances. You can't. Not only that, you often won't even TAKE a posiiton AT ALL. You'll just keep on insulting me as long as you think it gets you laughs. You'll just keep on bashing Bush with phrases like "Out the door in 2004". In other words, you'll just keep spouting off meaningless rhetoric, mostly because it's the onyl real debate tactic you have to defend whatever absurd positions you DO hold.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" I suppose finding components of a centrifuge suitable for enriching uranium doesn't count? I suppose finding a warehouse of castor beans (used for making Ricin) doesn't count? From what I've read this week, there is going to be some major news on the WMD front pretty soon. The chairman of the House Intelligence Comittee was quoted as saying there have been some significant successes in finding Iraqi WMD...and said he urged the admin. to make them public. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
You're right! It doesn't count! Keep up the wishful thinking on your part. it's hilarious.
By the way.......Still in check!
-------------------------------------------------------------
" I've issued the challenge to you many times, jimmac...and you skirt it every time. Name an issue, any issue, and I will justify my opinion. In the end, you may not agree, many others may not agree, but I will have made a reasonable and logical argument for said position. I'm serious...from taxes to the use of military force, to government size and spending, to abortion, to gun control to the environment...name an issue. I don't care which. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
You're one to talk about skirting issues ( we can go back to the Clinton sex scandel / Criminal liberal media issue if you like ). However I don't have the time to mindlessly spare with someone who won't admit he's wrong no matter what facts are presented. And you are an extremist. Just ask anyone here if you don't believe me. Only an extremist would start a thread with the ridiculous title of " Bush Wins All 50 States In 2004 "
I stopped sparing with you because it's a lost cause. Well that and the fact that you call people names that disagree with you at the drop of a hat. You have a way of bending what you hear speak and see to your own liking. Saying that I don't take a position and defend myself is projection at it's best! You're very good at avoiding the subject when pinned down though. I'll give you that.
You're right! It doesn't count! Keep up the wishful thinking on your part. it's hilarious.
Judge Judy Jimmac says so. There you have it.
You're one to talk about skirting issues ( we can go back to the Clinton sex scandel / Criminal liberal media issue if you like ).
No, we can't. I answered that question time and time again, and then one more time just for fun. I am absolutely NOT getting into that with you. I answered it clearly and directly on multiple ocassions. Because you DISAGREED with what I posted, you announced I never answered your "question".
However I don't have the time to mindlessly spare with someone who won't admit he's wrong no matter what facts are presented.
Not true. For God's sake, I just posted an example of someone with whom I disagree and still respect. You also don't present facts of any kind. None. Zero. If you had an argument that made any sense, I might just change my mind after all. I've acknowledged other members points in the past. I point to the thread "[Those darn borrow and spend Republicans]", in which I agreed with the basic premise of the thread. So, don't go telling me I am so blindly Republican that I can't see any wrongdoing by the party or the President. I happen to think Bush is doing a great job with most things. I think he's been a GREAT President. I'm also more than happy to tell you what he's done that I disagree with.
Though, the fact that I think he's done a great job drives you and others indiscriminately crazy with frustration and disbelief. It then causes you to label me an idiototic polarized fool for saying so. And that's the root of it, jimmac. It is not me who calls you an idiot for believing whatever it is you believe. It is YOU who calls me names for believing what I believe. Once again, the prevailing thought is that anyone who is enlightened MUST be a liberal.
And you are an extremist. Just ask anyone here if you don't believe me. Only an extremist would start a thread with the ridiculous title of " Bush Wins All 50 States In 2004 "
Ronald Reagan won 49 States. It's not impossible at all. What I said was that in the post 9/11 political landscape, Bush MAY win all 50 states but lose the District of Columbia IF....I repeat IF the economy improves. Anyone that won't ackowledge this possibility based on HIS OWN polarized political beliefs has got to be kidding. I didn't say it WOULD happen, I started the thread to DISCUSS the possibility. But some here, namely you, can't do that....probably because the very notion of Bush winning in a landslide sends you into fits of panic. You just can't imagine how people like me could be so shit-for-brains stupid as to vote for Bush. Even sammi jo ackowledged the possibility (in her own twisted way)!
I stopped sparing with you because it's a lost cause. Well that and the fact that you call people names that disagree with you at the drop of a hat.
Really? I called you a C%$^ because you started your response to the thread by telling me I was out of touch and childish. You couldn't just disagree, you had to add a little personal zing to it. If you think you are going to make these kind of statements and I'm not going to respond, think again. I rarely engage in name calling and you know it.
