I received an email from the “Our Country Deserves Better” PAC with this new ad that they devised. Apparently the moonbats and other libs are furious about this ad. That’s a good thing. It means someone struck a nerve. And I think this ad is right-on. Enjoy.
philip@redstategay.com
My parents taught me from a young age to pay attention to what's going on in the world around me and to really, genuinely care. I was raised in a very religious household; consequently, I learned early on that homosexuality was a big no-no. It took me a long time to accept the fact that I was gay. Everyone else knew it before I did! At first, I had to reconcile my orientation with my beliefs, and for a time I questioned those beliefs. But my politics haven't changed: I'm quite conservative and I refuse to apologize for it, even with the gay community openly calling me a deviant for my politics. Today, my parents and I don't necessarily agree on everything, but I dig and study every little thing before I make up my mind. I don't believe that feelings should be considered so heavily when deciding what your position is, and I've seen too many brilliant people dragged down by their emotional reactions. I try to make purely intellectual conclusions and to really be open-minded, even if I don't always succeed. I'm originally from Texas and currently working as a fraud investigator and an EMT in Arizona, hoping to eventually get back home (unless some amazing girl steals my heart here!). 
I would like to thank Steve, Mel, and Philip for having me as a contributor. I look forward to working with them in the effort to expose the fantasy-land in which the Left lives and exists! ;-)
I'm a 38 year old gay man. Prior to becoming politically aware I would have described myself as socialist. At the time, I didn't recognize my beliefs as socialist because I didn't pay enough attention to politics to know what that meant. It wasn't until after I started educating myself on politics that I realized socialism for what it was. I guess the Left didn't have enough time to get their grubby little hands on my mind before I became completely indoctrinated! Various events eventually forced me to educate myself. I was exposed to conservatism and classical liberalism. Our Founders built our system of government around protection of the individual over the collective. Since I was gay I initially believed this was contradictory to my orientation. I soon discovered that not only was that not the case but that retaining our constitutionally limited government as set forth by the Founders was necessary for my continued existence and freedom as a gay man that I enjoyed. The issue of gay marriage is a policy or civil issue; not a philosophical one. I'm also an avid proponent of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. I believe, having studied her philosophy at great length, Objectivism provides man his best opportunity at retaining his individual freedom and supporting that freedom through Objectivist governance as well.
proudgayconserv@aol.com
I remember being 17 years old, watching as the 1992 Presidential Election results rolled in. I was powerless to stop the election of the philandering Governor of Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton. Little did I know that Bill Clinton would be the “best” Democratic U.S. President of the last 50 years.
The stark difference between liberalism and conservatism has been clear to me ever since. While conservatism isn’t fun and sexy, it is rooted in historical fact and the absence of ideology. In contrast, liberalism is very popular, especially among our nation’s youth. It is popular in large part because it deals in ideologically emotional headlines and buzzwords, with very little reality mixed in. The bottom line is that liberalism seeks to change the very fabric of our society, while conservatism realizes that our founding documents provide the necessary bedrock for American exceptionalism.
As a gay man, I find true conservatism to be the only way to protect the freedoms we enjoy today. Keeping government small, keeping it out of our lives and keeping it out of our wallet are the core conservative principles that allow me to be who I am, strive for success as an individual, and be part of the greatest country on this Earth, the United States of America.
| You’ll Never K… on Shame On You | |
 | Mel Maguire on Shame On You |
 | John In CA on Obama’s Labor Day Bulls#… |
| John In CA on The Culture of Satanic Pa… |
 | Brian on Shame On You |
 | Joseph on White House to FOX: You’… |
 | Christopher Budden on Common Sense Conservatism: Tax… |
| Christopher Budden on Common Sense Conservatism: Cap… |
 | airforcewife on Common Sense Conservatism: Tax… |
 | theblackcommenter on Common Sense Conservatism: Tax… |
| John In CA on Common Sense Conservatism: Tax… |
| airforcewife on Common Sense Conservatism: Tax… |
| John In CA on Common Sense Conservatism: Tax… |
 | Case on Common Sense Conservatism: Tax… |
| Case on Common Sense Conservatism: Tax… |
steveflesher
Philip
Mark Ciavola
I love that ad so much I want to knit it tiny sweaters. Anything that makes the liberals mad is a good thing, in my book.
Fantastic!!!
Mark my words here and now. In two years we we will be begging for George W. Bush back. Think it can’t get any worse? Just wait.
I thought that ad was brilliant. And I received an email today saying that this ad had been viewed over 100,000 times on youtube. It’s a hit! Let’s just hope that people continue to get the message.
I’m impressed with the grassroots movements and PACs out there that are mobilizing. It gives me hope for 2010.
That was supposed to make me mad? I thought it was hilarious. I especially loved the part about what actually made conservatives mad, the whole right wing extremist report. They got all pissy and took right wing extremist to mean every registered republican. And lo and behold, what did we see? Right wing extremists offing doctors in church and killing people for remembering the horrible tragedy of the Holocaust…
Oh Ahmadinejad, you’re the George Bush of Iran. Not winning elections but claiming victory anyway while people protest against you in the streets. The similarities are eerie…
You’re comparatively reserved for a moonbat, Robert. Thanks for the contributions as always.
Oh, well how’s this? I’m crazy!!!
You couldn’t see it, but I was flailing my arms in a manic fashion. I wish there were an emoticon for crazy face…
“You couldn’t see it, but I was flailing my arms in a manic fashion. I wish there were an emoticon for crazy face”
“That was supposed to make me mad?”
Interestingly enough, you get angry whenever I refer to you as a liberal….you say “progressive independent” – so exactly what about the post here or its title pertains to anything you claimed to be?
And since you’re not anything described here, I think its remarkable that some human emotion moved you to post something three times about it.
Too bad there isn’t an emoticon for silent teeth knashing.
Interestingly enough, you get angry whenever I refer to you as a liberal….you say “progressive independent”
If Robert really is a progressive independent, then I am the racist he thinks I am.
From February 2009 forward (I give the Obama a break on January), this nation has been losing over 100,000 jobs per month easily with no end in sight. If the end to that doesn’t show up soon then the end to Obama is automatic.
“And lo and behold, what did we see? Right wing extremists offing doctors in church and killing people for remembering the horrible tragedy of the Holocaust…”
Yes that’s almost like the Weather Underground and wonderful liberal terrorists such as:
Katherine Ann Power
Silas Bissel
Kathleen Soliah
The Crocker Bank Four
and many more.
But there is one huge difference. The above would murder 1,000 Liberals just for the chance to kill one Conservative.
My dad and I have a theory about extremism. Our theory is that, contrary to popular belief, political ideals cannot be measured on a linear spectrum…they must be measured in a circular motion. The reason for this is that there’s a point in the back at which both left and right become so extreme that it’s nigh impossible to differentiate between the two.
“The reason for this is that there’s a point in the back at which both left and right become so extreme that it’s nigh impossible to differentiate between the two.”
So in the front you have the least extreme and it is impossible to differentiate between the two?
I see political ideals as linear. At the extreme of either side you have violence. Violence is as far out as you can go. There is no point beyond violence. Violence encompasses everything including Genocide.
“Interestingly enough, you get angry whenever I refer to you as a liberal”
um, what? Where have you been the entire time we’ve been bickering at each other over the internet? I am absolutely proud to call myself a liberal. True, I also refer to myself as a progressive, and for a time, I was registered as an independent, but never have I shied away from the term liberal. When I refer to myself as a liberal, I think of Kennedy’s speech and that’s the kind of liberal I am. Damn proud of it.
“I think its remarkable that some human emotion moved you to post something three times about it.”
If I had the slightest inkling of what the hell you were talking about, I’d put you in your place.
“Too bad there isn’t an emoticon for silent teeth knashing.[sic]”
Steve (and I say this with love), you’re an idiot.
“If I had the slightest inkling of what the hell you were talking about, I’d put you in your place.”
“Steve (and I say this with love), you’re an idiot.”
If “playing dumb while calling dumb” were an art, you’d be a master.
“I was registered as an independent, but never have I shied away from the term liberal. When I refer to myself as a liberal, I think of Kennedy’s speech and that’s the kind of liberal I am. Damn proud of it.”
So, you aren’t a Republican, you’re not a Democrat, and you USED to be an independent. Interesting.
Somehow Kennedy’s “Ask not” line does not seem to correlate well with someone who wants more from the government, yet decides that Doctors and Nurses spend time in school to not make money.
I can almost guarantee, JFK would expect a little more out of you as an individual rather than someone who pulls a lever for a socialist and justifies it by taking quotes by our founding fathers out of context to protect those that don’t work at all.
You better work to get Obama’s approval numbers back up in the 60′s again as your constant peddling of those crazy ideas are going to start to lose their appeal.
Tell the nurse in your family to talk to her Doctors at the hospital she works at about the President’s health care plan. I know two RN’s and one that was just accepted to Loyola to start medical school. They get into nursing because it’s work they enjoy that provides financial and employment security and would rather not have underachievers telling them how much they’re worth.
“So, you aren’t a Republican, you’re not a Democrat, and you USED to be an independent. Interesting.”
Isn’t it? What, are you upset that I don’t fit into your little box?
“Somehow Kennedy’s “Ask not” line does not seem to correlate well with someone who wants more from the government, yet decides that Doctors and Nurses spend time in school to not make money.”
First of all, I was referring to this speech of Kennedy’s:
“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” – September 14, 1960
Second, I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, find anyone who goes into medicine for money, and you’ll find someone who won’t be in the field for long. I just this afternoon had a conversation with my sister in law, who just became a nurse, and she told me that a friend of hers is still in nursing school, and that she is in it purely for money, and she doesn’t care about the patients. She told me that the first time this girl gets shat on, she’ll be gone, no matter how much money she’s making. So no, it’s not me who decides that doctors and nurses spend time in school on more important things than money, it’s the doctors and nurses who make that decision. I also learned something interesting but not surprising. It turns out that there really is no such thing as a conservative in the medical field, because, and I quote, “we all (in the medical field) want to help people first and foremost.”
“I can almost guarantee, JFK would expect a little more out of you as an individual rather than someone who pulls a lever for a socialist and justifies it by taking quotes by our founding fathers out of context to protect those that don’t work at all.”
Really? Because I’m pretty sure that a) Kennedy is not a founding father, and 2) that quote sounds an awful lot like what Obama might say. What was that about not pulling the lever for a socialist?
“Tell the nurse in your family to talk to her Doctors at the hospital she works at about the President’s health care plan”
Oh, I did. She’s supported socialized medicine since before she ever thought of becoming a nurse. And like she said, no one’s a republican in the medical field (or at least at the hospital she works at in a reliably red state). Check out pnhp.org, you’ll find tons of doctors who agree with my position.
“and would rather not have underachievers telling them how much they’re worth.”
Are you referring to me or to yourself? Because while I am on the side of raising wages for hardworking people, you constantly trash any member of a labor union, and make it a point to mention your preference that the minimum wage remain low. It’s more important to you to protect the ceiling than the floor. This may not make you an underachiever (or perhaps it does), but maybe an envious individual who dreams of one day pulling down the kind of money of those you so vigorously defend. Please spare me the speech of “telling” people how much they’re worth, because you quantify people all the fucking time, only you do it in the wrong direction…
“Isn’t it? What, are you upset that I don’t fit into your little box?”
Nah, valuable things usually come in little boxes. After all, you did admit to being a liberal.
Yes, I remember that speech! But let’s face it, it’s not the most recited. And because Kennedy said it doesn’t necessarily mean that the context was accurate – especially when you put it into terms of today’s liberal, just ask Lesbian Tammy Bruce, a former NOW President.
