PDA

View Full Version : Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina Enter GOP Primaries



Cigar
05-04-2015, 10:02 AM
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2015/150504-carson-fiorina-enter-gop-primaries.jpg

Ben Carson Officially Announces Run For President In 2016Celebrated neurosurgeon Ben Carson has officially announced his intention to run for president.

的知 willing to be part of the equation and therefore, I知 announcing my candidacy for President of the United States of America," Carson told Ohio's WKRC.

USA Today reports Carson also told WPEC in Florida that he will be a part of the 2016 race. Carson is expected to speak on his presidential run at an event in Detroit on Monday.

A darling of the conservative movement, Carson enters a crowded Republican field jostling for position ahead of what is expected to be a very competitive primary. He maintains a large following with grass-roots conservatives, which is likely to put him on a collision course with other potential rivals who are popular on the right, such as Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/03/ben-carson-president-2016_n_6481534.html

Carly Fiorina Announces Presidential Campaign With a Jab at Hillary Clinton
Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina announced her run for president on "Good Morning America" today, calling herself the "best person for the job" while also taking a shot at Hillary Clinton, accusing her of being untrustworthy.

"Yes, I am running for president," Fiorina told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos on "GMA." "I think I am the best person for the job."

Fiorina, the first female contender for the GOP nomination, has emerged as a vocal critic of Hillary Clinton in recent months, criticizing her State Department record and family foundation's acceptance of donations from foreign governments.

"She clearly is not trustworthy, about a whole set of things," Fiorina said this morning. "She peddled a fiction about for a month, she hasn't been transparent about her server and her emails, and now we see now all of these foreign government donations to the Clinton Global Initiative."


Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/carly-fiorina-announces-presidential-bid-best-person-job/story?id=30782696

Bo-4
05-04-2015, 12:09 PM
Catty Carly the Incompetent .. a favorite among Cruella DeVille and Leona Helmsley aficionados.

:rofl:

http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Carly-Fiorina.jpg

nic34
05-04-2015, 12:11 PM
Good, the more the merrier.....

Gotta make a living somehow.

Captain Obvious
05-04-2015, 12:15 PM
Catty Carly the Incompetent .. a favorite among Cruella DeVille and Leona Helmsley aficionados.

:rofl:

http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Carly-Fiorina.jpg

She has a face you could serve a table of 12 drinks off of.

Bo-4
05-04-2015, 12:46 PM
She has a face you could serve a table of 12 drinks off of.

Or store a few litters of Dalmatians.

http://www.360nobs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Cruella-De-vil.jpg

Captain Obvious
05-04-2015, 12:51 PM
Or store a few litters of Dalmatians.

http://www.360nobs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Cruella-De-vil.jpg

I don't see the Cruella resemblance but that face of hers is like a billboard.

Peter1469
05-04-2015, 04:54 PM
That turned into a rant right away. Go figure.

Bo-4
05-04-2015, 05:02 PM
I don't see the Cruella resemblance but that face of hers is like a billboard.

Google Fiorina and Cruella.. MANY do. ;)

zelmo1234
05-04-2015, 05:03 PM
Catty Carly the Incompetent .. a favorite among Cruella DeVille and Leona Helmsley aficionados.

:rofl:

http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Carly-Fiorina.jpg


War on Women!

Peter1469
05-04-2015, 05:18 PM
She looks better than the (D) female candidate.

Bo-4
05-04-2015, 05:40 PM
War on Women!

Meh, War on Incompetent, Catty Beotches.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtPMq9xxOY&spfreload=10

zelmo1234
05-04-2015, 05:45 PM
Meh, War on Incompetent, Catty Beotches.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtPMq9xxOY&spfreload=10

I wonder if she ever made a decision that ended up with 4 Americans dead one being an ambassador?

She was the first women to be CEO of a fortune 20 company. She doubled their revenue and made the decision that moved the company inn to PC dominances, even though it was against the wishes of the founders children.

You side is putting forward a person that has a history of scandal and failure. And you are talking incompetent? Really?

I think it is more likely that you are raging because she is a women.

Bo-4
05-04-2015, 06:02 PM
I wonder if she ever made a decision that ended up with 4 Americans dead one being an ambassador?

She was the first women to be CEO of a fortune 20 company. She doubled their revenue and made the decision that moved the company inn to PC dominances, even though it was against the wishes of the founders children.

You side is putting forward a person that has a history of scandal and failure. And you are talking incompetent? Really?

I think it is more likely that you are raging because she is a women.

You didn't hear that Benghazi was dead after NINE investigations -- the last one by a REPUBLICAN led committee?

Then i cannot help.

Bo-4
05-04-2015, 06:03 PM
She looks better than the (D) female candidate.

Then your taste is in your A__

Just sayin

zelmo1234
05-04-2015, 06:06 PM
You didn't hear that Benghazi was dead after NINE investigations -- the last one by a REPUBLICAN led committee?

Then i cannot help.

I did not suggest that she did anything illegal? But we know for sure that she was the one that did not send the requested additional security. She was the one that did not attempt the rescue once they were under attack, and she was one of the ones that approved the message, and sent the order to jail the video maker that had nothing to do with the attack.

And while non of this is illegal, it is totally and completely incompetent!

zelmo1234
05-04-2015, 06:11 PM
Then your taste is in your A__

Just sayin

Well this will have to bring on the video once again.

But lets just talk a look?

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRI6Fgmqus1cEwALmNwCKtTmJiOt9mHP 9PGsFB8zmvs_fVzooTTwQ (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fnews%2Fnews-desk%2Fkeystone-nsa-hillary-clinton-remains-quiet&ei=__tHVe6NKcGBygS85YGoCA&bvm=bv.92291466,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNEhZEyUrZ-MRf0uCbc70Ic1PDE-qg&ust=1430867281709793)


http://rs196.pbsrc.com/albums/aa181/Okieboy_1/KitchenCabinet/carlyFiorina.jpg~c200 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphotobucket.com%2Fimages%2Fcarly% 2520fiorina%2520tough%2520choices%2520lew%2520plat t&ei=VfxHVZyMAov5yQT4u4DAAg&bvm=bv.92291466,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNEzlPjHSNsp9i5koBkxClPT1SQvUg&ust=1430867364193309)

Neither are going to win a beauty pageant

zelmo1234
05-04-2015, 06:12 PM
And now the video that proves that liberalism is a way for unattractive women to have access to the mainstream society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq09hAl5EkI

PolWatch
05-04-2015, 06:15 PM
I had not realized that it was a beauty contest. In that case, the repubs need to work on their line up too. Hillary is no beauty but I don't see anyone on the other side of the aisle that looks much better.

maineman
05-04-2015, 06:15 PM
and you think there aren't hot looking democratic women and republican women that look like cows? really????

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 06:15 PM
Then your taste is in your A__

Just sayin

Let's test that.

Is Hillary Clinton good looking?

maineman
05-04-2015, 06:17 PM
I did not suggest that she did anything illegal? But we know for sure that she was the one that did not send the requested additional security. She was the one that did not attempt the rescue once they were under attack, and she was one of the ones that approved the message, and sent the order to jail the video maker that had nothing to do with the attack.

And while non of this is illegal, it is totally and completely incompetent!

and it such OLD news. The clown on the GOP side never seem to understand that the more they whine about Benghazi now, the more they inoculate Hillary from any repercussions from it.

Hal Jordan
05-04-2015, 06:21 PM
I've seen a number of posts in this thread about the attractiveness of the female candidates, but it really shouldn't make a damn bit of difference. What does matter is what they would actually do.

PolWatch
05-04-2015, 06:23 PM
If this is a beauty contest...we are outta luck....
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.PVV%2bA7w78AKIkUUCAVAWeQ&pid=15.1&P=0https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.f71WfnRBPqtvQi4YkzgyaQ&pid=15.1&P=0https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.N34p37yp684c6SG7uFQPTA&pid=15.1&P=0https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.obiK1nrRExhWbTMh%2b5K63g&pid=15.1&P=0

PolWatch
05-04-2015, 06:32 PM
yeap, if this is a beauty contest....we do not have any winners!

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.DBIJ3CftZwkCl8Tsi3t26g&pid=15.1&P=0https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.eoUwItJCSdxTVPx%2f45nobw&pid=15.1&rs=1&c=1&w=158&h=106

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 06:33 PM
If it's a beauty contest, someone needs to draft Scarlett Johansson for President. She'd win in a landslide as a third party candidate :tongue:

PolWatch
05-04-2015, 06:34 PM
nope...America's choice....beauty & bacon!

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.M0PnPU0Bn2Ir4rJezGUt9A&pid=15.1&P=0

Bo-4
05-04-2015, 06:41 PM
Let's test that.

Is Hillary Clinton good looking?

No, your point?

