Republican "Debate"

[Parkbandit]

I know it was on Teh Evil Faux!!!!!!, but did anyone else watch it?

Few personal highlights:

1) Rick Santorum = gigantic douche
2) I really liked Ron Paul.. which frightens me.
3) Never paid much attention to Herman Cain before tonight... I really liked what I saw and what he said. He seemed the most genuine and with Ron Paul, the most honest.
4) Pawlenty is terrible. He seems completely fake.
5) Gary Johnson seemed to be out of his element. He won't last.

[Archigeek]

What you'll find about Pawlenty is that you are partly right, in that he's something of a fake.

He's very adept at politics though, having spent a lot of years as a state house rep, and then two terms as governor. And he's totally on your no new taxes band wagon... except that he just piled on the fees to balance the budget instead. So instead of tax increases we just got a lot of fee increases... plus he passed on a whole bunch of expenses to local jurisdictions, which meant rising property taxes. So he's a bit of a snake oil salesman, but he's cut from your kind of cloth: as conservative as a chunk of limestone.

[Back]

Ron Paul, who the republican party makes out to be insane, makes the most sense out of any of them.

[pabstblueribbon]

Ron Paul is nuttier than squirrel turds.

[Parkbandit]

What you'll find about Pawlenty is that you are partly right, in that he's something of a fake.

He's very adept at politics though, having spent a lot of years as a state house rep, and then two terms as governor. And he's totally on your no new taxes band wagon... except that he just piled on the fees to balance the budget instead. So instead of tax increases we just got a lot of fee increases... plus he passed on a whole bunch of expenses to local jurisdictions, which meant rising property taxes. So he's a bit of a snake oil salesman, but he's cut from your kind of cloth: as conservative as a chunk of limestone.

How do you come up with that this is the same type of conservative I am?

[4a6c1]

cool. im gonna watch this tomorrow

[Seran]

It really is disquieting to listen to so many Republicans trash Ron Paul, but not be able to come up with any legitimate reasons for disliking him.

[Parkbandit]

It really is disquieting to listen to so many Republicans trash Ron Paul, but not be able to come up with any legitimate reasons for disliking him.

LOL at your use of disquieting.

Personally, I think he's too far right when it comes to the size of government. I'm ALL about smallER government, but I don't think we need to close down all departments that I disagree with and call them unconstitutional. I don't think we need to shut down the IRS, CIA, DHS, US Special Forces, etc... I don't think we need to pull all military out of every country in the world... I don't think we need to become isolationist.

I believe Ron Paul has some sound economic ideas to get us out of the gigantic hole we've created... but I don't think all of his ideas are in the best interest of the American people.

[ClydeR]

At least it focused on the important issues, like torturing terrorists, outlawing abortion and defending the Defense of Marriage Act. They also spent a good bit of time on foreign policy, which of course is Obama's weak point. I was afraid that with Fox News hosting it they would make the mistake of focusing on the economy. Social issues are the important thing. The motto of the Republican nominee should be "It's morals, stupid."

Go, Herman Cain! He was the only one who agreed with me about Bin Laden's photo.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I missed the debate - where specifically did they talk about torturing terrorists and outlawing abortion? Would love to see those quotes!

[Parkbandit]

http://www.overtone.co.za/musicblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/posers.jpg

[Hulkein]

I watched most of it and agree with you PB that I had never heard from Cain before but he sounds honest and actually pragmatic.

Cain = see above
Paul = I've liked Ron Paul since the last election cycle. I wish he was younger because he just comes across as too old though his mind is sharp.
Santorum = can't believe he was ever a Senator in PA. He is so right on social issues that even I take pause with him. He's got no shot.
Pawlenty = So fake. It was painfully obvious (and has been for months) that he is purposefully trying to turn as right as possible for the national election. I have a feeling I would have liked Minnesota governor Pawlenty, not as much the guy running for president.
Gary Johnson = you're spot on, he looked uncomfortable and is not charismatic and does not blow anyone away with his views/ideas.

I'm hoping Paul wins the primary. I like Romney as well. Please don't run Huckabee and Palin.

[Atlanteax]

I take it that Trump was not invited?

[Hulkein]

I take it that Trump was not invited?

I'm not sure whether it was that he wasn't invited or he just is still doing the whole "I can't officially run until my show is over." I realize not all of the guys last night are officially running but that's my thinking. They would have had him I think if he expressed interest. I look forward to seeing him debate the establishment politicians.

[Atlanteax]

I look forward to seeing him debate the establishment politicians.

@ this, for me.

[4a6c1]

Cant find the video. And fox has the worst website layout since 1995. ARGH.

....

Ok. Found these:

Funny 4 minute recap by NY times - http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/05/video_the_first_2012_republica.html

WEIRD WEBSITE but with full video - http://freedomslighthouse.net/2011/05/06/first-2012-gop-presidential-debate-south-carolina-complete-video-5511/

[Seran]

LOL at your use of disquieting.

Personally, I think he's too far right when it comes to the size of government. I'm ALL about smallER government, but I don't think we need to close down all departments that I disagree with and call them unconstitutional. I don't think we need to shut down the IRS, CIA, DHS, US Special Forces, etc... I don't think we need to pull all military out of every country in the world... I don't think we need to become isolationist.

I believe Ron Paul has some sound economic ideas to get us out of the gigantic hole we've created... but I don't think all of his ideas are in the best interest of the American people.

Your LOL aside, I will admit that some of his ideas cause me to flinch as well.

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world, one whose ideas have a tendency to set the direction for large amounts of people.

What they don't have is the ability to unilaterally innact their every whim. The framers fortunately created checks and balances which do a wonderful job of keeping the country from hurling wildly down any given path. Yes, wars can be declared, departments can be created, etc., but do you see Ron Paul as President doing either of those things? I don't.

Social programs are likely to be shrunk, fiscal policy will tighten with regards to his ability to ultimately decide the Budget with his pen. On top of that, our rights to keep and bear arms, to be allowed, but not forced to pray (privately) in public schools, and privacy would all but protected by this man according to very public views.

Now, just reasons he won't be selected as the Republican nominee in 2012 are as follows;

He refuses to allow the Federal government to take a stance either for, or against same-sex marriages, or adopts.

He voted for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

His belief is that it is up to the States to allow, or make illegal abortions, not the Federal government.

Lastly, his idea of shrinking the overall size of the Federal government isn't limited to only social programs. It also includes Homeland Security, CIA, and a taming of our overly aggressive Department of Defense by getting out of the foreign affairs game by in large.

Now aside from the social aspects, which causes most right-wingers, and the zealots in the Tea Party to write him off completely, the ability to wage war on defenseless countries and line the pockets of military contractors are a Republican favorite.

I will vote for Ron Paul, and I encourage others to do the same thing when it is time for the primaries. He will make a good President.

[4a6c1]

Ron Paul: Seems like a cool old dude. I agreed with almost everything he said. Anti-militarism...Yes! Presented realistic solutions to several issues.