Welcoming new ideas and looking ahead and not behind is a pleasant idea. So, perhaps whenever your President has to take responsibility for his failing-before-our-eyes policies, perhaps he and his defenders like yourself can refrain from defending him without saying “the last eight years.”
Moreover; we’ve watched Obama’s policies on a much smaller scale fail big time under Jimmy Carter. So perhaps if you can show us some type of progress, other than ACORN getting crackheads to vote, don’t even bother putting “new ideas” in Obama’s corner.
“Second, I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, find anyone who goes into medicine for money, and you’ll find someone who won’t be in the field for long.”
No, I am not the one telling them how much they can earn. How about you spend any amount of time (let alone 10-15 years) in school and put yourself into a position where the government limits your income possibilities? You are the one who thinks its okay for them to do that. That’s not a new idea! That is not looking ahead.
I don’t care if one girl is in it more for financial security. It’s not your place to make that judgment Robert. She’s the one in school earning that job title, not you! I care about my clients, but if they don’t pay me my hourly rate, it’s bye-bye-birdie! They pay me in installments if they have to, etc. It’s my price and they have the right to go somewhere else if they don’t like it.
Emergency rooms are the same way. They never refuse anyone without insurance and if someone has to, they have to set up payment arrangements to pay. It’s the way of the world and it’s the natural way of separating the normal people of this world who pay their debts from the crackheads who want Obama to pay their bills.
“we all (in the medical field) want to help people first and foremost.”
All that nobility, and can you imagine, people in this country STILL think it’s okay to regulate their earnings.
I wonder if trial lawyers like John Edwards made that same statement about helping people before he made four-times the amount of a Doctor by bankrupting them in outrageous lawsuits? Just where is the regulation on the salary that made John Edwards a millionaire?
“Kennedy is not a founding father”
I never said he was. Did I?
“that quote sounds an awful lot like what Obama might say. What was that about not pulling the lever for a socialist?”
Well, Obama did recently refer to Comiskey Park as “Cominsky Field” in a conversation with a reporter while proclaiming himself a White Sox fan. Something about the natural slip of “insky” or “inski” that makes me a tad nervous from someone who’s not a socialist.
“She’s supported socialized medicine since before she ever thought of becoming a nurse. And like she said, no one’s a republican in the medical field”
She’s absolutely wrong. Before one actually enters the hospital is when they are idealistic. It’s when they go to work (as in any other field) and start paying taxes that they appreciate Republican positions. My brother’s doctor performed brain surgery on him the day of the national election and joked that if he voted for Obama that he wouldn’t do the procedure.
One of my best friends in the medical profession – an RN for almost ten years – sees already the worry among Doctors in her hospital. They are absolutely not promoting socialized medicine.
“Because while I am on the side of raising wages for hardworking people, you constantly trash any member of a labor union”
Ask Obama about teacher’s unions. If people want more wages, they have to be “hardworking” first.
“This may not make you an underachiever (or perhaps it does), but maybe an envious individual who dreams of one day pulling down the kind of money of those you so vigorously defend.”
I am very happy with what I earn. My lifestyle is one I work for. The more I want, the more I work. I don’t dream about anything, I just do it. As do the folks who earn Masters Degrees and grab the brass ring and earn their success.
“people how much they’re worth, because you quantify people all the fucking time, only you do it in the wrong direction”
I only quantify in one direction and one direction only. We are free and we all make choices. If you want to use your efforts to work harder, I am with you. The only way to prosper is to take down taxation on all levels.
It’s amazing how so many understand the concept of fairness and competition in the Olympics. But can you imagine never having a winner? Just handing out gold metals to everyone based on a quota?
You quantify those by supporting a system which places an equal valued number on everyone’s backside including your own. I can compete and have no problem doing it on my own. My family’s businesses have never needed unions or bailouts and we’ve always paid for our own healthcare.
You can do the same thing without the government intervening. It’s your freedom and your choice. The “direction” you refer to is one that is decided by you and only you. Not some labor union whose members consist of a list of names on a ten-thousand page list – double-columned – in which you’re guaranteed a gold watch and an annual teamsters ballcap.
“Because while I am on the side of raising wages for hardworking people, you constantly trash any member of a labor union”
And for good reason. Labor unions want the benefit of ownership without the risk of investment. That’s bad enough.
What makes it worse is talented pepople within the union are not allowed to negotiate their own pay package.
Finally if a shop has non union workers, then non union workers are often not allowed to negotiate their own compensation packages.
“So, perhaps whenever your President has to take responsibility for his failing-before-our-eyes policies, perhaps he and his defenders like yourself can refrain from defending him without saying “the last eight years.”
Well, see, normal people can acknowledge when something doesn’t work. Unlike you and your ilk, if this is a failure after four or eight years, we’ll say “hey he tried, but it didn’t work.” We won’t pretend that all his potential failings were a success, like you with every republican president since and including Nixon. True, the previous president whose colossal failure on every level added to the challenge that the current one faces, but if his policies fall short of undoing the damage caused by Bush’s fail-before-the-world’s-eyes policies, that will be Obama’s failure. If that happens, we will acknowledge it and try harder to keep your destructive policies from being implemented. Speaking of taking responsibility, you have yet to face the facts that your ideology fails every time it is put into action, opting instead to point to a sliver in time when things were good for a certain class of people and call it success. It’s clear that you and I measure success in very different ways.
“So perhaps if you can show us some type of progress, other than ACORN getting crackheads to vote, don’t even bother putting “new ideas” in Obama’s corner.”
How about putting a stop to the revolving door that was previously the White House – K Street? How about bold proposals to slash dangerous emissions by 85%, that you loonies on the right cried about because you love the status quo of loot and pollute? How about the sweeping health care reform that has you people shitting your pants at the prospect of the insurance companies not being able to bilk hard working people anymore? This is progress. We know it to be because it frightens people like you who absolutely loathe the idea of honesty, fairness, and true competition. You can’t own up to being rejected, so you concoct stories about a few drug addicts being coerced into voting for Obama, all the while being happier than a pig in shit that a failure that rode his daddy’s coat tails his entire life can commit election fraud twice and get away with it because his and your ideology wasn’t and isn’t good enough to win on its own merit. That is your party, and that is your trademark; wining at any cost, with deceit being the first option to resort to.
“How about you spend any amount of time (let alone 10-15 years) in school and put yourself into a position where the government limits your income possibilities?”
I really don’t know where you get the notion that government will limit incomes of physicians. Too much Hannity rots the brain. Hell, I watched that nimrod for five minutes yesterday and I felt dumber. It’s almost as if he banks on the fact that his audience is rife with idiots who don’t think for themselves.
“I care about my clients, but if they don’t pay me my hourly rate, it’s bye-bye-birdie! They pay me in installments if they have to, etc. It’s my price and they have the right to go somewhere else if they don’t like it.”
Well, unfortunately, sick people don’t have that luxury. People die on a routine basis because they don’t have health insurance and the hospital’s hands are tied. You seem to think that’s okay for some twisted reason.
“Emergency rooms are the same way. They never refuse anyone without insurance and if someone has to, they have to set up payment arrangements to pay.”
Well, that’s flat out wrong. There is a private hospital in Scottsdale that will turn you away if you walk into the ER having a heart attack without insurance. And this isn’t an anomaly, there are hospitals across the country that behave this way; profit first, profit last. Bill Frist and his daddy made a fortune treating people this way. But hey, that’s just the free market doing its thing, right? So what if a few thousand people have to die, this is the free market! This is why you get spanked at the voting booth, and why you will continue to do so. No one likes an asshole, except other assholes and those who’ve been abused as children. That’s your base; the unfeeling and the fucked up kids with issues.
“All that nobility, and can you imagine, people in this country STILL think it’s okay to regulate their earnings.”
First of all, nobody wants to regulate earnings of doctors. Second, I find it fascinating that you can spend all day telling me why it’s a good idea to regulate the earnings of the poor, but the second someone asks the question ‘why the fuck do you need to make more than $3 million’, you go into a tizzy. You absolutely defend, at every opportunity, the gross overpayment of a certain class of people, the obscene amounts of money that is 100% unjustified. All that, and still you fail to answer the simplest of questions, and that is ‘what skill can someone possibly possess that justifies making $200,000 per hour?’ You can’t answer it without being convoluted because the truth of the matter is, there is no skill that warrants that kind of money. If it did exist, we’d pay the President of the United States a lot more than he currently makes.
“Just where is the regulation on the salary that made John Edwards a millionaire?”
I don’t know, but chances are, his skill wasn’t worth that much. It is interesting that you wish to see a limit in incomes of those you don’t agree with. Where’s your indignant attitude now?
I said:
“Kennedy is not a founding father”
You said:
“I never said he was. Did I?”
Yeah, you did. Here are your words:
“I can almost guarantee, JFK would expect a little more out of you as an individual rather than someone who pulls a lever for a socialist and justifies it by taking quotes by our founding fathers out of context to protect those that don’t work at all.”
Seeing as how the only person I quoted was Kennedy, the only logical inference to draw is that you were referring to him as a founding father.
“Something about the natural slip of “insky” or “inski” that makes me a tad nervous from someone who’s not a socialist.”
Do you always think in sound bytes? I have no idea how your brain works, but I’d be interested to see that side by side with the brain of a serial killer or something.
“She’s absolutely wrong”
No, she’s not. It makes perfect sense. And again, you use money as an argument, and when you do that in this type of scenario, just like Billy Bragg said to fascists everywhere, you’re bound to lose. There are finite number of professions where money is not and should not be a motivating factor. Police, fire fighter and doctor are among them. I know people from each of these three professions, and not one of them has ever given money as a reason for entering their respective field. You think in dollars and cents, and that’s perfect for your profession, but God help us if someone like you were a doctor.
“It’s when they go to work (as in any other field) and start paying taxes that they appreciate Republican positions.”
So, according to your logic, the nearly 70 million people who voted against the republican candidate in November don’t have jobs. I don’t understand how you fail to see the fallacy of your arguments before you make them. A full ten million more people appreciated the democratic position than did the republican position. They all pay taxes. And I’m sure they all realize that your policies don’t work. It doesn’t benefit society one bit to implement trickle down economic policies, or to start unjustified wars, or advocate for the outsourcing of American jobs for the almighty dollar. You can keep those positions, they’re not ones that the public appreciates. You use idiotic pejoratives like ‘tax and spend liberal’, while advocating for a borrow and spend mentality.
“My brother’s doctor performed brain surgery on him the day of the national election and joked that if he voted for Obama that he wouldn’t do the procedure.”
He probably lives next door to the stupid bitch who refused to give candy to children of Obama supporters. You like to throw around barbs like “un American”, how’s that for being exactly that?
“One of my best friends in the medical profession – an RN for almost ten years – sees already the worry among Doctors in her hospital. They are absolutely not promoting socialized medicine.”
Well, like the rest of the GOP and the country, they’re in the minority. I’m just waiting for you to quote some bullshit by the AMA. But, who knows, you may just be smarter than that…
“The only way to prosper is to take down taxation on all levels.”
Yeah, because that worked out great in the cases of Reagan and Bush Jr., right? Bush’s tax cuts only cost us $1.8 trillion and we pay an annual sum of $300 billion in INTEREST ONLY on the money that Reagan borrowed because he refused to leave tax rates for the rich where they belonged. We only enjoy the richest prosperity on ALL LEVELS when taxes go up, not down. We saw it in the 50’s under a smart republican president, and we saw it in the 90’s. How you manage to deny this is mind boggling.