Bo-4
05-04-2015, 06:43 PM
yeap, if this is a beauty contest....we do not have any winners!

Hey now, BERNIE IS BEAUTIFUL!! :)

PolWatch
05-04-2015, 06:45 PM
Hey now, BERNIE IS BEAUTIFUL!! :)

I do have a fondness for baby duckling hairstyles....

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 06:47 PM
No, your point?

I don't have one. I just wanted to test your taste in beauty. I approve thus far.

Bob
05-04-2015, 06:52 PM
If it's a beauty contest, someone needs to draft Scarlett Johansson for President. She'd win in a landslide as a third party candidate :tongue:

She is hot. Now, would you draft Sandra Bullock?

Bob
05-04-2015, 06:54 PM
Just think Cigar
You got to insult a black man and a White woman all in the same post.

Bob
05-04-2015, 06:56 PM
Catty Carly the Incompetent .. a favorite among Cruella DeVille and Leona Helmsley aficionados.

:rofl:

http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Carly-Fiorina.jpg

i thought after you had over 6 years of it, by now you welcomed catty and cruel.

It never takes the left loonies long to attack a woman republican.

Bob
05-04-2015, 06:57 PM
She has a face you could serve a table of 12 drinks off of.

Gotta give it to Captain Obvious who slams republicans all day long and twice on Sundays.

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 06:59 PM
She is hot. Now, would you draft Sandra Bullock?

Hell yes I would. She's sexy as hell, especially given her age, and she's a good person to boot.

I'd draft her all night long :D

Bob
05-04-2015, 07:00 PM
Meh, War on Incompetent, Catty Beotches.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtPMq9xxOY&spfreload=10

i think your problem bo bo is you expected her to act like the former CEO that failed to keep HP working well.

Turns out what she did probably saved the company. Since she is to you a mere woman, we must not have women CEOS now.

Bob
05-04-2015, 07:01 PM
Hell yes I would. She's sexy as hell, especially given her age, and she's a good person to boot.

I'd draft her all night long :D

You meant drill, didn't you? :smiley_bar:

Tahuyaman
05-04-2015, 07:01 PM
That turned into a rant right away. Go figure.

That's all they got. They can't criticize her for her stance on the issues, because they don't know where she stands. Nor do they care. All they know is that she has an "R" after her name and that's enough for the simple minded folks.

del
05-04-2015, 07:04 PM
She looks better than the (D) female candidate.

there's a real challenge

maineman
05-04-2015, 07:04 PM
That's all they got. They can't criticize her for her stance on the issues, because they don't know where she stands. Nor do they care. All they know is that she has an "R" after her name and that's enough for the simple minded folks.

do you think she stands at some position far far away from the party platform that she will run on?

del
05-04-2015, 07:05 PM
I wonder if she ever made a decision that ended up with 4 Americans dead one being an ambassador?

She was the first women to be CEO of a fortune 20 company. She doubled their revenue and made the decision that moved the company inn to PC dominances, even though it was against the wishes of the founders children.

You side is putting forward a person that has a history of scandal and failure. And you are talking incompetent? Really?

I think it is more likely that you are raging because she is a women.

she halved their value and was fired by the board.

yeah, she's brilliant

Bob
05-04-2015, 07:06 PM
do you think she stands at some position far far away from the party platform that she will run on?

I doubt you know the true republican party platform so how could you judge?

I realize you know the Democrat party version of it though.

Tahuyaman
05-04-2015, 07:06 PM
She looks better than the (D) female candidate.

What's the matter? Don't you like Kankles and fat thighs?

Tahuyaman
05-04-2015, 07:09 PM
do you think she stands at some position far far away from the party platform that she will run on?


The question is, do you know where she stands on any issue? Probably not.

Before I criticize or support someone, I take the time to find out where they stand on issues. I wouldn't expect you to get that.

zelmo1234
05-04-2015, 07:11 PM
she halved their value and was fired by the board.

yeah, she's brilliant

If by halved you mean doubled the revenue of the company? You are correct. If your are talking about stocks. they split the stocks.

Yes she was fired by the board over the compact purchase, which likely saved the company and made it what is today. She went against the founders children and she new it, but did what was right for the company.

del
05-04-2015, 07:12 PM
If by halved you mean doubled the revenue of the company? You are correct. If your are talking about stocks. they split the stocks.

Yes she was fired by the board over the compact purchase, which likely saved the company and made it what is today. She went against the founders children and she new it, but did what was right for the company.

she got fired for incompetence, zelmo

not because of anything else

Tahuyaman
05-04-2015, 07:13 PM
If your are talking about stocks. they split the stocks.

Liberals don't understand that. The stock market is evil.

maineman
05-04-2015, 07:17 PM
The question is, do you know where she stands on any issue? Probably not.

Before I criticize or support someone, I take the time to find out where they stand on issues. I wouldn't expect you to get that.

I know what the GOP platform says. She intends to run on it, doesn't she?

Bob
05-04-2015, 07:20 PM
she halved their value and was fired by the board.

yeah, she's brilliant

What about the part already decided ahead of her that her role was to carry out?

Wikipedia treats Carly very very well.

She was and is brilliant. Look what she did at ATT and later Lucent?

She was at HP for 6 years approximately.

We know of the problems with the child of the founder.

By the way, this was going on when the dot.com bust happened. Bet you figured nobody would check up on you and your woman hating did ya. When you talk that bad about a woman merely over politics, somebody would pipe up and move to correct your post.


she halved their value and was fired by the board.

yeah, she's brilliant

Bob
05-04-2015, 07:21 PM
I know what the GOP platform says. She intends to run on it, doesn't she?

What do you believe is the question.

maineman
05-04-2015, 07:33 PM
What do you believe is the question.

The question is exactly as I stated it.

maineman
05-04-2015, 07:34 PM
As far as what I believe, I believe in the democratic party platform. I will vote for the candidate that stands on it.

del
05-04-2015, 07:35 PM
What about the part already decided ahead of her that her role was to carry out?

Wikipedia treats Carly very very well.

She was and is brilliant. Look what she did at ATT and later Lucent?

She was at HP for 6 years approximately.

We know of the problems with the child of the founder.

By the way, this was going on when the dot.com bust happened. Bet you figured nobody would check up on you and your woman hating did ya. When you talk that bad about a woman merely over politics, somebody would pipe up and move to correct your post.



SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Hewlett-Packard on Wednesday ousted Chairwoman and Chief Executive Carly Fiorina amid sentiment among its directors and investors that her management style was stifling the company's growth potential.
Palo Alto, Calif.-based H-P HPQ, -0.44% (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/hpq?mod=MW_story_quote) named Chief Financial Officer Robert Wayman its interim chief executive; Patricia Dunn was named nonexecutive chairwoman. Dunn has served as a director since 1998.
The action was a stunning blow to Fiorina, 50, one of the most powerful women in business, and a repudiation of her leading of H-P's controversial 2002 acquisition of Compaq Computer
Fiorina pushed through the $19 billion merger as part of a bold plan to remake the Silicon Valley icon into a computing and services giant that could challenge IBM IBM, +0.17% (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ibm?mod=MW_story_quote) Yet the merger never produced the results promised, and as Fiorina worked to integrate the two huge companies, Dell Inc. DELL (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/DELL?countrycode=&mod=MW_story_quote) leapfrogged past H-P to become the leading seller of PCs.
And H-P shares lost more than half their value during Fiorina's tenure, underperforming Dell's by a wide margin and also lagging IBM's stock performance.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hewlett-packard-shows-door-to-chief-exec-carly-fiorina

yeah, bob, i'm a woman hater, and carly performed brilliantly

that's why they fired her ass

remind me to apologize to all the boxes of rocks out there

Bob
05-04-2015, 07:38 PM
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hewlett-packard-shows-door-to-chief-exec-carly-fiorina

yeah, bob, i'm a woman hater, and carly performed brilliantly

that's why they fired her ass

remind me to apologize to all the boxes of rocks out there

See how you manage to twist things up?

Before she showed up to run HP, those decisions were already made. And you blame her? Should she have told the board to shove off?

I thought you did not care if a person could run a company that being a fast talking Democrat was good for you?

maineman
05-04-2015, 07:39 PM
and the more lightweight clowns that pile out of the clown car for each GOP debate, the more strident and controversial the sound bites from ALL the candidates will become as they strive to maximize their five minutes of airtime and distinguish themselves to the amped up tea baggers who will be listening and voting in the early primaries.

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 07:40 PM
As far as what I believe, I believe in the democratic party platform. I will vote for the candidate that stands on it.

Platforms don't mean anything, unfortunately. Seriously, find me ten currently serving Democrats in the United States Congress, plus President Obama, that follows the DNC platform.

