You know your party is in trouble when truth has a 'bais' to the other side.
This is just absurd. The Huddington Post and Thinkprogress have a liberal bias. They make no bones about it. There is nothing wrong with this, as long as they are honest about it. They post stories that support liberal issues. I don't have a problem with that - but let's call a spade a spade.
Joe. I see that you are still attempting to bait me. I've said NUMEROUS times that you and I don't get along. Let's not pollute the board with our antagonisms. Please take at least this high road along with me. The forum has seen enough of our spats. Let's not give into temptation. This thread should be about politics, not you and I.
Joe. I see that you are still attempting to bait me. I've said NUMEROUS times that you and I don't get along. Let's not pollute the board with our arguments. Please take the high road along with me.
Public statements on a public board may be responded to by the public. What is it with conservatives and free speech? This isn't one of McCain's private town halls where only certain people may respond.
Joe. You know darn well this has nothing to do with free speech. It wasn't a desire to censor you. It was a desire to refrain from subjecting the forum members to our frivolous crap. You can keep posting whatever you want. My request was that we take the high road and not distract the board. Just because you have a "right" (which you don't here - the Constitution does not guarantee you freedom of speech on a privately run forum), does not mean that it's a good decision to exercise that right.
I'm making the good decision of refraining from arguing with you. It's a waste of bandwidth, and it's white noise on this board. You can exercise your "right", or you can do what is best for this community and this thread. The choice is yours.
Hopefully this is the last we will speak on this matter. It's time to put our antagonisms to bed once and for all.
You know your party is in trouble when truth has a 'bais' to the other side.
This is just absurd. The Huddington Post and Thinkprogress have a liberal bias. They make no bones about it. There is nothing wrong with this, as long as they are honest about it. They post stories that support liberal issues. I don't have a problem with that - but let's call a spade a spade.
I wasn't referring to them when I was making my truth statement.
I meant things like the EPA having an entire site dedicated to global warming and what we can do about it, including published scientific studies, citations, and that pesky science thing. The neocons have gone so far as to attempt to bribe scientists to dispute scientific fact in order to keep doing fuck-all environmentally so they can get more money or power or whatever. Are there lefties who are a bit alarmist about global warming? Certainly. But there's a difference between "Do something! Anything!" and "There's no problem and you're a bunch of stupid hippies." Can people at places like the IPCC actually even have a bias? Seriously now. Facts are facts, and no matter how they are spun and mangled semantically, the core is either true or not.
It's time to put our antagonisms to bed once and for all.
Said Edgeworth to Phoenix.
...Just kidding.
No, seriously. I'm getting a very yaoi vibe from this.
"Go away! Go Away! Go away! . . . No, maybe come a little closer . . ."
You know your party is in trouble when truth has a 'bais' to the other side.
You know your party is in trouble when the nation is in economic freefall, you're supposed to be the party that does well with money, it's your fault the nation is in economic freefall, but all you can say is that the economy is fundamentally strong.
Does anyone else want to post some "You know your party is in trouble when . . ."?
Yeah, the problem for the conservatives is that the facts very often have a liberal bias.
That is my new favorite quotation.
Mine too.
You know your party is in trouble when the nation is in economic freefall, you're supposed to be the party that does well with money, it's your fault the nation is in economic freefall, but all you can say is that the economy is fundamentally strong.
Could someone please fill me in how it ever came to the conclusion that the republicans are good with money? As far as I can remember, the national debt of the U.S. practically exploded under Reagan and Bush Sr., then was kept in check as far as possible by Clinton, then exploded again under Bush Jr. And let's not forget that the Great Depression came to be under Republican Presidents Coolidge and Hoover until FDR rode the country out of it.
You know your party is in trouble when the nation is in economic freefall, you're supposed to be the party that does well with money, it's your fault the nation is in economic freefall, but all you can say is that the economy is fundamentally strong.
I should've posted the "America is an air plane!" comment I had earlier. Basically my idea was, the USA is an airplane, with the wings being their political left wing and their political right wing. Sadly for its citizens, they are not left and right relative to the bloody plane! (text from last comma till exclamation mark said in the tone of Rym's humorous angry voice, i.e. "It's right THERE!") Hence causing it's less-than perfect decent in their economy.
Could someone please fill me in how it ever came to the conclusion that the republicans are good with money? As far as I can remember, the national debt of the U.S. practically exploded under Reagan and Bush Sr., then was kept in check as far as possible by Clinton, then exploded again under Bush Jr.
Oooh, there is an awesome graph of that, I don't have it anywhere though.
You know your party is in trouble when the nation is in economic freefall, you're supposed to be the party that does well with money, it's your fault the nation is in economic freefall, but all you can say is that the economy is fundamentally strong.