Santorum: Just some random meathead with no original ideas. 7 children, thinks working women are ruining the world, english should be an official language and I'm assuming he's against gay rights as well. roflzzz. BURN IT WITH FIRE.

Pawlenty: Reminds me so much of GW. Even shakes his head the same way when he talks. War crazy too. Was more interested in talking about Obama than his own policy. Bankrupted his own state schools? Evangelical Christian: DO NOT WANT.

Johnson: Seems interesting. I want to know more about this guy. Downside - Corporations are people perspective and thinks there should be no federal standard to healthcare for anyone (including seniors and poor people).

Cain: Need an expert to explain the fair tax idea to me objectively first before I make up my mind on this guy. Downside: Republican talking points 2008 wtflol.


Yay politics!

[pabstblueribbon]

Ron Paul eats babies.

[milesalpha]

to be allowed, but not forced to pray (privately) in public schools, and privacy would all but protected by this man according to very public views.


I was just wondering when this changed?

On Ron Paul, have you really taken a close look at his foreign policy ideas? He would cost the US a lot of money with his peculiar brand of isolationism.

[Cephalopod]

Am I high, or was PBR a total Ron Paul fan-boy like 2-3 years ago? I guess I could be thinking of someone else.

[Parkbandit]

Am I high, or was PBR a total Ron Paul fan-boy like 2-3 years ago? I guess I could be thinking of someone else.

That was him.. which makes me question the rationality of Ron Paul as a candidate.

[Back]

Am I high...

Dude! Wait, what?

[Tgo01]

If you'd please let the far left know. They seem to think I'm evil.

Is the collective beaming their thoughts right into your brain? I have a tinfoil cap I can sell you.

[Tgo01]

I would vote for Cain in a heartbeat. I might write him in regardless.

[Warriorbird]

Is the collective beaming their thoughts right into your brain? I have a tinfoil cap I can sell you.

Republican... 05-10-2011 05:45 PM well, you are gay, which makes you fit right in with the far left

I am amused if it was you.

Most recent pronouncements from the local far left.

1. The winery should never be rented to Republicans even if they pay for it.
2. We shouldn't let churches hold events there if Grandpa's a real secular humanist.
3. We shouldn't allow local gunshops to even sell in a special area.
4. Alcohol ruins lives!!!

[Tgo01]

No, wasn't me. Pretty funny regardless though.

[Back]

Did anyone else watch SNL this past weekend? Pretty much sums up this debate.

[TheEschaton]

SNL was awful this past week, and has been for years. Besides, the debate they did didn't even feature the people at the real debate, they did it just so Tiny Fey could do her Palin impression.

[Parkbandit]

Did anyone else watch SNL this past weekend? Pretty much sums up this debate.

So.. which one didn't you watch?

[Androidpk]

Ron Paul will be getting my vote again in 2012.

[Back]

Yeah, well, SNL was far more interesting and funny than the debate. I’ll say that.

[TheEschaton]

It wasn't interesting or funny at all.

[Hulkein]

It wasn't interesting or funny at all.

Bipartisan pwn.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Amongst the current announced presidential candidates for 2012, right now my vote is for Obama. Are there no good candidates in either party anymore? FFS why do we have to always pick from a slew of shitty candidates?

[pabstblueribbon]

Amongst the current announced presidential candidates for 2012, right now my vote is for Obama. Are there no good candidates in either party anymore? FFS why do we have to always pick from a slew of shitty candidates?

This is new to you?

[Hulkein]

Amongst the current announced presidential candidates for 2012, right now my vote is for Obama. Are there no good candidates in either party anymore? FFS why do we have to always pick from a slew of shitty candidates?

I don't really understand how someone can say they are currently going to vote for Obama while they would consider voting for a Republican candidate. The domestic policies of Obama and most R candidates are so different that it just does not make sense to me. You either agree with small cuts in federal spending (leaving huge federal spending) and raising taxes as a way to fight the deficit or you think the country needs to make serious cuts to spending and try to rein in the beast.

Do you just not have any beliefs on domestic policy?

[CrystalTears]

This should be fun. Where's Ilvane when you need her for more comedy political relief?

[Warriorbird]

I don't really understand how someone can say they are currently going to vote for Obama while they would consider voting for a Republican candidate. The domestic policies of Obama and most R candidates are so different that it just does not make sense to me. You either agree with small cuts in federal spending (leaving huge federal spending) and raising taxes as a way to fight the deficit or you think the country needs to make serious cuts to spending and try to rein in the beast.

This is as much hyperbole as the designed to fail Republican spending cut bills.

[Hulkein]

This is as much hyperbole as the designed to fail Republican spending cut bills.

It's not hyperbole and it's not meant to degrade Democrats. Sorry you read it that way. I didn't say which way to fight the economic issues of the day is right or wrong, simply that they seem to be so different that you either back one or the other and no amount of charisma would change that.

[Hulkein]

^

Warriorbird, that is an example of championing one over the other. I didn't do that.

[Hulkein]

The point is that I was not trying to turn it into a debate on the merits. I was more interested in how someone could be on the fence when financial policy is such a HUGE issue and Obama is going to differ so greatly from pretty much every Republican candidate.

My personal opinion is that rich people (see, I'll even describe the top bracket as rich just for you) are taxed enough. I don't think the current rates are UNFAIR, though. I'm not calling for deeper tax cuts. What I do agree with that many Democrats propose is a cut in defense spending ie: military spending. Defense spending is becoming a bit of a euphemism. We can keep ourselves just as safe if we cut the money in non-intelligence areas. However, I want to see entitlements cut to a certain extent along with it.

[Tgo01]

Hulkein, the choice doesn't appear to be:

A) Republicans: Heavy spending cuts, fix the budget
B) Democrats: Modest spending cuts, tax increases to fix the budget

The real choice, if you examine the plans of each party, appears to be:

A) Republicans: Heavy spending cuts in social programs, offset new reduced spending with further tax-breaks for the upper class, no or little impact on the deficit
B) Democrats: Modest spending cuts in defense, significant tax increases to fix the deficit.

I love how when it comes to the Republican 'plan' you say they want to offer tax cuts for the upper class yet when it comes to the Democrat plan you just mention they want 'significant tax increases' without mentioning that the tax increases just target the upper class.

I also like how you think 'modest spending cuts in defense' and 'significant tax increases' is going to fix the deficit. Even if we cut the defense budget to zero we would still have a deficit of around 600 billion dollars. That's a lot of tax increases to offset that.

[AnticorRifling]

Get rid of LGBT funding, hell that would save NY 10mil alone, and that's just one state.

[Warriorbird]

The point is that I was not trying to turn it into a debate on the merits. I was more interested in how someone could be on the fence when financial policy is such a HUGE issue and Obama is going to differ so greatly from pretty much every Republican candidate.