PolWatch
05-04-2015, 07:41 PM
gee, I thought Wiki was not believable because it was a lib site....that was 2 days ago so I guess it has completely changed since then....

Bob
05-04-2015, 07:47 PM
By the way, since Mr Wonderful the Emu ran down Carly, let's take a look at the man who took her place.

Mark Vincent Hurd (born January 1, 1957) is co-CEO of Oracle Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Corporation), and the past chairman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman), chief executive officer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer), and president (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President) of Hewlett-Packard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard). At Hewlett-Packard, Hurd succeeded CFO Robert Wayman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wayman), who served as interim CEO from February 10, 2005 to March 28, 2005, after former CEO Carly Fiorina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina) was forced by the board to resign.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd#cite_note-HP1-1) On September 22, 2006, Hurd succeeded Pat Dunn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_C._Dunn) as chairman after she resigned after thepretexting controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_HP_Spying_Scandal).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd#cite_note-HP2-2) Hurd resigned his positions at HP on August 6, 2010, following an investigation into a claim of sexual harassment made by a former reality TV actress.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd#cite_note-nytimes.com-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd#cite_note-Bloomberg1-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd#cite_note-HP3-5) The probe concluded that the company's sexual-harassment policy was not violated, but that its standards of business conduct were.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd#cite_note-Huffington1-6)

maineman
05-04-2015, 07:49 PM
Platforms don't mean anything, unfortunately. Seriously, find me ten currently serving Democrats in the United States Congress, plus President Obama, that follows the DNC platform.

show me any number of significant disconnects between President Obama and the 2012 Democratic Party Platform.

Bob
05-04-2015, 07:49 PM
gee, I thought Wiki was not believable because it was a lib site....that was 2 days ago so I guess it has completely changed since then....

Well there you go. You should have been born a boy so your mom could have called you sun.

I guess when one person uses Wikipedia, we have the same right as he does.

maineman
05-04-2015, 07:50 PM
By the way, since Mr Wonderful the Emu ran down Carly, let's take a look at the man who took her place.

Mark Vincent Hurd (born January 1, 1957) is co-CEO of Oracle Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Corporation), and the past chairman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman), chief executive officer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer), and president (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President) of Hewlett-Packard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard). At Hewlett-Packard, Hurd succeeded CFO Robert Wayman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wayman), who served as interim CEO from February 10, 2005 to March 28, 2005, after former CEO Carly Fiorina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina) was forced by the board to resign.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd#cite_note-HP1-1) On September 22, 2006, Hurd succeeded Pat Dunn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_C._Dunn) as chairman after she resigned after thepretexting controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_HP_Spying_Scandal).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd#cite_note-HP2-2) Hurd resigned his positions at HP on August 6, 2010, following an investigation into a claim of sexual harassment made by a former reality TV actress.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd#cite_note-nytimes.com-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd#cite_note-Bloomberg1-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd#cite_note-HP3-5) The probe concluded that the company's sexual-harassment policy was not violated, but that its standards of business conduct were.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd#cite_note-Huffington1-6)

obfuscation. what does this have to do with why Carly was fired from HP?

del
05-04-2015, 07:50 PM
See how you manage to twist things up?

Before she showed up to run HP, those decisions were already made. And you blame her? Should she have told the board to shove off?

I thought you did not care if a person could run a company that being a fast talking Democrat was good for you?

now you're just lying, bob

you really are a boob

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 07:53 PM
show me any number of significant disconnects between President Obama and the 2012 Democratic Party Platform.

Answer my question, and then I will answer yours.

zelmo1234
05-04-2015, 07:56 PM
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hewlett-packard-shows-door-to-chief-exec-carly-fiorina

yeah, bob, i'm a woman hater, and carly performed brilliantly

that's why they fired her ass

remind me to apologize to all the boxes of rocks out there

And yet after she left the merger caused HP to be the PC leader from 2007 until 2013.

The products that Both HP and Compac were offering were not state of art, but the merger gained market share which she put into R & D and the took the market by storm.

The left always operates in the NOW and never looks to the future. The Kids were happy with the printing side of the computer industry and she was let go mostly over the conflict with them.

But the left will use this against her, and they should, but when the true story is known, she comes out looking pretty good.

Bob
05-04-2015, 07:56 PM
show me any number of significant disconnects between President Obama and the 2012 Democratic Party Platform.


You have me really worried. According to Obama the obstructionists have halted his entire presidency.

Given that is his claim, which you know well is what he claims, what do you claim he has done per the platform.

Bob
05-04-2015, 07:58 PM
And yet after she left the merger caused HP to be the PC leader from 2007 until 2013.

The products that Both HP and Compac were offering were not state of art, but the merger gained market share which she put into R & D and the took the market by storm.

The left always operates in the NOW and never looks to the future. The Kids were happy with the printing side of the computer industry and she was let go mostly over the conflict with them.

But the left will use this against her, and they should, but when the true story is known, she comes out looking pretty good.

Do not depend on the left to ever tell you the complete story. It is part of the DNA

maineman
05-04-2015, 08:01 PM
You have me really worried. According to Obama the obstructionists have halted his entire presidency.

Given that is his claim, which you know well is what he claims, what do you claim he has done per the platform.

tried to enact it, of course.

maineman
05-04-2015, 08:02 PM
Answer my question, and then I will answer yours.

you are the one who claimed that Obama has not tried to enact his party's platform. I suggest you either document that claim or retract it.

Bob
05-04-2015, 08:08 PM
now you're just lying, bob

you really are a boob

The disgust I hold for you would smell so bad in a supermarket, nobody could stand being in the store. I don't need your taunts or insults.

Bob
05-04-2015, 08:09 PM
tried to enact it, of course.

if he told the truth, that means nothing was done.

Bob
05-04-2015, 08:11 PM
As far as what I believe, I believe in the democratic party platform. I will vote for the candidate that stands on it.

A lot of blacks abandoned ship. I feel sorry for you. Not that you care. Generally I will explain how I left the Democrats and won't go back. But not today.

Bob
05-04-2015, 08:14 PM
obfuscation. what does this have to do with why Carly was fired from HP?

Pay me twenty million dollars and I let you fire me all day long.

LMAO

This rankles Democrats that she got paid off.

Brad Pitt shows up for a few months work and gets "fired" and collects twenty million dollars.

Carly got a blessing.

texan
05-04-2015, 08:19 PM
Carson's speech was dead-on!

maineman
05-04-2015, 08:19 PM
A lot of blacks abandoned ship. I feel sorry for you. Not that you care. Generally I will explain how I left the Democrats and won't go back. But not today.

don't bother. I really could care less.

maineman
05-04-2015, 08:21 PM
if he told the truth, that means nothing was done.

then there's that Obamacare thingy, of coiurse... which he got done during the only window of time he had before the GOP filibuster machine shut him down.

Bob
05-04-2015, 08:24 PM
don't bother. I really could care less.

You could or you can't??????????

Me, I can care less what you say to me. I can care so little that you could simply vanish to me.

Bob
05-04-2015, 08:25 PM
then there's that Obamacare thingy, of coiurse... which he got done during the only window of time he had before the GOP filibuster machine shut him down.

Were he effective, he could have done all that he wanted given he had it all.

texan
05-04-2015, 08:28 PM
As far as what I believe, I believe in the democratic party platform. I will vote for the candidate that stands on it.

Well we can't all be intelligent.

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 08:32 PM
you are the one who claimed that Obama has not tried to enact his party's platform. I suggest you either document that claim or retract it.

Nope, I made no claims. I asked you to name ten Congressional Democrats that follow the DNC platform, and show where President Obama has followed the platform.

maineman
05-04-2015, 08:40 PM
Nope, I made no claims. I asked you to name ten Congressional Democrats that follow the DNC platform, and show where President Obama has followed the platform.

Everything he has tried to do has been to advance the platform. He has been stymied by the opposition party.

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 08:41 PM
Everything he has tried to do has been to advance the platform. He has been stymied by the opposition party.

Cool. Got a list of those ten Democrats that follow the platform?

PattyHill
05-04-2015, 08:45 PM
I had not realized that it was a beauty contest. In that case, the repubs need to work on their line up too. Hillary is no beauty but I don't see anyone on the other side of the aisle that looks much better.

It's not a beauty contest. Any chance that the people on this forum can be classy enough to discuss ideas, not looks?

del
05-04-2015, 08:45 PM
And yet after she left the merger caused HP to be the PC leader from 2007 until 2013.

The products that Both HP and Compac were offering were not state of art, but the merger gained market share which she put into R & D and the took the market by storm.

The left always operates in the NOW and never looks to the future. The Kids were happy with the printing side of the computer industry and she was let go mostly over the conflict with them.