“It’s amazing how so many understand the concept of fairness and competition in the Olympics. But can you imagine never having a winner? Just handing out gold metals to everyone based on a quota?”
Competition is something you pay lip service to, but don’t actually like. The health industry, for example, is like the Olympics with only one country competing against no other countries. Who do you think is going to get the medal? You people despise competition. You’re proving that now with this health care reform debate, and you proved it by responding to the imaginary threat of a Fairness Doctrine. Cons love the idea of a monopoly, it’s why they hate trial lawyers who enforce anti trust laws, and it’s why they cream their pants when oil companies merge, directly defying the Sherman Anti Trust Act. Competition is a joke to you people.
“I can compete and have no problem doing it on my own”
I sincerely doubt that.
“My family’s businesses have never needed unions or bailouts and we’ve always paid for our own healthcare.”
And yet you advocate for the biggest handout of all; even more tax breaks for the ultra rich and corporations that don’t pay their taxes in the first place. Amazing thing, that hypocrisy…
“And for good reason. Labor unions want the benefit of ownership without the risk of investment. That’s bad enough.”
Labor unions deserve ownership because the success or failure of that business relies on labor. Where would management be without labor? All that money they invested into an idea wouldn’t amount to shit without someone willing to do the hard work that the suits despise. It’s a pretty insidious thing to suggest that labor doesn’t deserve a spot at the bargaining table, that labor doesn’t deserve a say in how they’re treated. Labor unions serve a vital purpose in this country, and that is one of watchdog. Without labor unions, management has carte blanche to treat its employees like shit, and they regularly do. Just look at the amount of lawsuits that Wal-Mart had to settle due to its policy of not paying people the overtime that they worked. They would never pull that bullshit if a union represented their employees.
I’ve quoted Lincoln on this before, but I feel it’s worthy of repeating. He said that “labor is superior to capital, because it precedes it.” Remember that next time you think that the suits upstairs are some kind of gods.
“Well, see, normal people can acknowledge when something doesn’t work. Unlike you and your ilk, if this is a failure after four or eight years, we’ll say “hey he tried, but it didn’t work.” We won’t pretend that all his potential failings were a success, like you with every republican president since and including Nixon.”
Nonsense Robert, don’t deflect from your own stupidity of not living up to the great JFK’s speech of not looking back – or simply being the largest “progressive” hypocrite known to man – by stating things that are absolutely not true. Just days ago, we debated and I said Bush made a huge mistake with the bailout. Your problem is ideology, if in fact I supported the bailout but trashed the way he kept us safe for eight years, you’d consider that objective.
Speaking of which, Ann Coulter made a brilliant point. Deaths in Afghanistan are massive right now, more than in Iraq…wasn’t there a daily tally on the front page of the NY Times everyday when even one civilian died in Iraq? Where’s the media’s coverage of all the collateral damage in Afghanistan now in a poorly executed military strategy under your President who fights against the generals every chance he gets?
And moreover; if in fact we could pick and choose issues of Republican administrations and rate their success, then why cannot you observe the obvious that everything Jimmy Carter did screwed this nation up – and that Obama is merely repeating those same things? No, you blame the ramnifications on Ronald Reagan who was stuck putting this nation back together while simultaneously supporting his tax rates yet cannot seem to tell us which ones you support? The high ones he inherited under Carter or the really low ones in place after he left office?
“How about bold proposals to slash dangerous emissions by 85%, that you loonies on the right cried about because you love the status quo of loot and pollute?”
Sarah Palin started that long before he did as Alaska’s governor. Except she had a plan on what was going to happen to jobs in the meantime.
As for the health care plan, the effects have not been lived out.
You cannot acknowledge progress when in fact not one American has had to live through any of it yet.
“Hell, I watched that nimrod for five minutes yesterday and I felt dumber.”
As opposed to Keith Olbermann to has no ratings and not one dissenting voice or debater on his program.
And you’re the one defending putting caps on salaries in any field – let alone medical – why waste that energy if in fact the government had no intention on doing it?
‘Seeing as how the only person I quoted was Kennedy, the only logical inference to draw is that you were referring to him as a founding father.”
No it doesn’t. Our founding fathers are what we call a plural noun, Robert. I said how would JFK react to how you re-defined what those founding fathers said. I was referring to your previous drivel about the pursuit of life and happiness (which was under God by the way). That was absolutely not reasonable for you to draw that conclusion when I mentioned both JFK and the founding fathers in the same exact statement.
“Do you always think in sound bytes? I have no idea how your brain works, but I’d be interested to see that side by side with the brain of a serial killer or something.”
I’m not the one that bursts out in Tourette’s fits proving myself to be an emotional wreck whenever responding to Obama’s sliding poll numbers or Sarah Palin’s future. You are. You’ve used the f-word a zillion times in your cyber screamfests. If in fact one of us is to break into serial killer mode, it aint me – and all evidence proves it.
“So, according to your logic, the nearly 70 million people who voted against the republican candidate in November don’t have jobs.”
They also believed he was a moderate. They also believed that they were going to receive a tax cut. They also believed that people like Ann Coulter were crazy when she predicted that they were going to continue to lose jobs, therefore; receiving the tax cut Obama promised (if you aren’t working, you cannot pay taxes). Something tells me they weren’t signing onto Jimmy Carter #2 and many of them are suffering buyer’s remorse.
“He probably lives next door to the stupid bitch who refused to give candy to children of Obama supporters.”
As opposed to you who don’t even use the energy to do your own candy collecting. You’re one of those that believes all the kids should dump their sacks into one pile so it could be divided equally.
More to come, work and clients are calling.
I’ve quoted Lincoln on this before, but I feel it’s worthy of repeating. He said that “labor is superior to capital, because it precedes it.”
Lincoln is wrong. Very wrong.
Without people creating jobs by taking risks, there is no output for labor.
“How about bold proposals to slash dangerous emissions by 85%, that you loonies on the right cried about because you love the status quo of loot and pollute?”
Assuming global warming is not a myth, the only true way to stop it is to annihilate 3 billion people on Earth. This will happen. Either nature will do it or we will do it to each other.
The Earth right now is kind of like a science experiment we did in high school biology. We introduced bacteria to a Petri dish and gave the bacteria a food source to consume.
The bacteria grew in numbers. But, it exhausted its food source and died. Other than a lack of food, the bacteria had what it needed to survive e.g. we did not put the Petri dish into an oven and burn it or into a freezer and freeze it to death.
The Earth right now is dozens of Petri dishes with various amounts of life forms and resources. Unlike bacteria, we can try to leave our respective Petri dishes and do. There is going to be a lot of hopping around and none of us are ready for it.
“We know it to be because it frightens people like you who absolutely loathe the idea of honesty, fairness, and true competition.”
I love how you keep harping on “true competition.” Fairness and honesty, it’s so damned important–I’ve got news for you: life is not fair. I have been learning this lesson well in the past couple of weeks. You cannot legislate fairness or honesty, particularly considering that there’s not an honest politician on the hill.
Just to prove my point, I read as much of the new health care bill as I could get my hands on. Guess what? The way it’s written, those of us who have coverage will, in fact, be able to keep it. HOWEVER–we will not be able to change our coverage. And if we leave our current jobs, we won’t be able to get NEW coverage anywhere. It will be illegal to use anything at that point other than the public “option.” It’s in the first few paragraphs.
True competition my Texan ass.
“HOWEVER–we will not be able to change our coverage. And if we leave our current jobs, we won’t be able to get NEW coverage anywhere. It will be illegal to use anything at that point other than the public “option.” It’s in the first few paragraphs.
True competition my Texan ass.”
So, if I am insured with Kaiser and Blue Cross has a better deal I can’t switch to Blue Cross? I have to stay with Kaiser or go on the public plan?
If I work for company X and Blue Cross is their health care company and I change jobs and go to Company Y, I have to go on the public plan unless Company Y uses Blue Cross? What if Company X and Y merge? Does this mean one gorup of employees get tossed on to the public plan?
If I am 16 and under the public plan with my parents, what happens when I turn 18? Can I go off the public plan if my employer offers health insurance coverage from another insurer?
Exactly, John. The new legislation doesn’t cover those scenarios. It is literally written to snuff the private healthcare companies out of existence.
“Nonsense Robert, don’t deflect from your own stupidity of not living up to the great JFK’s speech of not looking back”
So, in your estimation, I’m stupid because I believe in accountability? I’m stupid for wanting to actually follow through on something we’ve all heard since we were kids – that actions have consequences? I’m stupid because I realize that before you know which way to go you have to remember where you’ve been? You fail to see all of this and I’m the stupid one. Classic. Dumbass.
“Just days ago, we debated and I said Bush made a huge mistake with the bailout”
Oh, brav-the-fuck-o! Good call man, you’re finally able to acknowledge reality in some small sense. Is that an earnest attempt at making me think you have an objective bone in your body? If it is, it ain’t working.
“Your problem is ideology, if in fact I supported the bailout but trashed the way he kept us safe for eight years, you’d consider that objective.”
How am I even supposed to make sense of that? Stop talking gibberish or just stop talking is the best advice I could give here.
“Speaking of which, Ann Coulter made a brilliant point. Deaths in Afghanistan are massive right now, more than in Iraq”
Then Ann Coulter is somehow a bigger idiot than I had her pegged for, which is like a kid finding out there’s such a thing as ‘below freezing’. 740 of our brave men and women have lost their lives in Afghanistan. Simple math tells us that the 4,323 who died in the Iraq debacle is far higher than 740. Ann Coulter is a moron, and I don’t even know what that makes you for believing her.
“wasn’t there a daily tally on the front page of the NY Times everyday when even one civilian died in Iraq? “
Possibly. Although in fairness to objectivity, it was probably to remind those of us with a conscience just how many died needlessly over a batch of lies. The situation is a little different in Afghanistan; mostly that terrorists who plot against our country are actually in Afghanistan…
“Where’s the media’s coverage of all the collateral damage in Afghanistan now in a poorly executed military strategy under your President who fights against the generals every chance he gets?”
Would these be the same generals who agreed with him about not torturing people anymore and closing the prison camp in Cuba? And all of a sudden you care about collateral damage? You were fine and dandy with the fact that the last president used over four thousand people as cannon fodder chasing phantom WMDs and getting revenge on the guy who used daddy Bush’s face as the flooring in hotels. Where was this compassion then? You people make me sick, having the unmitigated gall to even mention a war statistic only to criticize the democrat who’s cleaning up the republican’s mess.
“then why cannot you observe the obvious that everything Jimmy Carter did screwed this nation up”
Wow, sounds like you and Bush. Tell me though, was is screwed up that he negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt? Knowing you, you think it is, because the more death and destruction and war and chaos you freaks bring to the middle east, the more you think you can make Jesus come back in a self fulfilling prophecy sort of way.
Also, had we not had had a dick of a conservative come into the White House and rip the solar panels off the roof and tell the oil barons that it would be business as usual, we’d be practically energy independent, without even having to “drill baby, drill”.
“while simultaneously supporting his tax rates yet cannot seem to tell us which ones you support? The high ones he inherited under Carter or the really low ones in place after he left office?”
If you don’t know the answer to that question by now, you’re an idiot. If he had left them where Johnson had them, we wouldn’t have experienced two recessions under Reagan (boom, bubble, burst). We wouldn’t have had massive budget deficits, and therefore, no reason to raise payroll taxes on the middle class and the poor. It’s pretty simple actually.
“As opposed to Keith Olbermann to has no ratings and not one dissenting voice or debater on his program.”