My personal opinion is that rich people (see, I'll even describe the top bracket as rich just for you) are taxed enough. I don't think the current rates are UNFAIR, though. I'm not calling for deeper tax cuts. What I do agree with that many Democrats propose is a cut in defense spending ie: military spending. Defense spending is becoming a bit of a euphemism. We can keep ourselves just as safe if we cut the money in non-intelligence areas. However, I want to see entitlements cut to a certain extent along with it.

Right, right. I actually favor a fair degree of common sense cutting myself. I just don't see it occurring from either party. I think, given the realpolitik wash between the two that somebody could back somebody different when they're not seeing anything strong from the current Republican candidates.

I think the Republicans should give Huntsman some shine. Then again, he served for Obama, so that may inevitably taint him.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not "championing" one as the ideal solution to the problem of the deficit; I just don't see how the Republican plan currently offered counts as a solution.


LOL, what?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't really understand how someone can say they are currently going to vote for Obama while they would consider voting for a Republican candidate. The domestic policies of Obama and most R candidates are so different that it just does not make sense to me. You either agree with small cuts in federal spending (leaving huge federal spending) and raising taxes as a way to fight the deficit or you think the country needs to make serious cuts to spending and try to rein in the beast.

Do you just not have any beliefs on domestic policy?

Because I would consider myself open minded enough to vote for the person most aligned with my ideals regardless of their party. Obama is not someone I want to vote for but to be a responsible member of society I believe I should vote. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I'm for small government and against entitlements. I'm pro-choice, pro-animal rights, pro-military, anti-gun control, pro-death penalty, pro-healthcare reform (though not the Obama socialized program), anti-union, pro-gay rights, pro-environment with consideration for humanity, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. There isn't a candidate who aligns with me, so I evaluate the candidates based on their positions and my own beliefs.

Obama, while not my ideal candidate, or even close to it, is better than the alternatives... at least he is to me. Gingrich may change that, but I think he's just a power hungry typical politician - not sure how I feel about him yet.

[Parkbandit]

Get rid of LGBT funding, hell that would save NY 10mil alone, and that's just one state.

Doesn't that fund the hogging trips Billythekid goes on though?

[AnticorRifling]

I think he gets sponsors at this point.

[Parkbandit]

Because I would consider myself open minded enough to vote for the person most aligned with my ideals regardless of their party. Obama is not someone I want to vote for but to be a responsible member of society I believe I should vote. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I'm for small government and against entitlements. I'm pro-choice, pro-animal rights, pro-military, anti-gun control, pro-death penalty, pro-healthcare reform (though not the Obama socialized program), anti-union, pro-gay rights, pro-environment with consideration for humanity, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. There isn't a candidate who aligns with me, so I evaluate the candidates based on their positions and my own beliefs.

Obama, while not my ideal candidate, or even close to it, is better than the alternatives... at least he is to me. Gingrich may change that, but I think he's just a power hungry typical politician - not sure how I feel about him yet.

So.. out of your list, it seems that you agree with Republicans on almost every issue you mentioned except abortion and gay rights (even though Obama has stated that they marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman)? Maybe you could even stick pro-environment in there.. but clearly the "with consideration for humanity" is a sticking point against Obama. Are you placing that much weight on your decision of who to vote for on the abortion issue?

Much like Hulkein, I don't understand it. I have friends who say the same thing.. and their response is "I don't know, I just like Obama"

I think you and I are pretty much in agreement with all of your items on your list.. and I would vote for an crackpot like Ron Paul before I would ever vote for Obama.

[Hulkein]

Because I would consider myself open minded enough to vote for the person most aligned with my ideals regardless of their party. Obama is not someone I want to vote for but to be a responsible member of society I believe I should vote. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I'm for small government and against entitlements. I'm pro-choice, pro-animal rights, pro-military, anti-gun control, pro-death penalty, pro-healthcare reform (though not the Obama socialized program), anti-union, pro-gay rights, pro-environment with consideration for humanity, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. There isn't a candidate who aligns with me, so I evaluate the candidates based on their positions and my own beliefs.

Obama, while not my ideal candidate, or even close to it, is better than the alternatives... at least he is to me. Gingrich may change that, but I think he's just a power hungry typical politician - not sure how I feel about him yet.

No man I understand the not towing the party line. My point is that the fiscal policies alone makes it an easy vote in my opinion given the importance of those issues currently. I guess I just don't understand how someone who aligns more with fiscal conservative ideals could vote for Obama and how someone who is fiscally liberal could vote for whatever budget-gouging Republican (hopefully) wins the R nomination.

[Warriorbird]

No man I understand the not towing the party line. My point is that the fiscal policies alone makes it an easy vote in my opinion given the importance of those issues currently. I guess I just don't understand how someone who aligns more with fiscal conservative ideals could vote for Obama and how someone who is fiscally liberal could vote for whatever budget-gouging Republican (hopefully) wins the R nomination.

Fiscal conservatism does not exist in Congress or the White House. I do believe Ron Paul honestly believes in it but even his own son is a compromiser.

[Hulkein]

Fiscal conservatism does not exist in Congress or the White House. I do believe Ron Paul honestly believes in it but even his own son is a compromiser.

Ok.

[Warriorbird]

Ok.

Every "spending cut bill" has things inserted that will never be acceptable to the President so that political points can be scored. The President in turn takes a legitimate effort to reform Medicare and uses it to score political points. Idealism doesn't really exist in DC.

[4a6c1]

I've decided the first one that talks about cutting the defense/military budget in half AND bringing home the troops gets my vote.

[AnticorRifling]

You're a communist.

[Parkbandit]

Have you read Ryan's proposals? His plan leaves most spending untouched for years--at least 3 to 10--while extending the Bush tax cuts. In the short-term, it worsens the deficit. It's a super long-term plan (i.e., one that doesn't account for future events, or shifting political priorities) to balance the budget over the next 30 years. In other words, it's a "pass-the-buck to the next session of congress," whom will pass it to the next session, whom will pass it to the next session, and so forth.

I was making fun of your 'I'm not favoring one solution over another, but the Republican plan sucks compared to the Democrat plan' statement.

[Parkbandit]

I've decided the first one that talks about cutting the defense/military budget in half AND bringing home the troops gets my vote.

We should just disband the military... there is no real need for them anyway. They only cause trouble!

[AnticorRifling]

Racist. Also this word is bolded.

[Parkbandit]

Racist. Also this word is bolded.

You should have also used italics to really make it pop.

Dumbass

[Androidpk]

Sounds like Ron Paul will be announcing his candidacy tomorrow morning at 10 in New Hampshire.

[CrystalTears]

Sounds like Ron Paul will be announcing his candidacy tomorrow morning at 10 in New Hampshire.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/lolpolitics/itcanbehugz128492447414961250.jpg

[Tgo01]

Defense is important, but in the end, how many billions (trillions?) of dollars do we need to spend to protect our group of howling, angry monkeys from our enemies' groups of howling, angry monkeys?