Could someone please fill me in how it ever came to the conclusion that the republicans are good with money? As far as I can remember, the national debt of the U.S. practically exploded under Reagan and Bush Sr., then was kept in check as far as possible by Clinton, then exploded again under Bush Jr. And let's not forget that the Great Depression came to be under Republican Presidents Coolidge and Hoover until FDR rode the country out of it.
Maybe because the Republican's were meant to be "fiscally conservative"?
*Edit* I think I have the issues mixed up, shame I can't delete this... I'm talking bout federal debt, don't know if it applies to the economy as a whole.
One statement was referring to Bush and the Democrat controlled Congress. Bush was mentioned specifically. The other statement referred to McCain specifically. Not too complicated a concept.
Bush has been terrible when it comes to the economy. No argument there. He's arguably the worst since Jimmy Carter. On the other hand, the Democrats have funded a war, and passed deficit after deficit. Thus the statement that both parties have been terrible when it comes to the economy.
Please note that my "viable alternative" comment was in response to a comment specifically made about McCain. Why you chose to ignore that context, I do not know. (It was either neglectful or deceitful.)
This is why I'm asking you to stop antagonizing me, Joe. You get so desperate, that you ignore important matters such as context. I wind up having to state what you ignored. It's just a total waste of time. I'm so conflicted. If you would just take a deep breath, we'd save so much white noise. By you don't, and I'm forced to set the record straight.
Yet again I'm asking you to put an end to the white noise. Yet again it falls on deaf ears. And on and on it goes.
One statement was referring to Bush and the Democrat controlled Congress. Bush was mentioned specifically. The other statement referred to McCain specifically. Not too complicated a concept.
Bush has been terrible when it comes to the economy. No argument there. He's arguably the worst since Jimmy Carter. On the other hand, the Democrats have funded a war, and passed deficit after deficit. Thus the statement thatbothparties have been terrible when it comes to the economy.
The last time I checked, the Democrats have been in control of Congress for about two of the past fourteen years. That war? Yeah, it's kind of a Republican thing, and it has cost somewhere in the range of a trillion dollars so far.
Also, McCain has agreed with Bush about 90% of the time. If Bush has been bad for the economy, then McCain has been bad for it as well.
Now looking at thefuture... McCain has some compelling positions.I'm especially attracted to his desire to control government spending. There are verylegitimate concernsregarding Obama'seconomic policy.
McCain has publicly stated that he does not know much about economics. He and his economic advisor, Phil Gramm, were largely behind the deregulation schemes that led to this mess to start with. Even now, McCain is in denial about the economy and says that it is fundamentally strong.
It is clear that McCain is not a good choice for any sort of leadership position involving the economy. Anyone who mixes up Spain with Latin America shouldn't be trusted to balance a checkbook, much less make national economic policy.
The last time I checked, the Democrats have been in control of Congress for about two of the past fourteen years.
And they passed a horrifically bloated budget and funded the war. Change = 0.
Also, McCain has agreed with Bush about 90% of the time.
Meaningless statistic. The only statistic that matters is how often McCain agreed with Bush on matters of economic policy. When, and if, you find that, you may have a point. Obama has agreed with the Dems 97% of the time. The Dems that passed the budget and funded the war. By your logic, Obama is worse for the federal budget and will continue to fund the war. See why these statistics are meaningless?
McCain has publicly stated that he does not know much about economics.
I'm okay with that. Obama didn't exactly graduate with a PhD in economics either. The key is to surround yourself with smart people and to listen to those people. I hope either candidate would do that.
He and his economic advisor, Phil Gramm, were largely behind the deregulation schemes that led to this mess to start with.
Ugh. Once again context is totally lacking. Deregulation was started by the Democrats and embraced by both parties. McCain has recognized the need for greater regulation. Nothing wrong with that. Both parties hopefully have learned from their mistakes.
I'm tired of this cut the funding to end the war crap...You end wars by stopping the war, you put soldiers lives in even more risk by cutting the budget...
For example, I may be against the war in Iraq, but if it is going to happen I don't want it to be done half-assed. Funding a currently running miltary situation is not the same as supporting the war, if I remember correctly the congress tried to get a timeline set for withdrawal to the budget but Bush threatened to veto or do so, and the democrats do not have a veto proof majority.
People want the war to end but they don't want it done by slashing the budget of the conflict and thus putting those lives already in danger in further danger... They want timelines or withdrawal. Cutting the Budget would just makes Democrats look like bastards.
I'm tired of this cut the funding to end the war crap...You end wars by stopping the war, you put soldiers lives in even more risk by cutting the budget...
They dropped a timeline for withdrawl. Change = 0. I would have stuck to my guns on this one, even if Bush threatened to veto it again.
I'm tired of this cut the funding to end the war crap...You end wars by stopping the war, you put soldiers lives in even more risk by cutting the budget...