So, lower ratings means dumber host? I think Hannity proves the fallacy of that notion. And, in fairness, Olbermann did have a guest with an opposing viewpoint on his show. On May 29, 2009, Erich Muller appeared on Countdown to discuss his newfound appreciation for the definition of the word torture. This conservative radio talk show host was much like you, a full on believer that waterboarding is nothing more than dripping water down someone’s nose, and that it did not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute torture. Well, that was until he experienced it firsthand, agreeing to be waterboarded for the expressed purpose of proving himself right. Reality sank in quicker for him than most victims of this practice. He was able to bear six seconds of the simulated drowning before signaling his desire for what he later deemed to be “absolutely torture” to end. The average time people can endure this harsh treatment is fourteen seconds. So, in the final analysis, I suppose you’re right, because at the end of his segment on Coundown, Muller agreed with Olbermann that waterboarding was indeed torture.
“And you’re the one defending putting caps on salaries in any field – let alone medical – why waste that energy if in fact the government had no intention on doing it?”
When did I ever express a desire to limit the income of physicians? Oh, that’s right, I didn’t, this is another straw man to combat logic in the health care debate. Speaking of which, I would be remiss if I didn’t bring this to everyone’s attention, so they can stare down the reality that conservatives are absolutely insane. Here’s Glenn Beck, frustrated with a caller that made more sense than him (as if that’s a feat that’s out of reach) when attempting to discuss health care. You’ve no doubt heard the audio clip of Beck flipping out and shrieking like a woman, but you may not have heard it put to music and dubbed a remix:
“I’m not the one that bursts out in Tourette’s fits proving myself to be an emotional wreck whenever responding to Obama’s sliding poll numbers or Sarah Palin’s future”
You clearly have no idea what TS actually is. If you did, you’d know that coprolalia is rarely associated with the disease. But, prove to me that I’ve ever been an emotional wreck over some nitwit like Sarah Palin, and I’ll eat my fucking hat. Oh, there I go, offending your delicate sensibilities again. I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that I was in the presence of children and needed to drop my tone. Let me know if it upsets you, and I’ll see what I can do.
“You’ve used the f-word a zillion times in your cyber screamfests. If in fact one of us is to break into serial killer mode, it aint me – and all evidence proves it.”
So, using your “logic”, that would mean well over half of the country’s comedians have a predilection for murder. That’s fucking idiotic and you know it. And I’m not too sure about your analysis, you strike me as having sociopathic tendencies. I’m still trying to figure out where you fall on John Dean’s scale of psychotic conservatives. Although, given your rigid support for someone as clearly inept and incompetent as Sarah Palin, whom dean calls an “archetypical authoritarian conservative”, I’d say you probably fall into that same category…
“They also believed he (Obama) was a moderate”
That means you did a terrible job at convincing the public that he was an ultra liberal socialist Muslim.
“They also believed that they were going to receive a tax cut”
And as of April this year, 95% of them are.
“They also believed that people like Ann Coulter were crazy when she predicted that they were going to continue to lose jobs”
Trust me when I tell you that that’s not the reason that people thought she was crazy. She’s widely considered an inveterate liar and rightly so.
“As opposed to you who don’t even use the energy to do your own candy collecting”
I’m twenty seven years old, you jackass.
“You’re one of those that believes all the kids should dump their sacks into one pile so it could be divided equally.”
That’s communism, idiot, not socialism. If you’re going to erroneously label me something, make sure you know what the hell you’re talking about first.
“Assuming global warming is not a myth, the only true way to stop it is to annihilate 3 billion people on Earth. This will happen. Either nature will do it or we will do it to each other.”
What is the matter with you people? Seriously. You’re like those wacko fundamentalist Christians that don’t believe in gravity or that Dinosaurs ever existed. What’s next, we didn’t really walk on the moon? And somehow liberals get labeled moonbats. That’s cool though, wingnuts suits you folks better anyway…
Oh, here’s the Glenn Beck link I meant to post earlier…
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1be_1247771997
“The way it’s written, those of us who have coverage will, in fact, be able to keep it. HOWEVER–we will not be able to change our coverage. And if we leave our current jobs, we won’t be able to get NEW coverage anywhere. It will be illegal to use anything at that point other than the public “option.” It’s in the first few paragraphs.”
I don’t know what the hell you read and where, but you’re wrong. The bill aims to phase out the for profit aspect of it, over fifteen years. Investors will even be reimbursed if they should happen to incur any losses. Nowhere does it say you can only use the public option. If you want to stay with your current provider, you can do just that. The only thing that will change will be that your insurance provider will no longer be allowed to be for profit, meaning that it will operate as a privately owned entity, but will be prohibited from being investor owned. I don’t see a problem with that. All that will happen is that health care will revert back to its original form, and that is a not for profit system. You like to pretend that the health care industry is just that – an industry, but the truth of the matter is that the business aspect of it didn’t come around for decades, not the other way around.
You can read the entire text of the bill here:
http://www.pnhp.org/docs/nhi_bill_final1.pdf
“True competition my Texan ass.”
You’re from Texas? Wow. I’m sorry…
“It is literally written to snuff the private healthcare companies out of existence.”
No, it isn’t. It’s written to take the profit and greed out of the equation. Literally the only thing that will change is that people will no longer be able to get rich by denying people’s claims. That’s all. How you find anything bad in that is frankly astounding.
“What is the matter with you people? Seriously. You’re like those wacko fundamentalist Christians that don’t believe in gravity or that Dinosaurs ever existed. What’s next, we didn’t really walk on the moon? And somehow liberals get labeled moonbats. That’s cool though, wingnuts suits you folks better anyway.”
There is nothing wrong with me. The Earth is not blessed with abdundant resources that renew over and over. Resources are scarce to one degree or another.
When there are too many people competing for limited resources, conflicts erupt, wars start and people get killed. Do you think wars only start because one Prime Minister hates another and they settle it up by sending in jets and tanks?
When crops are destroyed by weather related events, locusts or plant disease do you think the people who depend on those crops stop eating? Do you think they stop getting hungry? Do you think they queitly sit down and starve to death? If they did then the nation of Ethiopia would not have food troubles it constantly has.
You said you live in Arizona. What will happen to Arizona if the Colorado river runs dry? Are you all going to quietly sit there and die of thirst? Do you think the people of my part of CA are going to welcome you with open arms?
We have our own water issues without adding a few million more to the tally.
If this global warming thing is real, then hybrid cars, wind power, and solar energy won’t save us. But, the thinning of the heard will. It’s going to happen if this global warming thing is real. Either nature will do it or we will do it to each other. But, it will happen.
I advise the members of my parish with young children to teach their kids how to shoot and buy them guns. Their kids are going to need them when they become adults and people will kill for a glass of water.
Robert, you’re looking at the wrong bill. What you linked is a paisley 30 pages in length; the actual bill is 1,018 pages in length and can be viewed here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+3200:
Click on Sec 102, titled “Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.”
“No, it isn’t. It’s written to take the profit and greed out of the equation. Literally the only thing that will change is that people will no longer be able to get rich by denying people’s claims. ”
Bullshit. I say again, you read the wrong piece of legislation. Read the correct one–the one that’s now moving through committee–and your hair should curl. Even in Sec 101, it starts off by mandating sweeping changes to the health insurance industry, including making illegal any health insurance that doesn’t meet stringent new coverage standards.
Now, I ask you this…health insurance tends to be most expensive on the East Coast, where law requires health insurance to cover all manner of expensive alternative therapies (acupuncture, pastoral counseling, etc.). Iowa health care laws, however, don’t make such requirements, and as a result health care in that state costs less than one-third what health care costs in New Jersey.
There’s a lot more to this than most people realize. Current laws exacerbate the problem just as much as health insurance companies do. If healthcare were allowed to operate as the private business that it at least partially is now without so much government intervention, then like anything else, competition would help it flourish and prices would go down.
But that doesn’t fit into the liberal equation, does it?
I’m looking at the wrong bill? This is the legislation I called my congressman and asked him to support. This is the only thing I’ve heard of. I just received another email about it this morning as a matter of fact.
The link you provided goes to a blank page, but I googled HR 3200, and it says it was written in 2007. Where exactly is the piece of legislation that is actively being pushed?
Okay, try this one:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show
“So, in your estimation, I’m stupid because I believe in accountability? I’m stupid for wanting to actually follow through on something we’ve all heard since we were kids – that actions have consequences?”
Sure, like – you have to go to work, save your money and don’t buy a house you cannot afford! Oh yeah, and don’t run up credit cards that you don’t intend on paying back without governmental intrusive legislating re-writing the agreements you made when you were sliding the plastic through having one hell of a shopping spree. Yes, those kinds of consequences are great! But, because of your views, most people will never be forced to feel them, leaving millions of unlearned lessons and millions more of those same mistakes to happen all over again.
“Oh, brav-the-fuck-o! Good call man, you’re finally able to acknowledge reality in some small sense. Is that an earnest attempt at making me think you have an objective bone in your body? If it is, it ain’t working.”
Thanks! Of course, you’d minimize it once you were proven wrong. I know, you’re a liberal who is above being driven crazy to the point of vulgarities.
“How am I even supposed to make sense of that? Stop talking gibberish or just stop talking is the best advice I could give here.”
The statement was quite clear. Try reading it again.
“Simple math tells us that the 4,323 who died in the Iraq debacle is far higher than 740. Ann Coulter is a moron, and I don’t even know what that makes you for believing her.”
The numbers are in the time span of the entire Iraq was versus the deaths in the short amount of time in Afghanistan right now. They are much worse than in Iraq.
But if you really are taking the position that we indeed have more enemies in Iraq, then you can finally shut up about “what were we doing there? ”
“Possibly. Although in fairness to objectivity, it was probably to remind those of us with a conscience just how many died needlessly over a batch of lies.”
A batch of lies but miraculously, Robert can detect over 4,000 military deaths in a country killed by people who had no problem with us – ever!
“Would these be the same generals who agreed with him about not torturing people anymore and closing the prison camp in Cuba? And all of a sudden you care about collateral damage?”
Nope, I think collateral damage is just a part of war. The point is, the media has stopped caring suddenly.
“Tell me though, was is screwed up that he negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt?”
This is like taking credit for putting a piece of paper in the trash. Reagan worked feverishly to establish peace-keeping missions with Lebanon between Muslims and Christians. It didn’t work.
This proves the broader point that it never was about one country versus another one. It is one extreme ideology versus freedom. And that ideology (the one that was in Iran at the time) got 150+ Americans held hostage for 444 days which started the splendid relationship we have with Iran today.
“If you don’t know the answer to that question by now, you’re an idiot. If he had left them where Johnson had them, we wouldn’t have experienced two recessions under Reagan (boom, bubble, burst).”
Nonsense, with the famed Johnson rates came Carterism’s famed unemployment, national record interest, and double-digit inflation. Reagan inherited it and was given eight years to do what he did – re-establish Americanism, lower taxes by the end of his second term, drive the stock market through the roof and create opportunity all across the land. There was only one problem, Robert….you had to work for it.
Where do you think shows like “Dallas” and “Dynasty” thrived from? It was the massive excess that the Reaganesque era of the 1980′s represented. Only on TV, it was cool for Blake Carrington or J.R. to make a shrewd business decision because it made for good business.
You think the idea for those shows stemmed from Jimmy Carter?
“So, lower ratings means dumber host? I think Hannity proves the fallacy of that notion. And, in fairness, Olbermann did have a guest with an opposing viewpoint on his show. On May 29, 2009, Erich Muller appeared on Countdown to discuss his newfound appreciation for the definition of the word torture.”
LMAO, “THE” Erich Muller!? The great and world known Erich Muller?