The US has never moved past its cold war mentality, despite a decade of spending an order of magnitude more than the next powerful nations. Even if we cut our military budget in half, as Rojo suggested, we'd still be spending 3x more per year than the #2, China.

Yeah but why settle for being the best when you can be the best?

[Latrinsorm]

The point is that I was not trying to turn it into a debate on the merits. I was more interested in how someone could be on the fence when financial policy is such a HUGE issue and Obama is going to differ so greatly from pretty much every Republican candidate.If Ashliana's analysis is (more or less) accurate, and your claim that financial policy is a huge issue is also accurate, it follows that some people would find themselves pushed towards Obama even if they disagree with him philosophically. How the deficit is cut isn't as important as the deficit actually being cut. Obama has demonstrated that even when it takes him a frustratingly long time do so, he tends to follow through on what he says rather than grandstanding/posturing. Compare this with the recent behavior of certain Republican representatives, and it's an easy choice.

It also follows that these people would express dismay or reluctance about such a situation: ideally, they would prefer someone cut the deficit in a way that agrees with their philosophies, but there is no evidence that that someone exists.

[Parkbandit]

If Ashliana's analysis is (more or less) accurate, and your claim that financial policy is a huge issue is also accurate, it follows that some people would find themselves pushed towards Obama even if they disagree with him philosophically. How the deficit is cut isn't as important as the deficit actually being cut. Obama has demonstrated that even when it takes him a frustratingly long time do so, he tends to follow through on what he says rather than grandstanding/posturing. Compare this with the recent behavior of certain Republican representatives, and it's an easy choice.

It also follows that these people would express dismay or reluctance about such a situation: ideally, they would prefer someone cut the deficit in a way that agrees with their philosophies, but there is no evidence that that someone exists.

http://losevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/wtf-cat.jpg

[TheEschaton]

I think he's saying that if you accept Ashliana's reasoning (a subject up to pretty heated debate), then logically you vote for Obama to cut the deficit . This is because, while his deficit cutting plans cut less than the proposed Republican plan, the former makes sense and is feasible, and the latter not only doesn't make sense and is not feasible, it doesn't even cut the deficit short term, and doesn't account for long term issues that will affect the deficit.

Is it so hard for you to follow that idea?

[Parkbandit]

I think he's saying that if you accept Ashliana's reasoning (a subject up to pretty heated debate), then logically you vote for Obama to cut the deficit . This is because, while his deficit cutting plans cut less than the proposed Republican plan, the former makes sense and is feasible, and the latter not only doesn't make sense and is not feasible, it doesn't even cut the deficit short term, and doesn't account for long term issues that will affect the deficit.

Is it so hard for you to follow that idea?

That you are actually attempting (albeit extremely poorly) to defend Latrinsorm's stupidity makes this thread 5 stars.

Exactly which 2012 budget of "Obama's" are you using in this scenario? The first one or the second?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Obama has demonstrated that even when it takes him a frustratingly long time do so, he tends to follow through on what he says rather than grandstanding/posturing.

Seriously dude, where are you getting this shit from? Obama has shown he was relatively inexperienced and made many campaign promises which after consideration he realized were not in the best interest of the Country. I respect that he's "flip flopped" on several of these items as he learned more about them, but by no means has he shown he follows through on what he says.

Guantanamo?
Repeal Bush tax cuts?
Increase cap gains/dividend taxes for high income tax payers?
5 days of public comment before signing bills?
Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit?
Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels?
Windfall profits taxes for oil companies?
No tax increases for families making less than $250k?
Health care reform on C-SPAN?
Comprehensive immigration bill?

[Latrinsorm]

Let us consider the statements symbolically.

R: I will do A by doing B.
D: I will do A by doing C.
Voter: I support the philosophy of B. I do not support the philosophy of C. Most importantly, I want A.
Observation: R will not do B.

Hence, R will not do A. Because Voter cares more about A than B or C, Voter will support D instead of R.

It is a logical response, and what it means to be logical is to derive from propositions. Whether the propositions are factually correct or not is immaterial to the logic of the response.

[TheEschaton]

Wow, SHM, again, you prove to be a retard.

[Latrinsorm]

Seriously dude, where are you getting this shit from? Obama has shown he was relatively inexperienced and made many campaign promises which after consideration he realized were not in the best interest of the Country. I respect that he's "flip flopped" on several of these items as he learned more about them, but by no means has he shown he follows through on what he says.

Guantanamo?
Repeal Bush tax cuts?
Increase cap gains/dividend taxes for high income tax payers?
5 days of public comment before signing bills?
Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit?
Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels?
Windfall profits taxes for oil companies?
No tax increases for families making less than $250k?
Health care reform on C-SPAN?
Comprehensive immigration bill?As I said, "tends to". Certainly there are things he has not followed through on, my point is that there are demonstrably more that he has.

[Hulkein]

Seriously dude, where are you getting this shit from? Obama has shown he was relatively inexperienced and made many campaign promises which after consideration he realized were not in the best interest of the Country. I respect that he's "flip flopped" on several of these items as he learned more about them, but by no means has he shown he follows through on what he says.

Guantanamo?
Repeal Bush tax cuts?
Increase cap gains/dividend taxes for high income tax payers?
5 days of public comment before signing bills?
Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit?
Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels?
Windfall profits taxes for oil companies?
No tax increases for families making less than $250k?
Health care reform on C-SPAN?
Comprehensive immigration bill?

Thanks for posting what I was going to.

[Hulkein]

If Ashliana's analysis is (more or less) accurate, and your claim that financial policy is a huge issue is also accurate, it follows that some people would find themselves pushed towards Obama even if they disagree with him philosophically. How the deficit is cut isn't as important as the deficit actually being cut. Obama has demonstrated that even when it takes him a frustratingly long time do so, he tends to follow through on what he says rather than grandstanding/posturing. Compare this with the recent behavior of certain Republican representatives, and it's an easy choice.

It also follows that these people would express dismay or reluctance about such a situation: ideally, they would prefer someone cut the deficit in a way that agrees with their philosophies, but there is no evidence that that someone exists.

The first clause of your first sentence is too big of an if.

[CrystalTears]

Obama has demonstrated that even when it takes him a frustratingly long time do so, he tends to follow through on what he says rather than grandstanding/posturing.Oh please, Obama is all about presentation and how he looks to the public. He's a presidential rock star.

[TheEschaton]

He's been in office for 2 1/2 years now, and has accomplished or tried to accomplish 7 of those things. If he hasn't accomplished them, it's been due to fierce REPUBLICAN opposition.

[AnticorRifling]

He's been in office for 2 1/2 years now, and has accomplished or tried to accomplish 7 of those things. If he hasn't accomplished them, it's been due to fierce PUBLIC opposition. You had a few extra letters at the beginning and end of that word so I corrected it.

[Hulkein]

He's been in office for 2 1/2 years now, and has accomplished or tried to accomplish 7 of those things. If he hasn't accomplished them, it's been due to fierce REPUBLICAN opposition.