But the left will use this against her, and they should, but when the true story is known, she comes out looking pretty good.

she was gone-fired for incompetence because, wait for it, she was incompetent

do you give credit to hoover because we won world war 2?

the *kids* were in their 50s and had been involved with the company and hi tech all their lives- tell me again how they didn't know what they were doing but carly ( i can cut your share values in half) fiorina did.

lol

del
05-04-2015, 08:46 PM
The disgust I hold for you would smell so bad in a supermarket, nobody could stand being in the store. I don't need your taunts or insults.

then don't lie, stinky

texan
05-04-2015, 08:47 PM
Huh Whaaaa?

10 is a lot but let me take a stab at some:

1. Global Warming, EPA is working at it handicapping business in unfair and economy hurting ways.
2. Healthcare, Dem Holy Grail.
3. Raised Taxes.
4. Withdrawl from the world.
5. Cut the military. (part of withdrawing)


There are 5 pretty big ones. Here is the kicker I could really care less if he git the economy going but he hasn't. He has spinned about it but the truth is the middle class jobs are not available, they are scarce........If we really were at 5.5% unemployment this economy would boom! It isn't and everyone knows this that has ever been in business.


I also love the spinned Hcare crap. 12% more insursed because of Obamacare. Go review how much is medicaid! Politicians are such liars.

PattyHill
05-04-2015, 08:47 PM
That's all they got. They can't criticize her for her stance on the issues, because they don't know where she stands. Nor do they care. All they know is that she has an "R" after her name and that's enough for the simple minded folks.


that's a problem, right? why would anyone support her if they don't know her stands on the issues?

I hope we learn more about her in the season ahead. But at the moment, you can't praise her anymore than we can criticize her for issues.

Bob
05-04-2015, 08:48 PM
then don't lie, stinky

You ignored all of the Wikipedia article.

Gee, i wonder why.

PattyHill
05-04-2015, 08:50 PM
Cool. Got a list of those ten Democrats that follow the platform?

There are plenty of conservative sites that rate Dems on how well they follow the platform. You can google for them. There are lots more than 10. Jim Webb was one of them.

maineman
05-04-2015, 08:50 PM
Cool. Got a list of those ten Democrats that follow the platform?

I would have to say that all of them do more or less.... if they didn't they wouldn't be democrats.

Bob
05-04-2015, 08:52 PM
that's a problem, right? why would anyone support her if they don't know her stands on the issues?

I hope we learn more about her in the season ahead. But at the moment, you can't praise her anymore than we can criticize her for issues.

She ran to be our state Senator and I voted for her.

That said, to me the job of Senator is no better or worse than being in the House. She is brilliant and the worst thing they can say about her is she got paid 20 million dollars for a release of her services.

Damned, I should have been so lucky.

Lets see. Going only on wages, you can hire an Obama at about $400,000 per year for about 50 years.

She of course was worth 50 times more than he is.

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 08:52 PM
There are plenty of conservative sites that rate Dems on how well they follow the platform. You can google for them. There are lots more than 10. Jim Webb was one of them.

The point of the exercise is to get maineman to find the information himself.

PattyHill
05-04-2015, 08:52 PM
Oh, look who is running for president! Terry Jones who wants to burn the Quran!
http://www.charismanews.com/us/49167-quran-burning-apostle-terry-jones-running-for-president

This season gets more and more fun.

and apparently there are lots more in the wings!

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/215523-the-65-people-who-may-run-for-president-in-2016

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 08:53 PM
I would have to say that all of them do more or less.... if they didn't they wouldn't be democrats.

How much are you betting on that?

maineman
05-04-2015, 08:54 PM
you're welcome to prove me wrong.

PattyHill
05-04-2015, 08:55 PM
The point of the exercise is to get maineman to find the information himself.

What a pointless exercise.

maineman
05-04-2015, 08:56 PM
The point of the exercise is to get maineman to find the information himself.

and do you actually think I am some fucking dog that you can train to go fetch? The point of this post is to get you to understand how high a level of disdain I have for you at this moment. How did I do on THAT little "exercise"?

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 08:56 PM
What a pointless exercise.

Apparently, there was no effort there at all. Unfortunate, but oh well.

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 08:59 PM
and do you actually think I am some fucking dog that you can train to go fetch? The point of this post is to get you to understand how high a level of disdain I have for you at this moment. How did I do on THAT little "exercise"?

I am rather unimpressed and don't really care. I am already well acquainted with your fits of childishness and utter lack of self-control. You'd be more impressive if you actually posted something worth reading at least every once in a while.

maineman
05-04-2015, 09:06 PM
I am rather unimpressed and don't really care. I am already well acquainted with your fits of childishness and utter lack of self-control. You'd be more impressive if you actually posted something worth reading at least every once in a while.

and you'd be at least palatable if you weren't so sold on yourself and your mistaken belief in your own profound intelligence.

The point of this exercise is to let you know that when you attempt to make other members the pawns in some little exercise whereby we must go fetch information that you request from us in order to fulfill the exercise, it really makes most rational adults laugh at you.....sort of a derisive laugh. Is that what you want?

maineman
05-04-2015, 09:07 PM
And again... if you want to show me congressional democrats who routinely act and vote counter to their party's platform, feel free.

del
05-04-2015, 09:08 PM
You ignored all of the Wikipedia article.

Gee, i wonder why.

because a) i went to the source material and b) i'm not a goober like you.

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 09:11 PM
and you'd be at least palatable if you weren't so sold on yourself and your mistaken belief in your own profound intelligence.

The point of this exercise is to let you know that when you attempt to make other members the pawns in some little exercise whereby we must go fetch information that you request from us in order to fulfill the exercise, it really makes most rational adults laugh at you.....sort of a derisive laugh. Is that what you want?

What part of I don't really care did you not understand?

Besides, you've completely misread me. As always, I was only trying to carry on a productive discussion. Also as always, you took offense where none was necessary and responded with your typical bad attitude.

Fine by me. I'll just remember next time not to waste time trying to engage you in discussion. But a word of advice...if you want an echo chamber, you chose the wrong forum.

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 09:11 PM
And again... if you want to show me congressional democrats who routinely act and vote counter to their party's platform, feel free.

I lost interest the moment you decided to be a child.

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 09:23 PM
maineman, here you go (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/23/1359748/-These-are-the-Democrats-who-voted-against-abortion-coverage-Wall-Street-reform-and-the-environment).

Bob
05-04-2015, 09:30 PM
because a) i went to the source material and b) i'm not a goober like you.

That front porch sure had not helped that emu disposition. Nope you are not like me. I am smart.

Peter1469
05-04-2015, 09:34 PM
That front porch sure had not helped that emu disposition. Nope you are not like me. I am smart.


Warning: Discuss the topic. If you have a problem with the emu, use the PM function. Don't clutter the forum with nonsense.

maineman
05-04-2015, 10:08 PM
@maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289), here you go (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/23/1359748/-These-are-the-Democrats-who-voted-against-abortion-coverage-Wall-Street-reform-and-the-environment).
Thank you for proving my point. Keystone is not a plank in the 2012 platform, nor is Wall Street reform specifically, but your little graph shows that, even so, out of a caucus of 188, 85% of democrats stayed with party leadersip on Keystone, 81% on Wall Street reform, and 99% on abortion rights, which IS a platform plank. That's a lot more than ten, wouldn't you say?

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 10:23 PM
Thank you for proving my point. Keystone is not a plank in the 2012 platform, nor is Wall Street reform specifically, but your little graph shows that, even so, out of a caucus of 188, 85% of democrats stayed with party leadersip on Keystone, 81% on Wall Street reform, and 99% on abortion rights, which IS a platform plank. That's a lot more than ten, wouldn't you say?

Yep. Easy, was it not? Your theatrics were completely unnecessary.

Besides, my point is proven. You say you will vote for Democrats because you like the platform. If you lived in their districts, that would have you voting for every person on that list, even though they clearly go against the platform.

You say Keystone isn't part of the platform...is protection for the environment not part of the DNC platform? Wall Street reform doesn't fit into your platform anywhere?

maineman
05-04-2015, 10:37 PM
Yep. Easy, was it not? Your theatrics were completely unnecessary.

Besides, my point is proven. You say you will vote for Democrats because you like the platform. If you lived in their districts, that would have you voting for every person on that list, even though they clearly go against the platform.

You say Keystone isn't part of the platform...is protection for the environment not part of the DNC platform? Wall Street reform doesn't fit into your platform anywhere?the platform has about two dozen major planks. Absolutely, some folks stray on an issue or two, but that doesn't mean they go against the platform. It means they went against one plank. BFD. And if you don't know what was contained in the 2012 democratic platform, this exercise is to teach you to go find out what's in it all by yourself. Go get 'em tiger!