Give me a break!
“This conservative radio talk show host was much like you, a full on believer that waterboarding is nothing more than dripping water down someone’s nose”
I always love this argument. When dealing with terrorists, I’d prefer not use the same standard of what we could get out of the great Erich Muller, no matter how influential and respected throughout the world as he may be.
It’s hilarious to me that a.) liberals demand we be water-boarded because we support it. Robert, will you abort yourself since you support abortion? Can we abort the terrorists instead of water-boarding them? b.) liberals want news-anchors to want to be able to withstand what happens to someone who flies a plane into a building. How about one liberal live as a Muslim for a year and be forced to follow such rules, then come back and tell us just how dangerous Christianity is. Sean Hannity or any conservative does not have to be waterboarded to support it, that’s absurd. Just how long are you going to use that childish argument?
“You clearly have no idea what TS actually is. If you did, you’d know that coprolalia is rarely associated with the disease. But, prove to me that I’ve ever been an emotional wreck over some nitwit like Sarah Palin, and I’ll eat my fucking hat.”
Yes I know what a Tourette’s fit looks like and two: shouldn’t we check with a news anchor on MSNBC to make sure eating a hat isn’t considered “torture?” I cannot possibly support doing it simply because Sarah Palin gets your blood pressure up. Curiously though, why would you even need a hat….since Sarah Palin’s making you lose your hair everytime I mention her?
“So, using your “logic”, that would mean well over half of the country’s comedians have a predilection for murder. That’s fucking idiotic and you know it.”
You’re not a comedian. Bill Maher usually makes a good point first.
“That means you did a terrible job at convincing the public that he was an ultra liberal socialist Muslim.”
It wasn’t conservatives calling him a Muslim. It was Democrats using it to detour from real relations like Wright and Ayers. And because the media contributed to the misinformation to Americans about his socialist views, here we are today and here is approval numbers are slipping. Any idea why that is?
“And as of April this year, 95% of them are.”
$13 for trillions in debt left for their future generations to pay for? Ask them to check that box again, why don’t you?
“Trust me when I tell you that that’s not the reason that people thought she was crazy. She’s widely considered an inveterate liar and rightly so.”
She’s never lied. Even when she pointed out the Keith Olbermann went to the Old Macdonald Cornell.
“That’s communism, idiot, not socialism. If you’re going to erroneously label me something, make sure you know what the hell you’re talking about first.”
No….the government doesn’t own the candy, little liberal. If it did, it would be communist. The people still own it and they are the ones who pass it out….the government just cannot keep its hands off those collected.
“Sure, like – you have to go to work, save your money and don’t buy a house you cannot afford!”
The number of people who actually bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford is slim, so slim that you even mentioning it makes you look foolish. You know who those people are that did that? Not the people who lived in them, the people flipping the houses to get rich. Don’t they now automatically have your admiration?
“Yes, those kinds of consequences are great! But, because of your views, most people will never be forced to feel them, leaving millions of unlearned lessons and millions more of those same mistakes to happen all over again.”
I’m not sure how the conversation went from you defending the crimes of the last administration to you defending the credit card companies, but some of us decent folk believe in a little thing called usury laws. You’re fine with people being ripped off because it makes for richer clients, or some other equally disgusting reason.
“Thanks! Of course, you’d minimize it once you were proven wrong. I know, you’re a liberal who is above being driven crazy to the point of vulgarities.”
What exactly was I proven wrong about? The fact that you pushed all your sycophantic instincts aside to give one piss poor criticism of Bush? That’s not proving me wrong, I’ve known your weak position for some time now. And apparently anyone who uses “vulgarities” is crazy. Better to be crazy than a sissy who’s offended by (fairly) nondescript words, I say…
“The numbers are in the time span of the entire Iraq was versus the deaths in the short amount of time in Afghanistan right now. They are much worse than in Iraq.”
Short amount of time in Afghanistan? You know we’ve been there since 2001, right?
“But if you really are taking the position that we indeed have more enemies in Iraq, then you can finally shut up about “what were we doing there? ””
You’re an idiot.
“A batch of lies but miraculously, Robert can detect over 4,000 military deaths in a country killed by people who had no problem with us – ever!”
I never said they had no problem with us, I said we had no problem with them. We created a problem for them when we started bombing their country for reasons only believed by ignorant people in this country. And it infuriated people like you when they defended their country, making the solution to kill more of them, as if that solved anything. What did you think, Steve, that they were just going to allow themselves to be slaughtered because America is great? Don’t be so dense.
“Nope, I think collateral damage is just a part of war.”
Compassionate conservatism, ladies and gentlemen. This is why people hate anyone idiotic enough to admit to being a republican.
“The point is, the media has stopped caring suddenly.”
Suddenly? The media stopped caring about Afghanistan a loooooong time ago, friend.
“This is like taking credit for putting a piece of paper in the trash”
Are you really this partisan? You do know that Israelis and Egyptians (and Americans as well) both said “no Carter, no peace treaty”, right? So much for that paper in the trash thing.
“Reagan worked feverishly to establish peace-keeping missions with Lebanon between Muslims and Christians. It didn’t work.”
Maybe that’s because his peace keeping missions consisted of dropping bombs on Lebanon. Just a thought…
“Nonsense, with the famed Johnson rates came Carterism’s famed unemployment, national record interest, and double-digit inflation.”
Right, and it only took three presidents to kick in? That’s moronic.
“drive the stock market through the roof “
Apparently they skipped the “Black Monday” fiasco in neocon class…
“You think the idea for those shows stemmed from Jimmy Carter?”
The fact that you can credit a president with the creation of a television show says all sorts of weird shit about you…
“I always love this argument. When dealing with terrorists, I’d prefer not use the same standard of what we could get out of the great Erich Muller, no matter how influential and respected throughout the world as he may be.”
What is this obsession you have with turning everything into a popularity contest? You were a lonely kid, weren’t you? The point is, this dumbass held the same belief that you refuse to let go of, that waterboarding is not torture. He experienced it first hand, and he came to the same conclusion that any logical (i.e., not you) person would come to, and that is, it is absolutely torture. You can’t wrap your brain around the truth, so you attack the guy’s popularity, as if that had any fucking effect on the outcome. What, will it take Ann Coulter being waterboarded and declaring it torture until you believe it?
“liberals demand we be water-boarded because we support it”
I don’t recall demanding that you be waterboarded.
“Robert, will you abort yourself since you support abortion?”
I don’t support abortion, dummy.
“liberals want news-anchors to want to be able to withstand what happens to someone who flies a plane into a building”
I didn’t realize that people suspected of terrorists were born with some innate ability to survive drowning. It probably comes in handy when you’re surrounded by sand on all sides.
“Sean Hannity or any conservative does not have to be waterboarded to support it, that’s absurd”
What’s even more absurd is that Hannitary napkin offered to be waterboarded, you know for the families of troops. Then, mysteriously, he doesn’t utter a peep about it in the future at all, even when money was involved.
And it’s not absurd that you experience something to support it. It makes for a beautiful example of the cowardice of conservatives, particularly the chickenhawks like yourself who were gung ho for a war you wholeheartedly supported, yet refused to fight it yourself. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that cons aren’t willing to experience that pesky little water dripping down their noses…
“since Sarah Palin’s making you lose your hair everytime I mention her?”
You seem incredibly preoccupied with the idea of me getting upset with Sarah Palin for reasons you have yet to offer. Does it bother you that I don’t think much of her and don’t bother to waste my time talking about her? It seems like you keep looking for a specific reaction, and you’re disappointed because you’re not getting it. Kind of like when you ignore a crying baby, and it makes them cry even more because you aren’t paying attention to them…
“It wasn’t conservatives calling him a Muslim.”
So, this lady is a democrat?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QhJJBfwJME
Yeah, I saw that Hillary shirt she was wearing…
“No….the government doesn’t own the candy, little liberal. If it did, it would be communist. The people still own it and they are the ones who pass it out….the government just cannot keep its hands off those collected.”
You still don’t know what communism, do you? It is a society where all property is PUBLICLY owned. Communism is not a form of government in the way that you’re thinking. Communism was implemented by native Americans where anything and everything was collectively owned by the tribe. So, my original point still stands, you made an idiotic and factually incorrect comparison.
“The number of people who actually bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford is slim, so slim that you even mentioning it makes you look foolish.”
Really, because nice neighborhoods in the area here beg to differ. Before “working to earn it” went out of style, these neighborhoods were envied by all. Now, every three houses have tall grass empty insides, and most have had water left running and concrete poured down pipes to ruin the plumbing. Yes, Robert – those people re-financed EVERY YEAR that the house’s value would go up to pay for their over-their-head spending accrued the year before. To defend this and pretend as if it doesn’t exist is preposterous of you, it is a massive problem and SOLELY to blame for the largest cluster of foreclosures last year. There is one party to blame for that and it’s not mine.
I guarantee you, those foreclosed on described above that often swim in waters that are above-their-head did not vote for the Republican ticket – nor do I want them to. They wanted Obama to pay their bills.
“I’m not sure how the conversation went from you defending the crimes of the last administration to you defending the credit card companies”
Cause and effect was your topic. Collateral damage is expected in war. That’s your lesson of “cause and effect” when history pretty much already told us what to expect once the shooting started. Suddenly, liberals acted as if they had never cracked a history book….and miraculously they tend to cherry-pick the lessons of cause-and-effect when trying to call George Bush a criminal and defending the idiotic spenders of this country who think the rest of us who work hard have to pay for their stupidity.
“What exactly was I proven wrong about? The fact that you pushed all your sycophantic instincts aside to give one piss poor criticism of Bush?”
No, the fact that I criticized Bush on the bailout, Harriet Miers, his stance on immigration, etc…long before you stupidly boasted that I defended everything he did.
“Short amount of time in Afghanistan? You know we’ve been there since 2001, right?”
I’m talking about this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,531548,00.html
It discusses the climbing and quick present death toll in Afghanistan. Apparently, Obama has no exit strategy, no timeline, no plans? Perhaps you can tell us precisely what that is.
“You’re an idiot.”
A simple response once one is over-whelmed. Oh well, we forgive you.
“And it infuriated people like you when they defended their country, making the solution to kill more of them, as if that solved anything.”
That was going to be my prediction. Of course, the next step is to make excuses for extremist insurgents and terrorists who believe in an ideology you couldn’t last one day under.
Nah there was never a problem, not one until one American President said “No More!” and of course, the destruction of tyranny which was celebrated in the Balkans in denounced by the “progressives.” Familiar road, next time try a different turn.
“Maybe that’s because his peace keeping missions consisted of dropping bombs on Lebanon. Just a thought…”
Another lie. Reagan’s peace-keeping force did not consist of dropping bombs on villages and while he didn’t invite them over for tea as the liberals would love to do with extremists like them or Bill Ayers for that matter, he was able to localize many of the efforts. It wasn’t until after the 1983 attacks on the Marine barracks in Beirut until we shot back with full force. That attack was in response to the effort. Stop trying to misplace America’s response to the attack after October of 1983. Prior to that, Reagan did plenty to establish peace, the darlings merely weren’t interested.
But this is another fact that liberals hate having pointed out – do you see Robert’s inclination to again reward the terrorists for blowing up over 250+ Marines in Lebanon by giving THEM his benefit of the doubt over Ronald Reagan for the sheer purposes of sounding like Dennis Kucinich?
You’re the one who progresses at digging a pile of mud for yourself and you merely just pointed out as fact what Republicans have said all along. Whether it be national security, taxation, financial crises – your position stands to punish friends and reqard enemies. Punish success and reward failure…the successful are only successful because they are evil in some unprovable but totally politcally correct way you dream up in your mind and the failures were victimized. The terrorists are misunderstood and Reagan along with the Marines under his command were the peacebreakers.