He managed to cram a health care bill down that opposition's throat. His party controlled Congress for his first two years so he gets no break from me.

[TheEschaton]

He won the election on those issues. Public opposition was not majority opposition.

[Hulkein]

You had a few extra letters at the beginning and end of that word so I corrected it.

I like what you did there.

[TheEschaton]

He managed to cram a health care bill down that opposition's throat. His party controlled Congress for his first two years so he gets no break from me.

What did Bush accomplish of his 2000 campaign promises in 8 years, with 6 years of a Congress controlled by his party? Literally nothing. Furthermore, of all the things he proposed in those two years, they were stopped in the Senate, where Republicans promised to filibuster anything and everything to get their way, including the nomination of relatively minor circuit judges.

[Hulkein]

What did Bush accomplish of his 2000 campaign promises in 8 years, with 6 years of a Congress controlled by his party? Literally nothing. Furthermore, of all the things he proposed in those two years, they were stopped in the Senate, where Republicans promised to filibuster anything and everything to get their way, including the nomination of relatively minor circuit judges.

Hey man, let go of Bush. Please. He spent way too much as well.

[Latrinsorm]

The first clause of your first sentence is too big of an if.Sure, but the point is to discern what we're talking about. The answer to "how someone could be on the fence" could be this particular observation rather than a question of resolving two apparently contradictory philosophies.
Oh please, Obama is all about presentation and how he looks to the public. He's a presidential rock star.I disagree. :)

[Hulkein]

Sure, but the point is to discern what we're talking about. The answer to "how someone could be on the fence" could be this particular observation rather than a question of resolving two apparently contradictory philosophies.

I would agree if the deficit were the only financial issue. I admit I may have worded it that way in the beginning of this thread as I was not expecting it to be broken down and subjected to symbolic logic, but there is more to it than only the deficit.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Wow, SHM, again, you prove to be a retard.

So despite a silverspoon upbringing and fancy college education, it's well established you bring nothing to a conversation. I guess daddy couldn't buy you common sense or a good personality. Do us a favor and stop douching up a thread while the adults are talking.

[Parkbandit]

Wow, SHM, again, you prove to be a retard.

Which part of his post confused you so much?

I can help.. just ask.

[Parkbandit]

He won the election on those issues. Public opposition was not majority opposition.

That is almost as naive as believing you could talk a robber out of stealing from you in your apartment...

Almost.

[TheEschaton]

Because he actually tried to do the majority of the things on SHM's list, but SHM (and you) are so obtuse, and retarded, to realize that he's delivered on more than any President in his first 2 1/2 years in the past 40 years.

[Parkbandit]

Because he actually tried to do the majority of the things on SHM's list, but SHM (and you) are so obtuse, and retarded, to realize that he's delivered on more than any President in his first 2 1/2 years in the past 40 years.

Please list all of his accomplishments. Here, I'll start:

1) Spent more money than any President in history.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Because he actually tried to do the majority of the things on SHM's list, but SHM (and you) are so obtuse, and retarded, to realize that he's delivered on more than any President in his first 2 1/2 years in the past 40 years.

Besides enjoying swinging from my balls like a monkey on a jungle gym, I don't see where I said he didn't try to do those things that would evoke such a response from you.

But, monkey's do what they enjoy, so I guess I shouldn't question it.

[Latrinsorm]

I would agree if the deficit were the only financial issue. I admit I may have worded it that way in the beginning of this thread as I was not expecting it to be broken down and subjected to symbolic logic, but there is more to it than only the deficit.You weren't?!?

...fair enough.

[Tgo01]

What did Bush accomplish of his 2000 campaign promises in 8 years, with 6 years of a Congress controlled by his party? Literally nothing.

I was going to reply with "You are going to defend Obama by pointing out Bushes promises from 11 years ago?" but I was actually curious what the answer was myself.

So I found this article from the NYT. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E6DD1531F932A3575AC0A9629C8B 63&pagewanted=all)


Promise
And we will extend the promise of prosperity to every forgotten corner of this country.

Assessment
In 2003, 1.3 million more people were below the poverty line than in 2002. The 2003 real median family income was down $1,535 from 2000, but home ownership is now at a record level of nearly 69 percent.

That's probably seen seen as a failure overall although home ownership was at a record level.


Promise
We will strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the greatest generation, and for generations to come. . . . We will set it on firm financial ground, and make prescription drugs available and affordable for every senior who needs them.

Assessment
Medicare was expanded to help pay prescription drug costs for the elderly, at an estimated cost of $534 billion over 10 years, but seniors have been lukewarm because of the plan's complexity and limitations. Mr. Bush dropped plans for partly privatizing Social Security, which could have cost $8 trillion over 40 years.

Promise kept?


Promise
On education, too many American children are segregated into schools without standards, shuffled from grade to grade because of their age, regardless of their knowledge. . . . And those who spend your tax dollars must be held accountable. . . . Now is the time to make Head Start an early learning program, to teach all our children to read, and renew the promise of America's public schools.

Assessment
The No Child Left Behind law deems about a third of the nation's public schools ''in need of improvement.'' Federal spending on the poorest schools has increased to $13.3 billion from $8.3 billion. Early reading efforts have been given more than $1 billion a year. But spending on Head Start, the day care program for poor children, has remained flat.

Promise kept?


Promise
Today, our high taxes fund a surplus. . . . So we will abolish the death tax.
On principle no one in America should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government. So we will reduce tax rates for everyone, in every bracket. . . . So we will lower the bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 percent and double the child credit.

Assessment
He made all the tax cuts promised as well as others, including reduction of the marriage penalty and cuts in capital gains and stock dividends. But the Federal budget deficit will hit a new record of $400 billion this year and deficits could exceed $4 trillion over ten years if Mr. Bush's tax cuts are made permanent.

This promise was obviously kept seeing as how people are still complaining about it even today.

[TheEschaton]

No Child Left Behind was gutted because Bush failed to keep his promise to actually fund it after the first year. The estate tax was rescinded for a year, where Obama seems like it should be reinstated, and is currently a big debate about whether it will continue. The Medicare "reform" has ended up shrinking the amount of seniors covered by prescription plans. And the home ownership being at a record high was because people were being given these instruments called subprime mortgages...now, where do I recall that term from?

[Tgo01]

No Child Left Behind was gutted because Bush failed to keep his promise to actually fund it after the first year. The estate tax was rescinded for a year, where Obama seems like it should be reinstated, and is currently a big debate about whether it will continue. The Medicare "reform" has ended up shrinking the amount of seniors covered by prescription plans. And the home ownership being at a record high was because people were being given these instruments called subprime mortgages...now, where do I recall that term from?

How does it feel to be a rabid right wing Republican trying to claim every victory the president has had wasn't a victory at all?

[TheEschaton]

Besides enjoying swinging from my balls like a monkey on a jungle gym, I don't see where I said he didn't try to do those things that would evoke such a response from you.