You have a way of bending what you hear speak and see to your own liking. Saying that I don't take a position and defend myself is projection at it's best! You're very good at avoiding the subject when pinned down though. I'll give you that.
I have a way of arguing a point and ripping your unsupported, illogical and minsinformed arguments to utter shreds.
And projection? Good Lord! I ask you again:
Name an issue. Any issue.
I'll tell you my position and why I hold it. Oh, and just so we are clear: You've never "pinned me down" on ANYTHING. Ever.
Originally posted by Outsider
If unemployment is still this bad in early 2004, even Cartman could beat Bush. Unemployed people can vote. Itr's not like they have anything else to do.
I can't agree with that. Historical average unemployment over the last 40 years is around 8.5%. We're still way below that. While I agree that unchanged unemployment will hurt Bush in 2004, I don't think that number on its own would be enough for him to lose. Now, if that number was combined with a stock market around 8,500 or less, and say GDP in the .5-1.9% range (combiend with other economic data) then Bush may be in big trouble.
But, we can't discount the other factors either, particularly the lack of a truly strong Democratic candidate. Dean is NOT going to get the nomination...that much I can just about guarantee you.
Other factors include Bush's financial strength (which will be four to five times that of ANY Dem), his 9/11 leadership, his strong commander-in-chief image, his incumbenency, willingness to campaign hard and prepare hard for debates, his solidified base, his two tax cuts and the medicare package as domestic victories and even more importantly, his pledge to "not raise" taxes by making the cuts permanent (The Dem will either have to come out for that proposal or come out for what will amount to a tax increase).
Bush's campaign will portray him as the strong military leader who lead the country through 9/11. He'll be shown as the architect of two historically large tax cuts and the medicare bill. He'll also talk about Social Security and continuing to to steward the economic recovery which, I suspect, will be in progress at the time.
You think that one number will be enough? We're not talking about 8-9% unemployment here. That would be different.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. The problem was the postmark. Military mail doesn't always get it...even though it is supposed to. The ballots were disqualified on that basis, even though they had physically arrived in time.
Duh. Of course when I was listing off the facts surrounding the election, you automatically assumed I'd only list facts in support of Gore. I hate both parties. Both parties pulled a bunch of bogus bullshit during the election.
THERE WERE SHENANIGANS ON BOTH SIDES AND NO MATTER WHO WON IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A FLUKE!
Originally posted by SDW2001
Name an issue. Any issue.
Do you really want to get egg all over your face with a stupid "bring it on" comment? Hmm, seems like quite a few Iraqis have taken up that challenge. I have a few friends in the gulf right now and they most certainly don't appreciate Bush antagonizing a bunch of psychos.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Judge Judy Jimmac says so. There you have it.
No, we can't. I answered that question time and time again, and then one more time just for fun. I am absolutely NOT getting into that with you. I answered it clearly and directly on multiple ocassions. Because you DISAGREED with what I posted, you announced I never answered your "question".
Not true. For God's sake, I just posted an example of someone with whom I disagree and still respect. You also don't present facts of any kind. None. Zero. If you had an argument that made any sense, I might just change my mind after all. I've acknowledged other members points in the past. I point to the thread "[Those darn borrow and spend Republicans]", in which I agreed with the basic premise of the thread. So, don't go telling me I am so blindly Republican that I can't see any wrongdoing by the party or the President. I happen to think Bush is doing a great job with most things. I think he's been a GREAT President. I'm also more than happy to tell you what he's done that I disagree with.
Though, the fact that I think he's done a great job drives you and others indiscriminately crazy with frustration and disbelief. It then causes you to label me an idiototic polarized fool for saying so. And that's the root of it, jimmac. It is not me who calls you an idiot for believing whatever it is you believe. It is YOU who calls me names for believing what I believe. Once again, the prevailing thought is that anyone who is enlightened MUST be a liberal.
Ronald Reagan won 49 States. It's not impossible at all. What I said was that in the post 9/11 political landscape, Bush MAY win all 50 states but lose the District of Columbia IF....I repeat IF the economy improves. Anyone that won't ackowledge this possibility based on HIS OWN polarized political beliefs has got to be kidding. I didn't say it WOULD happen, I started the thread to DISCUSS the possibility. But some here, namely you, can't do that....probably because the very notion of Bush winning in a landslide sends you into fits of panic. You just can't imagine how people like me could be so shit-for-brains stupid as to vote for Bush. Even sammi jo ackowledged the possibility (in her own twisted way)!