We get it! Just don’t get mad at us for pointing it out whenever you bring it up.
“Right, and it only took three presidents to kick in? That’s moronic.”
Carter’s reward for failure took the rates and made them meaningless. After FDR’s massive increase which was supposed to be temporary – Americans like yourself got used to others paying for others to live and breathe, as if the world owned them something for being here. It was high time to show that tax rates will NEVER erase the unworthy’s constant actions that put themselves in these places to begin with. Even now, the weak are continuing to grow weaker. The crackheads at ACORN are still crackheads and Obama is eating steak. There’s a price, and your crowd will be the ones to pay it because of the support you throw our for the idiocy, not because people like me are greedy.
“What is this obsession you have with turning everything into a popularity contest? You were a lonely kid, weren’t you? The point is, this dumbass held the same belief that you refuse to let go of, that waterboarding is not torture.”
The fact is, liberals “opposition” usually consists of people like Scott McClellan or this “dumbass” (agreed). It amazes me that CBS and MSNBC are now reporting what Levi Johnston thinks of Sarah Palin as a President.
The average news anchor at either network I am assuming is college educated. What’s the bigger mystery here?
1.) What does Levi Johnston; a high school dropout and deadbeat dad think of Sarah Palin as President and what’s the fastest way to get this important news to the public?
2.) Why would anyone worth their salt ask Levi Johnston what he thinks of the Backstreet Boys, let alone who would make a good President?
Somehow, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow thought it was newsworthty. I cannot say I am surprised.
Stephen Colbert also thought it was newsworthy to interview Kathleen Parker – (THE Kathleen Parker!). The one who wrote a column (alleged Republican) during the campaign saying Sarah Palin was a bad choice for Vice President.
It’s why “The View” decided to have Meghan McCain on. It’s exactly why Meghan McCain now thinks she can publish a film next year about the life of a “Republican” as a young girl as if anyone is remotely interested. (Curiously enough requesting that Hillary Duff play her).
Say, couldn’t Meghan and Levi collobarate on a book telling us what’s wrong with Republicanism? I can see the CBS two-hour special now!
The point is, that was no debate for Keith Olbermann and a sad excuse. The only reason you guys use Republicans for credibility is when some stupid weak-one comes out to grab headlines. We never said there were never any bad Republicans, but there isn’t any good Democrats.
Sean Hannity has taken on James Carville, Bob Beckel, Al Sharpton, every head of every liberal organization, members of the Nation magazine, Cindy Sheehan, Bill Maher, Michael Moore.
Instead of making Ann Coulter “The Worst Person in the World” for the trillionth time, how about Keith actually DEBATE her? I guarantee you, it’ll never happen, nor would he debate Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity because he couldn’t do it.
“I don’t recall demanding that you be waterboarded.”
Mentioning that any Republican be water-boarded – even if it were Rush, Coulter, or Hannity is absurd. You know what I meant. Stop trying to divert.
“What’s even more absurd is that Hannitary napkin offered to be waterboarded, you know for the families of troops. Then, mysteriously, he doesn’t utter a peep about it in the future at all, even when money was involved.”
I’m not sure about that, however, he never owed to you to be waterboarded. The idea that he had to was created once against by liberal stupidity.
“I don’t support abortion, dummy.”
Affectionately, I am glad nimrod.
“particularly the chickenhawks like yourself who were gung ho for a war you wholeheartedly supported, yet refused to fight it yourself.”
Another example, YES it is absurd to demand someone join something to support something. Unless this year you are willing to fight crime, fight fires, teach a class full of screaming fifth graders (though I must admit the union benefits I hear are excellent), or plan on growing breasts….don’t ever again pretend that you support the police, fire fighters, teachers, or women. If you support gays, do you have to sleep with men?
How stupid. The point Robert, is that those types of STUPID arguments should never be to begin with!
“So, this lady is a democrat?”
Mirculously, the news stories on that ONE video were plenty. The media used all the crazy stories like Obama’s birth certificate and his alleged Muslim background to refrain from talking about real concerns like Ayers and Wright. But I do not recall many answers to Palin’s “book banning” rumors, or the rumors about Trig not belonging to her. The point is, liberals used the crazy rumors of Obama to cover that true things we could back up with no problem whatsoever.
“You still don’t know what communism, do you? It is a society where all property is PUBLICLY owned. Communism is not a form of government in the way that you’re thinking. Communism was implemented by native Americans where anything and everything was collectively owned by the tribe. So, my original point still stands, you made an idiotic and factually incorrect comparison.”
Nice try. I never said the candy was publicly owned. I said it was privately owned and it was passed out at the will of the people. I then said that the government came in and split it up to divide up. What you just described (the bad definition of “communism”) does not even come close to defining my original comment on socialism to which you said sounded like communism in your sad attempt at being clever.
Once again, it backfired on you….two steps back for the progressive.
Get used to those terms: “back” and “fired.”
“The number of people who actually bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford is slim, so slim that you even mentioning it makes you look foolish.”
Maybe this summer you can visit Stockton, CA and see for yourself. Entire neighborhoods are nearly devoid of occupied homes.
You can also swing by Vallejo, CA before you visit San Francisco and see more of the same.
Stockton and Vallejo had two things in common. For people who could afford to live in the immediate Bay Area, Vallejo was the last place they could afford and still be in the Bay Area. Stockton was the nex place out in the Valley that was affordable and reasonably close to the job rich Bay Area.
Both towns are in bad straights. Stockton is one of the worse hit areas in the U.S.
My city has very few foreclosures because even at no money down it was not affordable to live here. No amount of creative financing can get you into a home in this stuck up suburb.
“Collateral damage is expected in war.”
Unlike past wars, this war has media coverage that can speed information to the masses through various forums in almost real time.
My great uncle was in WW II. He moved across occupied France and Germany as part of the D-Day invasion. He was not part of the Omaha or Utah beach landings. His action came after that.
People don’t know what his unit did to captured German soldiers. Poeple shouldn’t know. But, when an enemy unit tries to kill your men and you capture them, do you think being Mr. Nice Nice to a bunch of guys who just killed some of your guys is a top priority?
There are things we know about Iraq that we should not know. Unless you are there and under fire, you don’t need to know such things.
Nobody does.
“To defend this and pretend as if it doesn’t exist is preposterous of you, it is a massive problem and SOLELY to blame for the largest cluster of foreclosures last year. There is one party to blame for that and it’s not mine.”
Wrong on all counts. Yeah, people knew they were only getting teaser rates, which were purposefully and deceptively low, they knew that they really qualified for prime loans but that the banks gave them sub prime loans. They knew it all, and decided it was in the best interest of themselves and their families to settle into a house they knew they’d be abandoning in two years. Are you fucking retarded? And seeing as how your party was in charge when this all went down, I would say the blame lies squarely with them. Hey, the ownership society – what a country!
“I guarantee you, those foreclosed on described above that often swim in waters that are above-their-head did not vote for the Republican ticket – nor do I want them to”
Really, because if they truly are the accountability ducking leeches you claim they are, then I’d be shocked to find out they weren’t big dubya supporters…
“Collateral damage is expected in war. That’s your lesson of “cause and effect” when history pretty much already told us what to expect once the shooting started”
History also tells us that with the exception of the Vietnam War, war is a legitimate and unavoidable thing. It’s showed that it requires sacrifice and it also showed that taxes are never cut in a time of war. All that went out the window when junior came to town. Funny how history gets ignored like that.
“and miraculously they tend to cherry-pick the lessons of cause-and-effect when trying to call George Bush a criminal and defending the idiotic spenders of this country who think the rest of us who work hard have to pay for their stupidity.”
You really should avoid using the phrase “cherry pick” and George Bush in the same sentence. And I see you have no problem footing future generations with the bill for his little “democratic” endeavor to the tune of almost two trillion dollars. Who do you think gets to pay for that, genius? I would submit to you that that is completely idiotic spending on the part of the so called fiscally conservative party.
“No, the fact that I criticized Bush on the bailout, Harriet Miers, his stance on immigration, etc…long before you stupidly boasted that I defended everything he did.”
Before the bailout, he was God to you, Reagan incarnate. You like to pretend that isn’t the case because you’ve finally opened your eyes to the mess he left us with, and have no choice but to lay some criticism on him. But hey, you can still cling to the notion that Iraq posed some kind of threat to us, and that he kept the country safe after first letting 3,000 people die.
“It discusses the climbing and quick present death toll in Afghanistan.”
Oh, the British! Now you care about other countries? How does that work? From 2003 on, I guarantee your stance was something along the lines of “fuck the UN, we don’t need to worry about other countries, we only care about us, blah blah”. It’s truly astonishing how quickly your “principles” give way when your party is out of power…
“A simple response once one is over-whelmed. Oh well, we forgive you.”
Yeah, you try not to be overwhelmed when some blowhard ignores everything you’ve ever said and asks moronic questions like this:
“But if you really are taking the position that we indeed have more enemies in Iraq, then you can finally shut up about “what were we doing there?”
“That was going to be my prediction. Of course, the next step is to make excuses for extremist insurgents and terrorists who believe in an ideology you couldn’t last one day under.”
How is that even remotely the point? Why on earth do you give a fuck how someone half a world away lives their life? And how is that a justification for what was done? You cannot defend what common sense so easily tears down, so your choice becomes to call people terrorists because they live in the middle east. You’ve failed every time to answer the simple fucking question of what you would do if some foreign force decided we were a threat and that they should come in, guns blazing, trying to occupy us. If you’re human, your answer would be to drive out the occupiers at any cost, but your nonsensical ideology will force you to say something ridiculous like “I wouldn’t have been a terrorist in the first place”. Too late for that, I suppose…
“Nah there was never a problem, not one until one American President said “No More!” and of course, the destruction of tyranny which was celebrated in the Balkans in denounced by the “progressives.” Familiar road, next time try a different turn.”
Is this a reference to Clinton? Because the last time I checked, no Americans were killed, he didn’t need to lie to obtain military action, and ironically enough, he was criticized by then governor Bush for not having an exit strategy. Still took less than six years though…
“do you see Robert’s inclination to again reward the terrorists for blowing up over 250+ Marines in Lebanon by giving THEM his benefit of the doubt over Ronald Reagan for the sheer purposes of sounding like Dennis Kucinich?”
Do you see why you get called stupid for saying dumb shit like this? When did I ever say those responsible for bombing the barracks were justified and had my sympathy? You like to assign opinions to others because you don’t know how to have an open debate (and yes I appreciate the irony of that statement after having called attention to your predilection for stupidity). You say sensationalistic things to make liberals seem crazy, yet anyone who has read this exchange will see that I never professed this position to which you’ve assigned me. That’s like me saying that you love child molesters because you refuse to denounce Mark Foley. Oh, hey, everyone, Steve loves child molesters! Does that make sense? Didn’t think so.
“You’re the one who progresses at digging a pile of mud for yourself and you merely just pointed out as fact what Republicans have said all along. Whether it be national security, taxation, financial crises – your position stands to punish friends and reqard [sic] enemies. Punish success and reward failure”
Goddamn, you’re dumb. It’s like talking to a fucking invalid…
“the successful are only successful because they are evil in some unprovable but totally politcally [sic] correct way you dream up in your mind and the failures were victimized. The terrorists are misunderstood and Reagan along with the Marines under his command were the peacebreakers.”
Steve, you used to be smarter than this…
“Carter’s reward for failure took the rates and made them meaningless.”