But, monkey's do what they enjoy, so I guess I shouldn't question it.


Seriously dude, where are you getting this shit from? Obama has shown he was relatively inexperienced and made many campaign promises which after consideration he realized were not in the best interest of the Country. I respect that he's "flip flopped" on several of these items as he learned more about them, but by no means has he shown he follows through on what he says.

Guantanamo?
Repeal Bush tax cuts?
Increase cap gains/dividend taxes for high income tax payers?
5 days of public comment before signing bills?
Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit?
Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels?
Windfall profits taxes for oil companies?
No tax increases for families making less than $250k?
Health care reform on C-SPAN?
Comprehensive immigration bill?

P.S., SHM, when you say "but by no means has he shown he follows through on what he says" followed by a list of things with question marks after them, it usually indicates you believe that those are the things he didn't follow through on. When in fact, he has tried to, and in some cases, succeeded. Again, you willfully refuse to accept actual facts when it comes to any political issue that you don't agree with. And what you agree with is so mind-numbingly wrong, it makes you look like an ostrich with your head stuck in the sand.

[TheEschaton]

How does it feel to be a rabid right wing Republican trying to claim every victory the president has had wasn't a victory at all?

When the author of the bill, Ted Kennedy, disavows it because what he was promised by the President didn't happen, it's not "trying to claim," it is an indication that it has, indeed, actually failed. Teddy was doing his best to be bipartisan, and he got fucked for it.

[RichardCranium]

Please list all of his accomplishments. Here, I'll start:

1) Spent more money than any President in history.

Dude, he won the Nobel Peace Prize...

[Tgo01]

So because the estate tax was only rescinded for a year it means Bushes promise to lower tax rates for everyone was a complete lie?

Also why is it Obama gets props for 'trying' to fulfill his campaign promises and Bush doesn't? He tried to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors, but according to you less seniors are covered now than before (I really don't know so I'm taking your word for it.) Is it your impression that Bush was purposefully trying to get less seniors covered? Or is it that he tried but failed?

[Warriorbird]

Almost EVERY President spends more than any other President in history.

[Parkbandit]

When the author of the bill, Ted Kennedy, disavows it because what he was promised by the President didn't happen, it's not "trying to claim," it is an indication that it has, indeed, actually failed. Teddy was doing his best to be bipartisan, and he got fucked for it.

ZOMG TEH REPUBLICANS KILLED POOR TEDDY!!!!

[4a6c1]

Damn this thread is hilarious. It's so fun having the (recent) leanings of a liberal but the voting history of a conservative. I can quite honestly say that conservative bullshit right now sounds EXACTLY like the liberal bullshit during the Bush years. Hypocrits. Idiots. Sheep! I hate you all equally.

We need a revolution...Where is the CIA when you need them?

[RichardCranium]

Blowing up buildings and chasing Leo around the Middle East.

[Parkbandit]

Damn this thread is hilarious. It's so fun having the (recent) leanings of a liberal but the voting history of a conservative. I can quite honestly say that conservative bullshit right now sounds EXACTLY like the liberal bullshit during the Bush years. Hypocrits. Idiots. Sheep! I hate you all equally.

We need a revolution...Where is the CIA when you need them?

It must be awesome to have rapidly changing principles... where you can always root for the "winning" team.

[Back]

It must be awesome to have rapidly changing principles... where you can always root for the "winning" team.

Sounds smart to me. In an “instinctual need to survive” kinda way.

[TheEschaton]

Shut the fuck up Back. You're outta your element.

[4a6c1]

It must be awesome to have rapidly changing principles... where you can always root for the "winning" team.

I like to blame my campy state college with its atypical college atmosphere but we can call it Social Darwinism. For now. ;)

[~Rocktar~]

Almost EVERY President spends more than any other President in history.

Not even close, but hey, keep making shit up to try and sound current.

[Warriorbird]

Not even close, but hey, keep making shit up to try and sound current.

I'd love to see your evidence for declining government expenditures over time.

[Latrinsorm]

It must be awesome to have rapidly changing principles... where you can always root for the "winning" team.I didn't know Xcalibur was running. I guess with the collapse of the Bloc Québécois it makes sense though.

[Parkbandit]

I didn't know Xcalibur was running. I guess with the collapse of the Bloc Québécois it makes sense though.

Sorry I confused you so. Rojo understood, which is all I wanted from my post.

[Cephalopod]

Not even close, but hey, keep making shit up to try and sound current.

Are you being serious?

[AnticorRifling]

Are you being serious?

Of course he thinks he's serious I mean you know damn well hpyno-lactation is serious business.

[~Rocktar~]

Multiple terms in there with very minor or even decreases in spending both in real dollars and inflation adjusted spending. And when shown as a percentage of GDP, the numbers are even better. And that is just in post WWII budgets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

[Warriorbird]

Multiple terms in there with very minor or even decreases in spending both in real dollars and inflation adjusted spending. And when shown as a percentage of GDP, the numbers are even better. And that is just in post WWII budgets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

I see that you confused debt and spending or terms and years. It's okay.

I always love when fringe Republicans link this particular Wikipedia link too. It's a trap.


Economic commentators have noted a pattern between changes in US national debt and US presidential terms over the last few decades. These commentators observe that changes in US national debt have been correlated with the political ideology of the ruling administration.

Economist Mike Kimel notes that the last five Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness.[1] Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt), and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt).[2] Similarly, Republican David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, as op-ed contributor to the New York Times blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s

[~Rocktar~]

I see that you confused debt and spending or terms and years. It's okay.

I always love when fringe Republicans link this particular Wikipedia link too. It's a trap.

You make a point? Oh, no, you didn't, sorry, got excited for a moment there. And you didn't say debt, you said expenditures, that does not equal debt but thanks again for the song and dance number to try and distract from the point you are simply wrong.

As to the trap nature, you said all, I said you are wrong, and you are. I didn't get into the political leanings of anyone involved, you did so again, your commentary is pointless and simply more of an attempt at a distraction.

Keep it up dumbass, I need the laughs.

[Warriorbird]

You make a point? Oh, no, you didn't, sorry, got excited for a moment there. And you didn't say debt, you said expenditures, that does not equal debt but thanks again for the song and dance number to try and distract from the point you are simply wrong.

As to the trap nature, you said all, I said you are wrong, and you are. I didn't get into the political leanings of anyone involved, you did so again, your commentary is pointless and simply more of an attempt at a distraction.

Keep it up dumbass, I need the laughs.

You're a fucking idiot. You were the one who brought debt into it. Look at what you linked harder and consider actually reading the second section for things like year v term.

[Parkbandit]

You're a fucking idiot. You were the one who brought debt into it. Look at what you linked harder and consider actually reading the second section for things like year v term.

Actually, he never mentioned debt... he simply linked a wikipedia page that was titled "National Debt by US Presidential terms". If you scroll down on that page, you will find a chart titled "Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP", which details the spending by year, since 1977.