Really? I called you a C%$^ because you started your response to the thread by telling me I was out of touch and childish. You couldn't just disagree, you had to add a little personal zing to it. If you think you are going to make these kind of statements and I'm not going to respond, think again. I rarely engage in name calling and you know it.
I have a way of arguing a point and ripping your unsupported, illogical and minsinformed arguments to utter shreds.
And projection? Good Lord! I ask you again:
Name an issue. Any issue.
I'll tell you my position and why I hold it. Oh, and just so we are clear: You've never "pinned me down" on ANYTHING. Ever.
I love this one :
-------------------------------------------------------------
" No, we can't. I answered that question time and time again, and then one more time just for fun. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
A blatant lie. You still haven't answered anything. You still haven't proven how the media could be controled by liberals and fry Clinton and a chance at the next presidency at the same time. You are still in check over that one. Of course you'll always be so because you can't balance those two items.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" by telling me I was out of touch and childish ".
-------------------------------------------------------------
If the shoe fits...............
You are so full of yourself it just not worth it. Unfortunately I feel compelled to counter your nonsense from time to time.
Still in check ( as always ).
-------------------------------------------------------------
" 8-9% unemployment here. That would be different. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
As you yourself have pointed out there's still time.
Originally posted by BR
Do you really want to get egg all over your face with a stupid "bring it on" comment? Hmm, seems like quite a few Iraqis have taken up that challenge. I have a few friends in the gulf right now and they most certainly don't appreciate Bush antagonizing a bunch of psychos.
Oh my God. No one has taken up any "challenge". Do you really think they are sitting by their TV sets witha Mecca Cola in their hands and saying "Well, THAT sent me over the top...time to become a sniper".
A blatant lie. You still haven't answered anything. You still haven't proven how the media could be controled by liberals and fry Clinton and a chance at the next presidency at the same time. You are still in check over that one. Of course you'll always be so because you can't balance those two items.
jimmac, I answered that both a with a point-by-point list of reasons why I think that happened, and a detailed analysis of the situation. I also pointed out that one network REFUSED to air the air the story for weeks on end, even as others did. I've answered your question over and over and over and over and....wait for it....OVER again. I absolutely refuse to answer it ten times instead of just the nine times I already have. You bring it up in every thread, even though I'VE ANSWERD YOUR QUESTION IN DETAIL, and even though it has nothing to do with the thread we are in. It doesn't matter how I answer it or how many times though, because you are just going to keep saying I haven't answered it. Worse, this "point" was your ONLY argument that the media wasn't liberally biased. You actually pinned your entire argument to this one notion. Unbelieveable and pathetic, jimmac. It's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.
You are so full of yourself it just not worth it. Unfortunately I feel compelled to counter your nonsense from time to time.
There you go again! First, you'd have no way of ascertaining if I am full of myself, because you don't know me. All I said is that I am willing to defend my positions.
And what "nonsense" do you refer to?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Historical average unemployment over the last 40 years is around 8.5%.
How about over the last 5, 10, 15 and 20 years?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh my God. No one has taken up any "challenge". Do you really think they are sitting by their TV sets witha Mecca Cola in their hands and saying "Well, THAT sent me over the top...time to become a sniper".
jimmac, I answered that both a with a point-by-point list of reasons why I think that happened, and a detailed analysis of the situation. I also pointed out that one network REFUSED to air the air the story for weeks on end, even as others did. I've answered your question over and over and over and over and....wait for it....OVER again. I absolutely refuse to answer it ten times instead of just the nine times I already have. You bring it up in every thread, even though I'VE ANSWERD YOUR QUESTION IN DETAIL, and even though it has nothing to do with the thread we are in. It doesn't matter how I answer it or how many times though, because you are just going to keep saying I haven't answered it. Worse, this "point" was your ONLY argument that the media wasn't liberally biased. You actually pinned your entire argument to this one notion. Unbelieveable and pathetic, jimmac. It's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.
There you go again! First, you'd have no way of ascertaining if I am full of myself, because you don't know me. All I said is that I am willing to defend my positions.
And what "nonsense" do you refer to?
For an example of the nonsense I was talking about read above.
Oh look! One network didn't air the story for weeks while SDW was wringing his hands over it!
Probably it wasn't aired because they had the good sense to see what a circus it was going to become. And if this was before the public denial it was the Clinton's business not ours.
At any rate it got more than ample coverage everywhere else.
From the begining.
For the better part of a year.
The reason I keep coming back to this ( as well as no WOMD in Iraq ) is because they are prime examples of your " blind spot ". You see what you want to see. Not what's really there.
Sorry your explaination doesn't cut it.
Still in check.