Give me one instance in which Carter rewarded failure. Just one, and we’ll go from there.
“Americans like yourself got used to others paying for others to live and breathe, as if the world owned them something for being here”
Wow, apparently you have yet to hit bottom. So, now your beef is with old people collecting Social Security? The same Social Security they spent their whole lives paying into? Hey, we needed something to get us out of the republican great depression…
“The crackheads at ACORN are still crackheads and Obama is eating steak.”
Yes, and the scumbags at the Heritage Foundation are still scumbags, and you’re still eating crow. What’s the point?
“The point is, that was no debate for Keith Olbermann and a sad excuse. “
Who said anything about a debate? The guy came on to talk about his experience, and he was able to be a man and admit he was wrong. It’s kind of sad when you need to take a life lesson from someone who calls himself “mancow”
“The only reason you guys use Republicans for credibility is when some stupid weak-one comes out to grab headlines”
So, the guy is stupid and weak because he can’t withstand torture? I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that you couldn’t last five seconds of “water dripping down your nose”.
“We never said there were never any bad Republicans, but there isn’t any good Democrats.”
Apparently, there also “isn’t” any competent educators anymore either…
“Instead of making Ann Coulter “The Worst Person in the World” for the trillionth time, how about Keith actually DEBATE her? I guarantee you, it’ll never happen, nor would he debate Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity because he couldn’t do it.”
Or, and let’s entertain this scenario, they won’t come on his program. I can’t tell you how many people challenge cons to a debate, and they never take them up on that. Ed Shultz just challenged Rush Limbaugh to a debate, do you think he’ll show up?
“I’m not sure about that, however, he never owed to you to be waterboarded.”
No one forced him to offer. He didn’t have to open up his big yapper. He said he’d do it for charity, don’t get pissy with me for pointing it out.
“Another example, YES it is absurd to demand someone join something to support something. Unless this year you are willing to fight crime, fight fires, teach a class full of screaming fifth graders (though I must admit the union benefits I hear are excellent), or plan on growing breasts….don’t ever again pretend that you support the police, fire fighters, teachers, or women. If you support gays, do you have to sleep with men?”
Wow, really? There’s a far cry from the subject at hand. You sound like that idiot that said he supported the Yankees, but that didn’t mean he needed to join the team. The point is, the police, fire fighters, et. al. are all legitimate needs that are addressed in each community. Something like a full scale war is not something addressed with a few dozen people. The difference is, everyone appreciates the need for police and firefighters, those people aren’t sent in to fight crime that doesn’t exist. They aren’t sent to douse water on homes that aren’t on fire. You believed what society as a whole did not, and that was that Iraq posed an immediate threat against this country. You thought it was fine that so many people were dying needlessly, because you felt it was justified. That being the case, it only makes sense to be hands on with something you in the minority believe so strongly in. Like if you were totally stoked with the idea of sifting through pig shit to find rare coins in some remote part of the world, one would assume that you’d be the first to volunteer for that, right? Same thing here.
“Mirculously, [sic] the news stories on that ONE video were plenty. The media used all the crazy stories like Obama’s birth certificate and his alleged Muslim background to refrain from talking about real concerns like Ayers and Wright”
Wait, you aren’t one of the crazies who thinks Obama was born in Kenya? And the so called liberal media spent months on subjects like insane Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. The people obviously didn’t buy what the media was selling. The only people who were concerned with that were dopey idiots too willing to let the REAL real issues, which were the war and the economy, go undiscussed. Wright and Ayers were the distractions, not some crazy old bat who thought Obama was a terrorist.
“Nice try. I never said the candy was publicly owned. I said it was privately owned and it was passed out at the will of the people. I then said that the government came in and split it up to divide up. What you just described (the bad definition of “communism”) does not even come close to defining my original comment on socialism to which you said sounded like communism in your sad attempt at being clever.
Once again, it backfired on you….two steps back for the progressive.”
Oh, my God. You have a terrible time handling being wrong, don’t you? Why don’t you tell me where the government fits into this commentary:
“You’re one of those that believes all the kids should dump their sacks into one pile so it could be divided equally.”
Are you honestly trying to tell me that what you really meant to say was the candy is all dumped into a pile, then the government comes in and distributes it to all the kids? Or were you really trying to tell me that the candy was produced by the government and then passed out to all the kids? Either way, you’re wrong. That’s cute though, how you try to feign some sort of triumph in a conversation about candy because you can’t properly assign words with their appropriate definitions…
“Wrong on all counts. Yeah, people knew they were only getting teaser rates, which were purposefully and deceptively low, they knew that they really qualified for prime loans but that the banks gave them sub prime loans. They knew it all, and decided it was in the best interest of themselves and their families to settle into a house they knew they’d be abandoning in two years. Are you fucking retarded? And seeing as how your party was in charge when this all went down”
Seeings as members of my party were warning Democrats as little as three years ago, as McCain warned, as Bush warned – and nevermind the fact that the Fair Housing Act had been passed long before Bush came around AND homes had already been acquired before he took office, well then you have yourself a convenient set up for the Democrats. It blew up during the END of his administration as economists (or as you would peg them, racist elites known as Republicans) predicted it would.
“Really, because if they truly are the accountability ducking leeches you claim they are, then I’d be shocked to find out they weren’t big dubya supporters…”
I’m not sure how that washes? Bush gave us good stock years, he gave us eight safe years, the largest span of attacks on our interests by Muslims since it all began in 1979 happened under GWB. He was held accountable and he came through for us all but for Harriet Miers, the bailout, and his stance on immigration.
“History also tells us that with the exception of the Vietnam War, war is a legitimate and unavoidable thing.”
First: the US never lost a single battle in Vietnam – even when it was executed under the Democratic administrations. We didn’t back up our allies and yes, to the liberals happy minds, those folks are still living under communism. Second, Saddam Hussein himself went to the UN and bluffed about WMD AFTER we were attacked. He could have surrendered peacefully, but he did not. Sorry about that, but it was not unavoidable and I am still thankful that GWB showed that part of the world that for a short while, the US would not tolerate stupid threats for the purposes of gaining power.
Moreover; “Ma’am” Boxer herself said to Condoleezza Rice that she never wanted Saddam to see the light of day again, she just wished we could have peacefully nabbed him like we did with Milosevic. While your liberals were enthusiastic about going to war over the human rights abuses, they should have been ecstatic over Saddam….as Boxer pretended to be for a while anyway. But of course, Milosevic was the danger to the US, right? He made phony bluffs to the UN about WMD too, right?
“And I see you have no problem footing future generations with the bill for his little “democratic” endeavor to the tune of almost two trillion dollars.”
Absolutely justifiable. National Security and taking out dangerous lunatics like Saddam Hussein before they develop the capabilites to hurt us IS PRECISELY worth it since future generations will now be alive because of it. That is what Treasury money should be spent on. Not giving you an annual check to buy a flat screen TV.
“Before the bailout, he was God to you, Reagan incarnate. You like to pretend that isn’t the case because you’ve finally opened your eyes to the mess he left us with, and have no choice but to lay some criticism on him.”
He has my respect for keeping us safe even after we had to sit back and let Osama go and allow his posse to plot eight years while Clinton was pulling on his johnson for Monica. The most attacks on America’s interest happened DURING Clinton’s administration. Why shouldn’t they have planned 9/11? Between letting Osama go and focusing more on Monica, Clinton did everything but hang a welcome sign on our country’s borders.
After 9/11, Bush was responsible for making it clear that those kinds of attacks were not going to be planned on his watch, as it was with Clinton. That’s why the JFK plot was foiled, why Fort Dixx was destroyed, why the planes headed for England made it safely – the only problem is, your clan was pissed because it was the cell phone calls that gave them away.
But Bush was heavily criticized when he nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and when he backed McCain on immigration. I was in that clan and you cannot ever deny that. It’s simply a fact, so the entire basis to your nonsense is destroyed.
Moving along….
“Because the last time I checked, no Americans were killed, he didn’t need to lie to obtain military action, and ironically enough, he was criticized by then governor Bush for not having an exit strategy.”
Of course we had an exit strategy. We exit when its done right, as it was done right by the end of Bush’s second term. Obama was allowed to pull out for the most part because violence was down incredibly thanks to our awesome troops. Once Bush realized it after the surge, he started setting timelines for withdrawal. Not quite sure what you’re talking about. Moreover; liberals WERE enthusiastic about measures – regardless what actually materialized – on the basis of some pretty drummed up numbers on human rights abuses in the Balkans. Yes, they were supportive of military strategy.
Moreover; George Stephanopoulos himself advised Clinton around that time in 1997 to assassinate Saddam as he was deemed a threat long before.
“Do you see why you get called stupid for saying dumb shit like this? When did I ever say those responsible for bombing the barracks were justified and had my sympathy?”
It’s not stupid, it was the truth. I told you that Reagan had attempted peace-keeping missions between Muslims and Christians. You then implied that he was not peaceful after I told you that the “peace” didn’t work…as if to say “well, if we were a little more peaceful, those terrorists wouldn’t have had to kill all those Marines…” You are simply more interested in demonizing Ronald Reagan than you are at holding terrorists accountable. It’s your own words, don’t be angry at me.
“That’s like me saying that you love child molesters because you refuse to denounce Mark Foley. Oh, hey, everyone, Steve loves child molesters! Does that make sense? Didn’t think so.”
I did denounce Mark Foley. We threw him out of our party – we merely pointed out that you liberals kept Gerry Studds around after he had ACTUAL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE with a 17-year old page. Foley was more about watching the liberals select their moral outrage to sex with youngsters than it was for Republicans to defend Foley which I never did, nor has any other Republican that mattered.
“Goddamn, you’re dumb. It’s like talking to a fucking invalid”
The statement you responded to still stands. You are more interested in rewarding enemies to demonize Ronald Reagan. You want hard workers to pay more taxes so you can reward those less deserving because you think they’ve been dealt some unsuspecting hand at life.
“Give me one instance in which Carter rewarded failure. Just one, and we’ll go from there.”
Attempting to befriend the new Iranian government causing our embassies to be invaded while allowing the Shah into our country for cancer treatment (and to have the knife removed from his back) at the Mayo Clinic.
“Steve, you used to be smarter than this”
Yet, you still find time to respond.
“Wow, apparently you have yet to hit bottom. So, now your beef is with old people collecting Social Security? The same Social Security they spent their whole lives paying into? Hey, we needed something to get us out of the republican great depression…”
Actually most of them could have taken that 7.65% over their lives and invested it themselves and had a much more fruitful return. Of course we have to take care of our seniors, don’t put words in my mouth.
Robert, you used to be more clever than that.
“Who said anything about a debate? The guy came on to talk about his experience, and he was able to be a man and admit he was wrong. It’s kind of sad when you need to take a life lesson from someone who calls himself “mancow””
You used Erich Mullen as an example of diversity on Keith Olbermann. I’m saying that was a horrid morsel even for you to come up with. Mancow is fine. I have no problem with him, but you know damn well that Rush, Ann, Sean, etc. have gone up against much more diversity than Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow even came close to.
“So, the guy is stupid and weak because he can’t withstand torture? I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that you couldn’t last five seconds of “water dripping down your nose”.”
I did not say that, “weak” meaning unable to stand for the core values of the party. And ONCE AGAIN, I don’t care to have water dripped down my nose, I didn’t kill anybody! Learn to separate.
Although I did just come out of my pool, so I can relate somewhat.
“Apparently, there also “isn’t” any competent educators anymore either…”
A quick slip I admit, but let’s not forget what most Universities; much like the one I graduated from, are dominated with. Yes, we need more conservative educators, so you got me there!