Sometimes, you have to do more than just read the title of a link.

[Warriorbird]

Actually, he never mentioned debt... he simply linked a wikipedia page that was titled "National Debt by US Presidential terms". If you scroll down on that page, you will find a chart titled "Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP", which details the spending by year, since 1977.

Sometimes, you have to do more than just read the title of a link.

And if you'd done more than try to troll you'd see that all of his statements about said link fail.

[Parkbandit]

And if you'd done more than try to troll you'd see that all of his statements about said link fail.

It's cute you still don't understand the simple term of troll. To you, anyone who questions your stupidity must be a troll.

I wasn't addressing the validity of his claim, I was addressing your claim.. which I think we both can agree was incorrect.

Now, if you would like to start again and actually address his claim, instead of creating a position that was never, ever mentioned, that would be awesome.

[Warriorbird]

It's cute you still don't understand the simple term of troll. To you, anyone who questions your stupidity must be a troll.

I wasn't addressing the validity of his claim, I was addressing your claim.. which I think we both can agree was incorrect.

Now, if you would like to start again and actually address his claim, instead of creating a position that was never, ever mentioned, that would be awesome.

You're 56. Trolling has multiple definitions. Your repeated unsigned neg rep just got funnier. Please tell me the real definition of "troll" and "trolling." Then I can laugh at you more.

With better reading comprehension, his bullshit claims come closer to success if you read the debt section of the page...and even then not very close.

You posted something you didn't care about merely to draw a response. Within the post you have "I don't care about his claims" "address his claim!" You don't even know where the fuck you're going with this.

[Parkbandit]

You're 56. Trolling has multiple definitions. Your repeated unsigned neg rep just got funnier. Please tell me the real definition of "troll" and "trolling." Then I can laugh at you more.

You're 11. I just sent you an SIGNED rep... I guess you can never be right about anything, can you?



With better reading comprehension, his bullshit claims come closer to success if you read the debt section of the page...and even then not very close.


Step by step... that even an 11 year old with adult supervision can follow:

First post:



Multiple terms in there with very minor or even decreases in spending both in real dollars and inflation adjusted spending. And when shown as a percentage of GDP, the numbers are even better. And that is just in post WWII budgets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Now... which word is missing from that post...... come on.... you can do it..... here's a clue: It starts with a "D" and ends with "ebt". If you put them together, it spells "DEBT". Never once mentioned. Ever.

Now, here is your stupid post... notice how that word (DEBT) came into this conversation?


I see that you confused debt and spending or terms and years. It's okay.


So.. Rocktar mentions spending, you mention debt. Seems that one person was confused.. and this time it wasn't Rocktar.

There are 3 charts on that page... first one is debt, second one is public debt and the third one is...... drumroll.... SPENDING.

Weird.



You posted something you didn't care about merely to draw a response. Within the post you have "I don't care about his claims" "address his claim!"

Wrong again... shocker. I stated pretty clearly:



I wasn't addressing the validity of his claim, I was addressing your claim.. which I think we both can agree was incorrect.


Notice how you used quotes.. where no quote was made? Yea, that's called fabrication. In context, it's pretty stupid.


You don't even know where the fuck you're going with this.

If you still can't see it... then perhaps you should get both of your parents to help?

[Warriorbird]

Your obsessive point by point response that really doesn't prove anything suggests your long running point/counterpoint with Clove.

Gosh. Maybe I trolled you.

Republican... 05-15-2011 09:41 AM You literally are the dumbest person I have ever had a conversation with. -PARKBANDIT

Life's so hard when I don't accept your cheap little attempt to save Rocktar from being unable to prove that government spending has gone down over a modern Presidential term. I'll give you about a 2.5 on the save.

[Parkbandit]

Your obsessive point by point response that really doesn't prove anything suggests your long running point/counterpoint with Clove.

Gosh. Maybe I trolled you.

Republican... 05-15-2011 09:41 AM You literally are the dumbest person I have ever had a conversation with. -PARKBANDIT

Given how the reputation system works here... it's highly likely that I'm not the only one who believes you are dumb. A bonus was just proving you were wrong again.



Life's so hard when I don't accept your cheap little attempt to save Rocktar from being unable to prove that government spending has gone down over a modern Presidential term. I'll give you about a 2.5 on the save.

Did you get both your mommy and daddy to help you? Because this had 0% to do with Rocktar and 100% about you once again creating a position of another poster that wasn't there.

I'll make this even simpler.. even a retarded 11 year old should be able to follow:

Rocktar no mention "debt"

Warriorbird mention "debt"

Warriorbird wrong again.

[Warriorbird]

Rocktar no mention "debt"

Warriorbird mention "debt"

Warriorbird wrong again.

Oh gee. Rocktar's point was invalid. I went to the effort to read the page and saw something that made it almost slightly valid.

Later on, because you can't stand how pathetic he makes you look you attempt to dredge something up to make me "wrong."

Then you attempt to somehow semantically prove it.

You've lost by attempting to play. I think you're just ornery that you called yourself 56 though. You're going to respond a lot in an attempt to be "right." I'll make fun of you in the process.

Someday you may even learn what trolling means.

[Parkbandit]

Oh gee. Rocktar's point was invalid. I went to the effort to read the page and saw something that made it almost slightly valid.

Later on, because you can't stand how pathetic he makes you look you attempt to dredge something up to make me "wrong."

Then you attempt to somehow semantically prove it.

You've lost by attempting to play. I think you're just ornery that you called yourself 56 though. You're going to respond a lot in an attempt to be "right." I'll make fun of you in the process.

Someday you may even learn what trolling means.

I've lost count on how many times you've been wrong this morning. Let's just chalk your "effort" today as the work of a drooling retard and let's call it quits. I feel badly for making fun of you (again). :(

Here kid, have fun with play-doh:

http://illinoisaxiom.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/play-doh.jpg

[Warriorbird]

I've lost count on how many times you've been wrong this morning. Let's just chalk your "effort" today as the work of a drooling retard and let's call it quits. I feel badly for making fun of you (again). :(

Here kid, have fun with play-doh:

http://illinoisaxiom.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/play-doh.jpg

I can't save Rocktar! Shit! Time to post a jpg!

[Parkbandit]

I can't save Rocktar! Shit! Time to post a jpg!

I had hoped "3 times is the charm" rule would work on even someone with your mental disability, but I guess I gave you too much credit.

This will be the forth post... and I'll dumb it down as far as I can for you:

This has nothing to do with Rocktar.

This has everything to do with you making shit up.

It's Sunday.. and while I am an atheist, I do "pray" that you will understand this very simple concept, explained to you for a 4th time this morning.

Yes, I'm asking for a miracle.

[Warriorbird]

I had hoped "3 times is the charm" rule would work on even someone with your mental disability, but I guess I gave you too much credit.

This will be the forth post... and I'll dumb it down as far as I can for you:

This has nothing to do with Rocktar.

This has everything to do with you making shit up.