My point was... Democrats run on their platform and by and large, they vote to advance it. You helped me prove my point which was the point of an earlier exercise of mine. Well done.

Green Arrow
05-04-2015, 10:41 PM
the platform has about two dozen major planks. Absolutely, some folks stray on an issue or two, but that doesn't mean they go against the platform. It means they went against one plank. BFD. And if you don't know what was contained in the 2012 democratic platform, this exercise is to teach you to go find out what's in it all by yourself. Go get 'em tiger!

My point was... Democrats run on their platform and by and large, they vote to advance it. You helped me prove my point which was the point of an earlier exercise of mine. Well done.

The platform is meaningless. There are no specific policy positions, just a lot of generalized rambling. The GOP platform is pretty much the same, too. There's a reason for that.

Bob
05-04-2015, 10:42 PM
the platform has about two dozen major planks. Absolutely, some folks stray on an issue or two, but that doesn't mean they go against the platform. It means they went against one plank. BFD. And if you don't know what was contained in the 2012 democratic platform, this exercise is to teach you to go find out what's in it all by yourself. Go get 'em tiger!

My point was... Democrats run on their platform and by and large, they vote to advance it. You helped me prove my point which was the point of an earlier exercise of mine. Well done.

I will say this about your party platform. It is ill conceived, bad for America and in a word, plainly wrong.

Keystone for example. I figured from day one the squatter at 1600 PA avenue never would accept the pipeline. And I have been proven correct. Even his own party supported it. I know your party never supported killing his veto, but that tells posters a lot. It shows why my fuel prices skyrocketed again. Thanks Obama for taking a dump on the poor and middle class. We had no need of that money now used on fuel, did we.

This once again proves Obama supports Big Oil. They don't really give a damn about the crude anyway. All it would do is cause prices to fall again. They enjoy the extra billions of dollars.

Bob
05-04-2015, 10:43 PM
The platform is meaningless. There are no specific policy positions, just a lot of generalized rambling. The GOP platform is pretty much the same, too. There's a reason for that.

I call that .... write it down, professional mumbling by politicians.

maineman
05-04-2015, 10:56 PM
I will say this about your party platform. It is ill conceived, bad for America and in a word, plainly wrong.

Keystone for example.

the word "Keystone" does not appear in our platform.

thanks for playing.

maineman
05-04-2015, 10:58 PM
The platform is meaningless. There are no specific policy positions, just a lot of generalized rambling. The GOP platform is pretty much the same, too. There's a reason for that.
Generalized is not synonymous with meaningless.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 12:00 AM
I know what the GOP platform says. She intends to run on it, doesn't she?

So, in other words you have no idea where she stands on the issues? Why am I not surprised.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 12:03 AM
I know what the GOP platform says. She intends to run on it, doesn't she?


just pretend for five minutes that you aren't simply a blind partisan. Try to actually see what someone stands for.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 12:10 AM
you can't praise her anymore than we can criticize her for issues.

The only problem with your statement is that I have not praised her as you claimed. That's because I have no idea where she is on any of the issues.

Left wingers don't know where she stands on the issues either, but they criticize her simply because she's not a Democrat.

That's how one can identify a partisan hack.

Common
05-05-2015, 12:12 AM
We know what every GOP hopefuls platform is, dont even have to ask.

Its either Cut entitlements for everyone, give all the 2% and corporations tax cuts, cut regulations to corporate and banking america to ease access to screw everyone else or do whatever else the koch bros pacs demand.

Safety
05-05-2015, 12:36 AM
You ignored all of the Wikipedia article.

Gee, i wonder why.

Wait, didn't you just a couple of short days ago whine about how "left" Wikipedia was and how it was not to be trusted because you didn't like the way it "treated" Goldwater? Dad'gum guy.

www.luminosity.com (http://www.luminosity.com)

Common
05-05-2015, 12:51 AM
Wait, didn't you just a couple of short days ago whine about how "left" Wikipedia was and how it was not to be trusted because you didn't like the way it "treated" Goldwater? Dad'gum guy.

www.luminosity.com (http://www.luminosity.com)


The classic came back to bite ya on the ass

Bob
05-05-2015, 02:35 AM
We know what every GOP hopefuls platform is, dont even have to ask.

Its either Cut entitlements for everyone, give all the 2% and corporations tax cuts, cut regulations to corporate and banking america to ease access to screw everyone else or do whatever else the koch bros pacs demand.

Tell me what you know about the velocity of money? Tell me why cutting taxes should result in more revenue to the Federal Government. Who gets cut does not matter would it so long as the Federales collects more loot?

Bob
05-05-2015, 02:40 AM
Wait, didn't you just a couple of short days ago whine about how "left" Wikipedia was and how it was not to be trusted because you didn't like the way it "treated" Goldwater? Dad'gum guy.

www.luminosity.com (http://www.luminosity.com)

I see what you and Polwatch were getting at now.

Clearly the two of you did not know that Green Arrow and i hashed this out and I had made a error in calling out Wikipedia over Goldwater. I admitted the mistake. By the way, I may or may not post tomorrow. If I do, let's all call off the BS and just pretend we are all best friends.

maineman
05-05-2015, 07:23 AM
just pretend for five minutes that you aren't simply a blind partisan. Try to actually see what someone stands for.

I am partisan, but not blind. Every single presidential election, I ALWAYS read each party's platform from start to finish. THAT is what candidates stand for. The minor differences between the stances of two different republican wannabes is insignificant when compared to the differences between the platforms and basic philosophies of the parties themselves. If I have chosen which platform fits my own political philosophy better, then I, therefore, have chosen my eventual candidate as well. Just because some GOP candidate may say things that sound pleasing to my ear... just because they have a winning personality and are someone I could imagine myself having a beer with does not change the basic philosophy of the party they stand for.

It's odd.... people like you try to castigate me for being partisan and for sticking with a political philosophy. I think that to do otherwise is ignorant and uneducated. If you vote for the president of the United States because of something he or she SAYS instead of the party philosophy that guides their political thinking, then you are sucker for a sweet talker. I scorn you for such foolishness.

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 08:12 AM
The only problem with your statement is that I have not praised her as you claimed. That's because I have no idea where she is on any of the issues.

Left wingers don't know where she stands on the issues either, but they criticize her simply because she's not a Democrat.

That's how one can identify a partisan hack.

It's true we don't know where she stands on issues. So our assumption has to be she follows the Republican platform. We DO know she laid off lots of people at HP - and whether or not it was the right decision, it is a fact.

Until she proves she doesn't follow the Republican platform - that she has some positions I can agree with - I gotta say I won't vote for her if she gets the nomination. But of course, only time will tell.

There are going to be a LOT of Republican candidates. Going to be awhile before we sort out all of their positions.

Common
05-05-2015, 08:18 AM
Tell me what you know about the velocity of money? Tell me why cutting taxes should result in more revenue to the Federal Government. Who gets cut does not matter would it so long as the Federales collects more loot?

You tell me why its never worked and go back to reagan and his bullshit story about trickle down

Ransom
05-05-2015, 08:22 AM
I am partisan, but not blind. Every single presidential election, I ALWAYS read each party's platform from start to finish. THAT is what candidates stand for. The minor differences between the stances of two different republican wannabes is insignificant when compared to the differences between the platforms and basic philosophies of the parties themselves. If I have chosen which platform fits my own political philosophy better, then I, therefore, have chosen my eventual candidate as well. Just because some GOP candidate may say things that sound pleasing to my ear... just because they have a winning personality and are someone I could imagine myself having a beer with does not change the basic philosophy of the party they stand for.

It's odd.... people like you try to castigate me for being partisan and for sticking with a political philosophy. I think that to do otherwise is ignorant and uneducated. If you vote for the president of the United States because of something he or she SAYS instead of the party philosophy that guides their political thinking, then you are sucker for a sweet talker. I scorn you for such foolishness.

Careful you ain't doin no scornin with rocks though while living in a glass house, Maineman. Let us remember the man who was elected to office from your garden variety party. Opposed to same sex marriage. That is correct. In 2008, it wasn't called bigotry, it was called the platform that the Democrat Party elected President. He voted for the Surveillance Act.

You can look it up if you'd like. During the 2008 Dem Primaries, Bush's Surveillance Act was put through Congress, both of the clowns in the clown car from the Left voted as Senators. Obama voted with the GOP, with George Bush.....allowing him to use all of these measures none of you democrats give two sh1ts about like etraffic surveillance, dropping in on phone calls, access to your 'private conversations' over the phone.

Now...the Democrat Party once abhorred such behavior. They once screamed about earmarks, remember that one. The Dem Party told you the debt crisis was unpatriotic, un-American......telling this mind you while voting for it all as influential Senators.