They dropped atimeline for withdrawl.Change = 0. I would have stuck to my guns on this one, even if Bush threatened to veto it again.
The democrats do not control enough of congress to blow things through it like the republicans did in the early bush years.
Unfortunately, it has left McCain with an unsettling electoral lead (projection). Virginia, previously neutral, has slipped into the red, while Ohio, Colorado, Indiana, and Nevada have flipped from blue to red. Other key Great Lakes and Pacific states have gone from staunch Obama support to just barely supporting him.
Unfortunately, it has left McCain withan unsettling electoral lead(projection). Virginia, previously neutral, has slipped into the red, while Ohio, Colorado, Indiana, and Nevada have flipped from blue to red. Other key Great Lakes and Pacific states have gone from staunch Obama support to just barely supporting him.
I wouldn't panic yet. Obama's past campaigns have usually hit hard way late in the game. I'm thinking we'll see some interesting stuff in mid October and during the debates.
Comments
I'm making the good decision of refraining from arguing with you. It's a waste of bandwidth, and it's white noise on this board. You can exercise your "right", or you can do what is best for this community and this thread. The choice is yours.
Hopefully this is the last we will speak on this matter. It's time to put our antagonisms to bed once and for all.
...Just kidding.
I meant things like the EPA having an entire site dedicated to global warming and what we can do about it, including published scientific studies, citations, and that pesky science thing. The neocons have gone so far as to attempt to bribe scientists to dispute scientific fact in order to keep doing fuck-all environmentally so they can get more money or power or whatever.
Are there lefties who are a bit alarmist about global warming? Certainly. But there's a difference between "Do something! Anything!" and "There's no problem and you're a bunch of stupid hippies."
Can people at places like the IPCC actually even have a bias? Seriously now. Facts are facts, and no matter how they are spun and mangled semantically, the core is either true or not.
"Go away! Go Away! Go away! . . . No, maybe come a little closer . . ." You know your party is in trouble when the nation is in economic freefall, you're supposed to be the party that does well with money, it's your fault the nation is in economic freefall, but all you can say is that the economy is fundamentally strong.
Does anyone else want to post some "You know your party is in trouble when . . ."?
Could someone please fill me in how it ever came to the conclusion that the republicans are good with money? As far as I can remember, the national debt of the U.S. practically exploded under Reagan and Bush Sr., then was kept in check as far as possible by Clinton, then exploded again under Bush Jr.
And let's not forget that the Great Depression came to be under Republican Presidents Coolidge and Hoover until FDR rode the country out of it.
Scott has said that people give the president way too much credit for the economy. Who knows. They at least influence it.
Still... when it comes to spending, the stereotypes don't always hold up. Bush ran up a massive debt. Bill Clinton was a huge free trade proponent...
*Edit* I think I have the issues mixed up, shame I can't delete this... I'm talking bout federal debt, don't know if it applies to the economy as a whole.
Bush has been terrible when it comes to the economy. No argument there. He's arguably the worst since Jimmy Carter. On the other hand, the Democrats have funded a war, and passed deficit after deficit. Thus the statement that both parties have been terrible when it comes to the economy.
Now looking at the future...
McCain has some compelling positions. I'm especially attracted to his desire to control government spending. There are very legitimate concerns regarding Obama's economic policy.
Please note that my "viable alternative" comment was in response to a comment specifically made about McCain. Why you chose to ignore that context, I do not know. (It was either neglectful or deceitful.)
This is why I'm asking you to stop antagonizing me, Joe. You get so desperate, that you ignore important matters such as context. I wind up having to state what you ignored. It's just a total waste of time. I'm so conflicted. If you would just take a deep breath, we'd save so much white noise. By you don't, and I'm forced to set the record straight.
Yet again I'm asking you to put an end to the white noise. Yet again it falls on deaf ears. And on and on it goes.
Also, McCain has agreed with Bush about 90% of the time. If Bush has been bad for the economy, then McCain has been bad for it as well.
It is clear that McCain is not a good choice for any sort of leadership position involving the economy. Anyone who mixes up Spain with Latin America shouldn't be trusted to balance a checkbook, much less make national economic policy.
BTW - the McCain bounce is over.
For example, I may be against the war in Iraq, but if it is going to happen I don't want it to be done half-assed. Funding a currently running miltary situation is not the same as supporting the war, if I remember correctly the congress tried to get a timeline set for withdrawal to the budget but Bush threatened to veto or do so, and the democrats do not have a veto proof majority.
People want the war to end but they don't want it done by slashing the budget of the conflict and thus putting those lives already in danger in further danger... They want timelines or withdrawal. Cutting the Budget would just makes Democrats look like bastards.
I suspect that the current financial mess will help Obama. I would not be surprised if he goes up in the polls even more over the next few days.