It's Sunday.. and while I am an atheist, I do "pray" that you will understand this very simple concept, explained to you for a 4th time this morning.

Yes, I'm asking for a miracle.

Right. Me attempting to interpret where Rocktar got his bullshit from is "making shit up."

Keep continuing to try to save Rocktar.

[Parkbandit]

Right. Me attempting to interpret where Rocktar got his bullshit from is "making shit up."

Keep continuing to try to save Rocktar.

This is why I don't believe in God. I asked for a simple miracle.. and nothing happened.

Ok, let's go through this really, really slowly.... ready?


Simple question:

Who was the first one to post about debt.. you or Rocktar?

Your answer will be easy. It will either be "I did" or "Rocktar did". Those are the only two acceptable answers for this question... so it's pretty easy.

[Warriorbird]

This is why I don't believe in God. I asked for a simple miracle.. and nothing happened.

Ok, let's go through this really, really slowly.... ready?


Simple question:

Who was the first one to post about debt.. you or Rocktar?

Your answer will be easy. It will either be "I did" or "Rocktar did". Those are the only two acceptable answers for this question... so it's pretty easy.

I brought it up to attempt to discover why his position that wasn't supported by his evidence that he himself provided existed.

You, in turn, are trying to save Rocktar with a semantic "gotcha." Alternately, you merely 'care' about what was honestly an attempt to bolster opposition.

We've seen this behavior before. It was sad then too.

Keep it up!

Let's see if you can not seem pathetic two weeks in.

[Parkbandit]

Seriously, it was a multiple choice.. with 2 answers. You simply had to pick one or the other.

Let's try again:

QUESTION: Who was the first one to post about debt in this discussion.. you (Warriorbird) or Rocktar?

A) I did (Warriorbird)

B) Rocktar


ANSWER: ________

We have to work through this slowly... don't jump ahead (That is where you get confused). Just answer A or B.

[Warriorbird]

Seriously, it was a multiple choice.. with 2 answers. You simply had to pick one or the other.

Let's try again:

QUESTION: Who was the first one to post about debt in this discussion.. you (Warriorbird) or Rocktar?

A) I did (Warriorbird)

B) Rocktar


ANSWER: ________

We have to work through this slowly... don't jump ahead (That is where you get confused). Just answer A or B.

When are you going to ask about profit?

[Parkbandit]

When are you going to ask about profit?

I can't make this any easier for you to answer... you need to stay focused!

A or B... it's really that simple.

[Warriorbird]

I can't make this any easier for you to answer... you need to stay focused!

A or B... it's really that simple.

What is profit?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It must have been a hanging chad, PB.

[Parkbandit]

I made it as easy as possible for him. Oh well.

Back on topic, Trump says "He's fired"

After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the Presidency. This decision does not come easily or without regret; especially when my potential candidacy continues to be validated by ranking at the top of the Republican contenders in polls across the country. I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election. I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half heartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.

I want to personally thank the millions of Americans who have joined the various Trump grassroots movements and written me letters and e-mails encouraging me to run. My gratitude for your faith and trust in me could never be expressed properly in words. So, I make you this promise: that I will continue to voice my opinions loudly and help to shape our politician’s thoughts. My ability to bring important economic and foreign policy issues to the forefront of the national dialogue is perhaps my greatest asset and one of the most valuable services I can provide to this country. I will continue to push our President and the country’s policy makers to address the dire challenges arising from our unsustainable debt structure and increasing lack of global competitiveness. Issues, including getting tough on China and other countries that are methodically and systematically taking advantage of the United States, were seldom mentioned before I brought them to the forefront of the country’s conversation. They are now being debated vigorously. I will also continue to push for job creation, an initiative that should be this country’s top priority and something that I know a lot about. I will not shy away from expressing the opinions that so many of you share yet don’t have a medium through which to articulate.

I look forward to supporting the candidate who is the most qualified to help us tackle our country’s most important issues and am hopeful that, when this person emerges, he or she will have the courage to take on the challenges of the Office and be the agent of change that this country so desperately needs

Thank you and God Bless America!

Donald J. Trump

[Parkbandit]

Oh well.... so much for me liking Herman Cain:


This one won’t set well with many of the politically correct crowd, but former Godfathers Pizza CEO and 2012 GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain has doubled down on his controversial Muslim comments he made earlier this year.

On Glenn Beck’s Wednesday Fox News Channel program, Cain reiterated his point and he didn’t back down from his prior stance.

“The exact language was when I was asked, ‘Would you be comfortable with a Muslim in your cabinet?’ and I said no,” Cain said. “I would not be comfortable. I didn’t say I wouldn’t appoint one because if they can prove to me they are putting the Constitution of the United States first, they would be a candidate just like everybody else. My entire career I hired good people, great people, regardless of their religious orientation.”

(Cain pledges to cut bills down to three pages or less)

That prompted host Glenn Beck to ask exactly what and of whom he would require proof that they were putting the Constitution first, which Cain made it plain it would be only Muslims:

BECK: So wait a minute, are you saying that Muslims have to prove, there has to be a loyalty proof?
CAIN: Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.
BECK: Well, would you do that to a Catholic or a Mormon?
CAIN: No, I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions. I know there are some Muslims who talk about but we’re a peaceful religion. I’m sure that there are some peace-loving.

Cain said he had no doubt there were peaceful Muslims. However, he said his motivation came from a post-9/11 speech from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“I know some of them, too – I absolutely do,” Cain said. “So this isn’t casting a label on all Muslims. When that guy asked me that question in the middle of a rapid fire Q & A session in Iowa, it came out of nowhere, number one. Let me tell you what is in the back of what I thought of, which is why I answered the way I did. I heard [Israeli] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu give a speech a few months after 9/11, 2001. I will never forget what he said in the speech. So that is my point of reference. Number one – terrorism is going to last a long time. He said this is what Americans have to learn. He said number two – they want to kill all of you. No question. That wasn’t great. That was real clear.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/08/cain-doubles-down-would-require-loyalty-proof-from-muslims-to-serve-in-his-administration/#ixzz1OjT9NDTm

[~Rocktar~]

He's been in office for 2 1/2 years now, and has accomplished or tried to accomplish 7 of those things. If he hasn't accomplished them, it's been due to fierce REPUBLICAN opposition.

Allow me to say this slowly so you can understand it.

BULL

FUCKING

SHIT!

The man had a super majority and the ability to do whatever he wanted and his own party thought he was too far out in Left field, much like you, and THEY didn't go along with it. The only reason that Obama didn't get something done is because his own party thought it was too loony toon to manage. Stop blaming Republicans for your own radical President's policy failures.


PS:Sorry I let this pass the first time, I had an off day or something.

[~Rocktar~]

Yeah, Cain is far too old school for today's political arena even though he would likely make a good President.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, Cain is far too old school for today's political arena even though he would likely make a good President.

I didn't like his stance that the Fed doesn't need to be looked into ala an audit either.