Obama's opposition to same sex marriage then...forgotten now. His position then with his fake church was of one man one woman....the Dem Party overwhelmingly voted him in. Same with Hillary whose Husband actually signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

Maine plays here. The Dem Party has no platform, it contradicts itself and forgives if it can get elected. Obama speaks out about debt.....and they cheer his massive debt policies. Obama is going to close Gitmo.....and the Left deafen us with their silence.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 08:30 AM
I am partisan, but not blind. Every single presidential election, I ALWAYS read each party's platform from start to finish. THAT is what candidates stand for. The minor differences between the stances of two different republican wannabes is insignificant when compared to the differences between the platforms and basic philosophies of the parties themselves. If I have chosen which platform fits my own political philosophy better, then I, therefore, have chosen my eventual candidate as well. Just because some GOP candidate may say things that sound pleasing to my ear... just because they have a winning personality and are someone I could imagine myself having a beer with does not change the basic philosophy of the party they stand for.

It's odd.... people like you try to castigate me for being partisan and for sticking with a political philosophy. I think that to do otherwise is ignorant and uneducated. If you vote for the president of the United States because of something he or she SAYS instead of the party philosophy that guides their political thinking, then you are sucker for a sweet talker. I scorn you for such foolishness.

so, do you have any idea where she stands on any issue? I know the answer.......NO.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 08:36 AM
You tell me why its never worked and go back to reagan and his bull$#@! story about trickle down


Actually, when Reagan took office revenues into government through the income tax were about 450 billion dollars. He got the tax cuts he campaigned on and revenues grew to 900 billion dollars. Those are undisputed facts.

Cutting tax rates resulted in a growing economy and expanding tax base. The problem comes in when the congress sees those increases and goes crazy spending more than the increases.

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 08:38 AM
Careful you ain't doin no scornin with rocks though while living in a glass house, Maineman. Let us remember the man who was elected to office from your garden variety party. Opposed to same sex marriage. That is correct. In 2008, it wasn't called bigotry, it was called the platform that the Democrat Party elected President. He voted for the Surveillance Act.

You can look it up if you'd like. During the 2008 Dem Primaries, Bush's Surveillance Act was put through Congress, both of the clowns in the clown car from the Left voted as Senators. Obama voted with the GOP, with George Bush.....allowing him to use all of these measures none of you democrats give two sh1ts about like etraffic surveillance, dropping in on phone calls, access to your 'private conversations' over the phone.

Now...the Democrat Party once abhorred such behavior. They once screamed about earmarks, remember that one. The Dem Party told you the debt crisis was unpatriotic, un-American......telling this mind you while voting for it all as influential Senators.

Obama's opposition to same sex marriage then...forgotten now. His position then with his fake church was of one man one woman....the Dem Party overwhelmingly voted him in. Same with Hillary whose Husband actually signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

Maine plays here. The Dem Party has no platform, it contradicts itself and forgives if it can get elected. Obama speaks out about debt.....and they cheer his massive debt policies. Obama is going to close Gitmo.....and the Left deafen us with their silence.


Damn, Ransom, have you never heard about learning more about issues and changing your mind? In the case of same sex marriage a lot of people have done that. Would you want to nail your politicians feet into the ground, say that you campaigned on this issue with this position and no matter what, you can never change your mind? wow. Most of us understand that, like the country, as Pres. Obama learned more about the issue he changed his mind. This is a really stupid thing to beat him up on.

Re Gitmo- the republicans wouldn't give Pres. Obama the money to close it. In our political system, that's the way it works. You can campaign and win on an issue, but if you can't get congress to cooperate, it isn't going to happen. I believe the left was actually vocal on this issue - but we blame the people who kept it from closing, the Republicans.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 08:42 AM
It's true we don't know where she stands on issues. So our assumption has to be she follows the Republican platform.

So, you don't know where she stands either. You are just like someone else just marching along with the partisan line.

The eventual nominee of a party has a lot of input as to what their party platform ends up looking like. A candidate doesn't simply sign on to a platform. They help construct the platform.

Neither you or the maineman have any clue as to what this woman believes. Nor do you care. You only care about whether there's a "D" or "R" after her name. That's how partisan hacks make their decisions.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 08:44 AM
$#@!, Ransom, have you never heard about learning more about issues and changing your mind?

thats funny coming from her.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 08:46 AM
Re Gitmo- the republicans wouldn't give Pres. Obama the money to close it. In our political system, that's the way it works. You can campaign and win on an issue, but if you can't get congress to cooperate, it isn't going to happen. I believe the left was actually vocal on this issue - but we blame the people who kept it from closing, the Republicans.

why didn't Obama close Guantanamo when he had Democrat, veto proof control of the congress? He had Harry Reid even inventing "the nuclear option" to render Republicans helpless to stop anything.

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 09:34 AM
So, you don't know where she stands either. You are just like someone else just marching along with the partisan line.

The eventual nominee of a party has a lot of input as to what their party platform ends up looking like. A candidate doesn't simply sign on to a platform. They help construct the platform.

Neither you or the maineman have any clue as to what this woman believes. Nor do you care. You only care about whether there's a "D" or "R" after her name. That's how partisan hacks make their decisions.


Actually, I think on this whole thread I've been saying we need to see what she believes before making decisions. If I slammed her, please let me know. I don't think I did. But yes, if she follows the republican platform, I won't vote for her. But we don't know that yet.

maineman
05-05-2015, 09:42 AM
Careful you ain't doin no scornin with rocks though while living in a glass house, Maineman. Let us remember the man who was elected to office from your garden variety party. Opposed to same sex marriage. That is correct. In 2008, it wasn't called bigotry, it was called the platform that the Democrat Party elected President. He voted for the Surveillance Act.

You can look it up if you'd like. During the 2008 Dem Primaries, Bush's Surveillance Act was put through Congress, both of the clowns in the clown car from the Left voted as Senators. Obama voted with the GOP, with George Bush.....allowing him to use all of these measures none of you democrats give two sh1ts about like etraffic surveillance, dropping in on phone calls, access to your 'private conversations' over the phone.

Now...the Democrat Party once abhorred such behavior. They once screamed about earmarks, remember that one. The Dem Party told you the debt crisis was unpatriotic, un-American......telling this mind you while voting for it all as influential Senators.

Obama's opposition to same sex marriage then...forgotten now. His position then with his fake church was of one man one woman....the Dem Party overwhelmingly voted him in. Same with Hillary whose Husband actually signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

Maine plays here. The Dem Party has no platform, it contradicts itself and forgives if it can get elected. Obama speaks out about debt.....and they cheer his massive debt policies. Obama is going to close Gitmo.....and the Left deafen us with their silence.

The democratic party has a platform. I support that platform. Do I agree with every single solitary plank IN that platform? no. But I agree a LOT more with the democratic platform than I do with the GOP platform, and, as I said, I take the time to read them both from cover to cover every four years. Does my party's candidate always agree 100% with every plank in the platform? No. Does my party's candidate ALWAYS agree with MOST of the platform? Of course they do.... if they didn't they wouldn't chose to run as a democrat. Intelligent voters are never single issue voters. If they cast aside a candidate who believed in nearly everything they believed in simply because he or she didn't believe in one or two things that they believed in, that is utterly foolish, imho.

maineman
05-05-2015, 09:44 AM
Actually, I think on this whole thread I've been saying we need to see what she believes before making decisions. If I slammed her, please let me know. I don't think I did. But yes, if she follows the republican platform, I won't vote for her. But we don't know that yet.

and if she doesn't follow the GOP platform, they OUGHT NOT TO NOMINATE HER!

maineman
05-05-2015, 09:45 AM
why didn't Obama close Guantanamo when he had Democrat, veto proof control of the congress? He had Harry Reid even inventing "the nuclear option" to render Republicans helpless to stop anything.Reid's nuclear option only applied to presidential appointments, not legislation.

nic34
05-05-2015, 09:52 AM
when he had Democrat, veto proof control of the congress?

Never happened.

The Myth of the Filibuster-Proof Democratic Senate
The claim that Obama ruled like a monarch over Congress for two years — endlessly intoned as a talking point by Republicans — is more than just a misremembering of recent history or excited overstatement. It’s a lie.

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 10:00 AM
and if she doesn't follow the GOP platform, they OUGHT NOT TO NOMINATE HER!


Well, yeah, good point.

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 10:01 AM
Never happened.

The Myth of the Filibuster-Proof Democratic Senate


The claim that Obama ruled like a monarch over Congress for two years — endlessly intoned as a talking point by Republicans — is more than just a misremembering of recent history or excited overstatement. It’s a lie.