“Or, and let’s entertain this scenario, they won’t come on his program. I can’t tell you how many people challenge cons to a debate, and they never take them up on that. Ed Shultz just challenged Rush Limbaugh to a debate, do you think he’ll show up?”
Why would any of them go to the programs with the least viewers/listeners? Again Robert, all three have debated main stream liberals over the years, Keith has not.
“No one forced him to offer. He didn’t have to open up his big yapper. He said he’d do it for charity, don’t get pissy with me for pointing it out.”
I’m not. I’m simply saying that I am surprised someone did not come out sooner to say that anyone who expected him to would be crazy. The better question is why he would feel compelled to prove it.
It’s something that should happen to a criminal, not to an innocent American.
“The point is, the police, fire fighters, et. al. are all legitimate needs that are addressed in each community. Something like a full scale war is not something addressed with a few dozen people.”
A war, like a fire, needs its players. This is why we have a military full of America’s best. Not only do you destroy any intellectual honesty of the liberals when you revert back to the “support something so join something” mentality you always quickly go back to, you insult the members of the military by insinuating that what they do is easy enough for anyone to do. So stop using it as an argument. It’s stupid and it insults the people responsible for keeping you safe.
“Wait, you aren’t one of the crazies who thinks Obama was born in Kenya? And the so called liberal media spent months on subjects like insane Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.”
Funnily enough, you first stated about Obama being born in Kenya before moving onto the real concerns like Wright and Ayers. The Kenya and Muslim stuff was repeated over and over again so that the media could destroy it in an attempt to deflect from Ayers, from Wright, from Rezko, etc. The real concerns were brushed aside so they can work hard to properly inform us of the President’s religious backgrounds.
We knew what church he went to. Wright wasn’t a Muslim, he was just crazy and it coincidentally took Obama years to remove himself from his church, in the same year he ran for President. All one big massive coincidence, I am sure.
“Are you honestly trying to tell me that what you really meant to say was the candy is all dumped into a pile, then the government comes in and distributes it to all the kids? Or were you really trying to tell me that the candy was produced by the government and then passed out to all the kids?”
Why would any government or institution produce something, give it, and then take it away and divide it up?
We were talking about candy, which made me think of a cartoon being passed around where kids were trick-or-treating at Halloween collecting candy and one man says to the kids “now, we have to dump it in a big pile and pass it out evenly to all the kids in the neighborhood” to which the kid with the biggest bag says “oh crap, a Democrat!”
You mentioned the lady passing out candy, it was a metaphor used to describe socialism and yes, the government DOES NOT own or produce the candy, the kids get the candy themselves and it’s then all put together and divided up, much like you want to do to the salaries of CEO’s.
YOU said I described communism by using that metaphor to which we began this back and forth on the definiton of communism which I never originally used to begin with.
Afterwards, you started stating how I didn’t understand the definiton of communism which is untrue.
So, to clarify things, let me state one more time, using the candy metaphor: I do not think Obama is a communist, I think he’s a socialist.
“So, to clarify things, let me state one more time, using the candy metaphor: I do not think Obama is a communist, I think he’s a socialist.”
Actually, let’s wait and see how many more industries he tries to get his hands on in the next 3.5 years before I go on record with that.
Thanks.
“Seeings as members of my party were warning Democrats as little as three years ago, as McCain warned, as Bush warned”
Sorry, but reality doesn’t agree with you. I don’t really need to post the video of his speech again, do I?
“and nevermind the fact that the Fair Housing Act had been passed long before Bush came around AND homes had already been acquired before he took office, well then you have yourself a convenient set up for the Democrats”
Right, you just proved my point. When home ownership went up under Clinton, we didn’t have this foreclosure problem. For that to be the case, people would have to faithfully pay their home mortgages, and then decide out of the blue, to welch on their debts, just to punish Bush. You’re like a crazy person that believes till the end that everyone’s out to get them, in spite of every shred of evidence proving them wrong. Lead on, crazy person…
“Bush gave us good stock years”
Yeah, because that’s all that matters. Nevermind the dismal record on job creation, the loss of health insurance due to high costs, and the fact that the average person’s savings dwindled to -0.5%. Yay, stocks, that’s a good indicator of the real economy. Stocks are doing great right now, so according to you, the economy is doing lovely, right?
“He was held accountable”
Right, which explains why he’s a free man right now…
“Saddam Hussein himself went to the UN and bluffed about WMD AFTER we were attacked.”
No, no he didn’t. He did bluff about having weapons – to his neighbors. This by no means absolved the US to find any weapons we suspected he may have had. We looked, we didn’t find any. The UN had inspectors in Iraq for three months before we began shocking and awing the Iraqi people. But you know all this, it’s a matter of very public record. Bush, in his ‘ultimatum’ speech, warned the inspectors to leave the country because bombing would commence, weapons or not.
“Sorry about that, but it was not unavoidable and I am still thankful that GWB showed that part of the world that for a short while, the US would not tolerate stupid threats for the purposes of gaining power.”
Awesome, we have it on record that you think that war was not unavoidable. There was no credible threat, and anyone with half a brain saw that. I talked till I was blue in the face to people who, for lack of a better phrase, turned into mindless zombies, and didn’t want to hear any morsels of truth. They just wanted their revenge, and Hussein was as good a target as any.
“While your liberals were enthusiastic about going to war over the human rights abuses, they should have been ecstatic over Saddam”
Perhaps they might have been had they not rolled into the country on lies.
“National Security and taking out dangerous lunatics like Saddam Hussein before they develop the capabilites [sic] to hurt us IS PRECISELY worth it since future generations will now be alive because of it.”
So, it’s okay to start a preemptive war? I’m pretty sure that is, by definition, terrorism. That notion goes against every founding principle and law that makes this country the bastion of freedom that it claims to be. Attacking another nation so as to avoid the possibility of being attacked ourselves is deplorable. Using that logic, I could go out and murder someone and claim that it was justifiable because they could possibly murder me. That’s insane and any rational person can see that.
“The most attacks on America’s interest happened DURING Clinton’s administration”
Or, if you can count, Reagan’s. Here’s a short list, since you love to blame the advent of terrorism on Clinton:
•1981 – May 16 – One dead in an explosion in the toilets at the Pan Am terminal at New York’s JFK airport. The bombing is claimed by the Puerto Rican Resistance Army
•1982 – August 11: A bomb explodes on Pan Am Flight 830, en route from Tokyo to Honolulu, killing one teenager and injuring 15 passengers.
•1983 – Bombing of US Embassy in Beirut, April 18, 1983. 63 people, including 17 Americans, are killed.
•1983 – Marine barracks bombing, Beirut, October 23, 1983. 305 people, including 241 US servicemen, are killed by 2 suicide bombers.
•1984 – Twenty-two people were killed (two of them American) and seventy were wounded when a van loaded with four hundred pounds of explosives exploded in front of the U.S. Embassy annex in Awkar, Lebanon. Islamic Jihad (code name of Hezbollah) claimed responsibility for the bombing in a call to the media.
•1985 – TWA Flight 847 hijacked, U.S. Navy diver is killed by Hezbollah.
•1985 – Achille Lauro hijacking, wheel-chair bound American killed by Palestinian terrorists.
•1986 – Four Americans were killed and five Americans were injured when a bomb exploded aboard TWA Flight 840 as it traveled from Rome to Athens. The aircraft was able to land safely at Athens International Airport.
•1986 – On April 6, a Berlin discotheque bombing killed a Turkish woman and 2 US servicemen and injured 230 people, including more than 50 American servicemen.
•1987 – A car bomb exploded outside the back gate of the U.S. Embassy in Rome and mortars were fired at the compound from across the street. One passerby was injured in the attacks.
•1988 – On April 14 at 8 p.m., a car bomb exploded in front of the USO Club in Naples, Italy. Five people died and fifteen were injured, including four U.S. servicemen who were injured and US Navy Petty Officer Angela Santos, 21, was killed. Junzo Okudaira, a Japanese Red Army (JRA) member, was indicted in the United States on April 9, 1993 for the Naples bombing. Okudaira is also a suspect in the June 1987 car bombing and mortar attack against the U.S. Embassy in Rome.
•1988 – Pan Am Flight 103, outbound from London for New York with 259 people aboard, was destroyed by a bomb on December 21, 1988 while over Lockerbie, Scotland. All aboard the aircraft were killed as were eleven persons on the ground.
“After 9/11, Bush was responsible for making it clear that those kinds of attacks were not going to be planned on his watch, as it was with Clinton.”
You mean Reagan.
“But Bush was heavily criticized when he nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and when he backed McCain on immigration. I was in that clan and you cannot ever deny that”
Sure I can. I never read any such comments. It’s a fine diversion now, but like I said, never have I known you to say anything like that until painted into a corner, now.
“Of course we had an exit strategy. We exit when its done right, as it was done right by the end of Bush’s second term”
Planned as such, so as to help in the 2004 election (he still had to steal it). Remember not changing horses mid stream? Or as one comedian put it, you don’t change horsemen in the middle of the apocalypse. But had Bush gone in with the proper amount of troops, as he was advised to do by Gen. Eric Shinseki, there would have been no need for a surge. All the surge was was Bush acting on military advice five years too late.
“Once Bush realized it after the surge, he started setting timelines for withdrawal. Not quite sure what you’re talking about”
See above comment.
“Moreover; George Stephanopoulos himself advised Clinton around that time in 1997 to assassinate Saddam as he was deemed a threat long before.”
No you didn’t. You protected him for nearly five years, and when the facts finally did come out, he was whisked off to rehab before anyone could ask a single question.
“we merely pointed out that you liberals kept Gerry Studds around after he had ACTUAL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE with a 17-year old page”
Liberals did? More like his own constituents, who reelected him six more times after his censure by the house. And unlike Studds, pages came forward and complained of Foley’s inappropriate advances toward them. And while Studd’s relationship was consensual, it was with a 17 year old, which is disgusting, regardless of the age of consent in DC.
“You are more interested in rewarding enemies to demonize Ronald Reagan. You want hard workers to pay more taxes so you can reward those less deserving because you think they’ve been dealt some unsuspecting hand at life.”
I’m just going to agree with all the idiotic and baseless things that fly from your fingertips. It’s just easier this way…
“Attempting to befriend the new Iranian government causing our embassies to be invaded while allowing the Shah into our country for cancer treatment (and to have the knife removed from his back) at the Mayo Clinic.”
And how is that rewarding failure?
“Yet, you still find time to respond.”
Sharp as a tack, this one…
“And ONCE AGAIN, I don’t care to have water dripped down my nose, I didn’t kill anybody! Learn to separate.”
Perhaps you should learn the word proof. You can’t just torture people you suspect of wrongdoing. Normally, guilt must be proven before punishment can be administered. But then again, I’m talking to a conservative here.
“you insult the members of the military by insinuating that what they do is easy enough for anyone to do. So stop using it as an argument. It’s stupid and it insults the people responsible for keeping you safe.”
I’m insinuating? Last time I checked, it was a republican administration that upped the age of recruitment to 44. It was the same administration that allowed in people with criminal records. It’s not an insult, because I never said it, you did.
“Funnily enough, you first stated about Obama being born in Kenya before moving onto the real concerns like Wright and Ayers.”
None of those subjects are of concern to sane people, yet somehow, your side deferred to Wright and Ayers, because, according to the GOP candidate’s campaign manager, “if we continue to talk about the economy, we’ll lose”
Sorry, that quote about Stephanopolous was supposed to be this:
“I did denounce Mark Foley. We threw him out of our party”