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

Thanks. I've countered the lie before on other boards, was just not in the mood to do it again.

del
05-05-2015, 10:14 AM
Wait, didn't you just a couple of short days ago whine about how "left" Wikipedia was and how it was not to be trusted because you didn't like the way it "treated" Goldwater? Dad'gum guy.

www.luminosity.com (http://www.luminosity.com)

also, the wiki page has changed since she declared.

coincidence, i'm sure lol

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 10:20 AM
Actually, I think on this whole thread I've been saying we need to see what she believes before making decisions.

actually, I said that and you seemed to disagree. I've been consistent, you have not.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 10:22 AM
Reid's nuclear option only applied to presidential appointments, not legislation.

So why didn't Obama make good on his promise to close down gizmo when he had a veto proof majority in the congress?

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 10:25 AM
He only had a veto proof majority for 60 working days. Lots of things to do during that time. Try coming up with something more original.

http://factleft.com/2012/01/31/the-myth-of-democratic-super-majority/

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 10:30 AM
Reid's nuclear option only applied to presidential appointments, not legislation.


It changed the filibuster rules period. It was motivated by wanting to ram appointments through, but it ultimately goes beyond just appointments.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 10:31 AM
He only had a veto proof majority for 60 working days. Lots of things to do during that time. Try coming up with something more original.

http://factleft.com/2012/01/31/the-myth-of-democratic-super-majority/

He promised to close gizmo on day one. It's still up and running today. Right, the rascally Republicans got in the way.

Why didn't even try to make good on that promise?

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 10:37 AM
Actually, I think on this whole thread I've been saying we need to see what she believes before making decisions.

actually, your first comment on this was you saying that you don't know where she stands on issues, but assuming she agrees with a party platform.

maineman
05-05-2015, 11:01 AM
It changed the filibuster rules period. It was motivated by wanting to ram appointments through, but it ultimately goes beyond just appointments.

it only applies to appointments. It does NOT apply to legislation. sorry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/21/harry-reid-nuclear-senate/3662445/

Ransom
05-05-2015, 11:08 AM
$#@!, Ransom, have you never heard about learning more about issues and changing your mind? In the case of same sex marriage a lot of people have done that. Would you want to nail your politicians feet into the ground, say that you campaigned on this issue with this position and no matter what, you can never change your mind? wow. Most of us understand that, like the country, as Pres. Obama learned more about the issue he changed his mind. This is a really stupid thing to beat him up on.

"Learn more" about the issues? Like....this same sex marriage thing is so f'n complex or something. You don't learn more about the issues.....Patty......like same sex marriage, it is what it is. What happens is more and more people disagree with you, put pressure on you to alter your opinion, use money to do so....and all of the sudden....bam....you're a big proponent. And it's because his opposition wasn't for any other reason than to get elected in 2008. It's not a really stupid thing to beat up on him, it's quite appropriate as he's flip flopped on a whole host of issues. But be an apologist and ungrounded supporter, Patty, you're just making my points for me.


Re Gitmo- the republicans wouldn't give Pres. Obama the money to close it. In our political system, that's the way it works. You can campaign and win on an issue, but if you can't get congress to cooperate, it isn't going to happen. I believe the left was actually vocal on this issue - but we blame the people who kept it from closing, the Republicans.

Oh...so he didn't have a pen nor a phone then? And when he had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate......as it was his 'to do first' thing....he could have done it. And you'll note...he's currently releasing these prisoners to other nations without Congressional approvals, something any Executive Order could do. But again....this is so telling. It's Obama's primary promise.......he has massive majorities in the Senate and House.....he's the President of the United States and can bring these Cats to trial or move these prisoners to another location here....without Congressional approval......but it's all the Republicans fault. Want more proof.....ask Patty what the Republicans aren't to balme for. This economy, Gitmo, isn't the current chaos in our inner cities after decades of liberal leadership blamed on Republicans for not "giving enough money?"

when you grow up, Patty, you're going to have to be responsible for your own actions.

Ransom
05-05-2015, 11:12 AM
He promised to close gizmo on day one. It's still up and running today. Right, the rascally Republicans got in the way.

Why didn't even try to make good on that promise?

But...back up to shortly after Obama took office. These prisoners cases were up in front of federal Judge Bates. Asked if the White House wanted to start affording them habeas....the Obama Admin immediately said no.....we'll continue on with the Bush policy of not affording these men trial....in fact Obama continued to imprison them without giving affording them even the right to challenge their own detentions. Voted for the surveillance act while his entire party screeched about privacy rights....and they elected him all the same.

The Democrat Party isn't grounded. They'll always go with the popular feel good platform, there are no values. No personal accountability whatsoever.

Common
05-05-2015, 11:15 AM
But...back up to shortly after Obama took office. These prisoners cases were up in front of federal Judge Bates. Asked if the White House wanted to start affording them habeas....the Obama Admin immediately said no.....we'll continue on with the Bush policy of not affording these men trial....in fact Obama continued to imprison them without giving affording them even the right to challenge their own detentions. Voted for the surveillance act while his entire party screeched about privacy rights....and they elected him all the same.

The Democrat Party isn't grounded. They'll always go with the popular feel good platform, there are no values. No personal accountability whatsoever.

You right about obama in the first part of you post about the trials, habeas ect.

Im interested in knowing how many Bush gave habea too and trials.

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 11:22 AM
actually, your first comment on this was you saying that you don't know where she stands on issues, but assuming she agrees with a party platform.

And I'll stand by that as it would be unlikely she would run as a republican if she didn't agree with it. Of course, she may have differences with some of it. I'm sure we'll find out.

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 11:23 AM
when you grow up, Patty, you're going to have to be responsible for your own actions.

And when YOU grow up you'll learn (hopefully) how to hold a civilized conversation.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 11:24 AM
The Democrats change long standing rules to make their majority even stronger and they still fails to accomplish certain things, then blame others.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 11:25 AM
And I'll stand by that as it would be unlikely she would run as a republican if she didn't agree with it. Of course, she may have differences with some of it. I'm sure we'll find out.


So, do you know where she stands on issues, or are you just basing your vote on a D or R after a name?

pretty easy question there.

Ransom
05-05-2015, 11:27 AM
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates rejected the government's argument, first made by the Bush administration and later adopted by the Obama Justice Department, that it could detain prisoners indefinitely in a "war zone."

Remember when Democrats were so outraged that Bush would detain prisoners without trial.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/02/AR2009040201796.html

Obama in 2008; "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project"

Anyone want to guess how many earmarks were in the Stimulus Package....or omnibus spending bill?

Obama in 2008; The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

Anyone want to take a guess how much the national debt is now? www.usdebtclock.org (http://www.usdebtclock.org)

Obama in 2008 on same sex marriage; I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman (http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/08/17/full-transcript-saddleback-presidential-forum-sen-barack-obama-john-mccain-moderated-by-rick-warren/). Now, for me as a Christian…it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” Even though Obama still supported civil unions at this point, his statements drew a bold line between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples.

I'll have to assume here that our member [MENTION]PattyHill[MENTION] believes Obama's opinion....changed....perhaps God no longer in the mix.....Patty?:biglaugh:

You f'n cannot make this up!!!

And Obama did not oppose the Surveillance Bill, in fact, he voted for it. (Hillary voted against). It passed the majority Democrat Senate, 69-28, on July 9, 2008.

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 11:33 AM
So, do you know where she stands on issues, or are you just basing your vote on a D or R after a name?

pretty easy question there.


There is absolutely nothing to vote on at the moment. You're a little early.

del
05-05-2015, 11:36 AM
There is absolutely nothing to vote on at the moment. You're a little early.

:rofl:

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 11:36 AM
There is absolutely nothing to vote on at the moment. You're a little early.

i guess I'll have to take that as an admission that you have no idea where she stands on any particular issue.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 11:42 AM
You right about obama in the first part of you post about the trials, habeas ect.

Im interested in knowing how many Bush gave habea too and trials.

Bush didn't promise to close down Gitmo on day one, Obama did. It's still up and running more than six years later, right?

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 11:43 AM
i guess I'll have to take that as an admission that you have no idea where she stands on any particular issue.


She's anti-abortion; and supported Arizona's tough immigration laws.

How's that for a start?

I also don't know Carson's, Rubio's, Cruz's, Paul's, etc (the clown car people) stance on a lot of issues. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A PRIMARY CAMPAIGN

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 11:46 AM
She's anti-abortion; and supported Arizona's tough immigration laws.

How's that for a start?

I also don't know Carson's, Rubio's, Cruz's, Paul's, etc (the clown car people) stance on a lot of issues. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A PRIMARY CAMPAIGN

So, you know they are clownish, but you don't know why? Got it.

maineman
05-05-2015, 11:52 AM
The Democrats change long standing rules to make their majority even stronger and they still fails to accomplish certain things, then blame others.

again...they changed the rules for non-SCOTUS presidential appointments only. And they certainly got a bunch of them approved after the change.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 11:55 AM
again...they changed the rules for non-SCOTUS presidential appointments only. And they certainly got a bunch of them approved after the change.

and how does that mitigate Obama failing to accomplish things he promised to accomplish even when he had a veto proof majority?

maineman
05-05-2015, 12:04 PM
and how does that mitigate Obama failing to accomplish things he promised to accomplish even when he had a veto proof majority?

he only had it for about two months.

and how does that allow you to just waltz away from your previous statements that the filibuster was for all actions and not merely appointments?

maineman
05-05-2015, 12:05 PM
and regarding Obama's unkept promises.... I am so disappointed by that whole issue that I have vowed I will never vote for him ever again.

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 12:12 PM
and regarding Obama's unkept promises.... I am so disappointed by that whole issue that I have vowed I will never vote for him ever again.


Ha ha!! ok, maybe this should ALSO be POTD! Howey ?

Bob
05-05-2015, 12:33 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1077991#post1077991)
Tell me what you know about the velocity of money? Tell me why cutting taxes should result in more revenue to the Federal Government. Who gets cut does not matter would it so long as the Federales collects more loot?



You tell me why its never worked and go back to reagan and his bullshit story about trickle down

Government can force an increase in the velocity of money. I now know you did not bother to study it.

It has worked.

What is your angst vs Reagan? Reagan did not ever call his program by any name called trickle down economics. That was not his intention nor his description. Reagan followed more in the line of Austrian economics.

If you talk about Reagan, suggestion, stop with the Democrat political talk and let's drill down into economics.

If you are not able to talk to me rationally, let's skip this drill. I was hoping for the forum a discussion of the velocity of money might spark some genuine comments on the part of those who know this topic.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 12:34 PM
he only had it for about two months.

and how does that allow you to just waltz away from your previous statements that the filibuster was for all actions and not merely appointments?So, you excuse him for not living up to a campaign promise?

Do you think a filibuster only applies to appointments?

maineman
05-05-2015, 12:43 PM
So, you excuse him for not living up to a campaign promise?

Do you think a filibuster only applies to appointments?

I think filibusters apply only to legislation now. Appointments cannot be filibustered under the new rules..... only non-SCOTUS appointments fall under the new rule. Everything else can, and has been filibustered since the new rules were enacted.

And anyone who thinks that any president will be able to keep all his campaign promises is dumber than a sack of hair.

I guess that would be you, eh?

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 12:47 PM
Partisan hacks are quite entertaining.

PolWatch
05-05-2015, 12:55 PM
Politicians all fail to deliver on promises. Its a trait of the species. What happened to the one term president and the ending of the ACA?

maineman
05-05-2015, 12:57 PM
Partisan hacks are quite entertaining.

and people who can't seem to admit when they have erred are.... just pathetic.

Ransom
05-05-2015, 01:13 PM
You right about obama in the first part of you post about the trials, habeas ect.

Im interested in knowing how many Bush gave habea too and trials.

Of course I'm right. But here...you're more interested in how many Bush gave habeas to? Bush wasn't the one spouting off about how it was against prisoner rights, Common. The Republicans weren't the party claiming we had to afford these detainees rights....nor access to our courts. That they could be held...indefinitely. So typical, Common. Bush took the same position he has today. That like so many detainees taken off battlefields in countless wars and military actions, America simply never afforded our courts nor Constitutional rights.

Ransom
05-05-2015, 01:17 PM
Bush didn't promise to close down Gitmo on day one, Obama did. It's still up and running more than six years later, right?

And prisoners he detained in Afghanistan weren't afforded any trials nor rights. Kept in a prison at Parwan id I'm not mistaken. And I'm not.

Obama followed detainee rights to the Bush letter......and the Left beginning Jan of 2009 just quit making any noise about it. You know....the party Maineman is busy telling us has policies of foundation.

What poppyc0ck.

Ransom
05-05-2015, 01:18 PM
and people who can't seem to admit when they have erred are.... just pathetic.

Really....Mr. 'he should be in jail for what he did?'

Pathetic is dead on.

Ransom
05-05-2015, 01:25 PM
Politicians all fail to deliver on promises. Its a trait of the species. What happened to the one term president and the ending of the ACA?

Leftists only bring this fact up when it's a leftist, some Democrat in office needing cover. "All politicians" fail, it's just part of their makeup.....can't really blame Obama nor any other President.

Mark my words fellow GOPers. "Read my lips, no new taxes".....any promise made by Bush I or his son....they were held accountable. This "all politicans fail" will not exist as an arrow in PolWatch's quiver should an (R) occupy the Oval Office. Nor any other leftist's quiver. The GOP will be held to account both by their constituents...and the Left. Don't fall for this rubbish.

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 01:33 PM
And prisoners he detained in Afghanistan weren't afforded any trials nor rights. Kept in a prison at Parwan id I'm not mistaken. And I'm not.

Obama followed detainee rights to the Bush letter......and the Left beginning Jan of 2009 just quit making any noise about it. You know....the party Maineman is busy telling us has policies of foundation.

What poppyc0ck.

That's actually not true. There has been plenty of discussion of Pres. Obama's policies in things like drones, gitmo, afghanistan, etc in the liberal/progressive press - and most of it is pretty negative.

We make noise. But you have to be reading the magazines and websites where it's covered, not just have your nose buried in Mad Magazine or whatever.

maineman
05-05-2015, 03:23 PM
Really....Mr. 'he should be in jail for what he did?'

Pathetic is dead on.

My opinion did not concur with the jury's. big deal. That doesn't make me "wrong". Do you think that OJ should be in jail for what HE did? I sure do.

maineman
05-05-2015, 03:25 PM
And prisoners he detained in Afghanistan weren't afforded any trials nor rights. Kept in a prison at Parwan id I'm not mistaken. And I'm not.

Obama followed detainee rights to the Bush letter......and the Left beginning Jan of 2009 just quit making any noise about it. You know....the party Maineman is busy telling us has policies of foundation.

What poppyc0ck.


We do have a platform we stand on. Does every democrat stand lock step squarely upon every single plank? Of course not.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 03:37 PM
and people who can't seem to admit when they have erred are.... just pathetic.

It's really odd, but every time you ask ^^^^^ a question, he refuses to answer then claims you are somehow wrong.

This all started because I asked him if knew where Fiorina stood on any issue. He does not, but somehow for some reason he's unwilling to admit that.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 03:40 PM
And prisoners he detained in Afghanistan weren't afforded any trials nor rights. Kept in a prison at Parwan id I'm not mistaken. And I'm not.

Obama followed detainee rights to the Bush letter......and the Left beginning Jan of 2009 just quit making any noise about it. You know....the party Maineman is busy telling us has policies of foundation.

What poppyc0ck.

The left wingers have two positions on Obama's failures. It's either Bush's fault, or the justify it by saying failing to keep one's promises is par for the course in DC.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 03:41 PM
We do have a platform we stand on. Does every democrat stand lock step squarely upon every single plank? Of course not.

But you think all Republicans agree with the party platform in 100% agreement. You're an odd duck.

PolWatch
05-05-2015, 03:45 PM
The left wingers have two positions on Obama's failures. It's either Bush's fault, or the justify it by saying failing to keep one's promises is par for the course in DC.

and this is different from the right winger excuses....how? Insert Obama for Bush or blame the majority dems (veto is the booger now)

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 03:53 PM
The left wingers have two positions on Obama's failures. It's either Bush's fault, or the justify it by saying failing to keep one's promises is par for the course in DC.


And again - there is a LOT of discussion in progressive/liberal media that is disappointed in Pres. Obama's use of drones, on gitmo, and on other policies, including whistleblowers. So you are wrong. There are not just two positions. Although certainly the two you listed are part of the discussion.

maineman
05-05-2015, 04:01 PM
It's really odd, but every time you ask ^^^^^ a question, he refuses to answer then claims you are somehow wrong.

This all started because I asked him if knew where Fiorina stood on any issue. He does not, but somehow for some reason he's unwilling to admit that.

I know very few specific defining positions of Fiorina other than the fact she is anti-abortion, she is anti-gay marriage, she believes that global warming is a hoax, and she was against cap and trade. What I do know is this: She's a republican. They all stand on the same platform. Do they all agree with every plank? Of course not, but they all HAVE to agree with enough of them or 1.) they wouldn't run as a republican, or 2.) the GOP would never nominate them. It's not like they are different species... they're all republicans and, on the other side, they're all democrats.

Do you understand how filibusters work in the Senate since the rule change in 2013, or do you need to go back and do more study?

maineman
05-05-2015, 04:03 PM
But you think all Republicans agree with the party platform in 100% agreement. You're an odd duck.
I have NEVER said that....ergo, this post is a LIE.... and we know what we call folks who tell lies, don't we?

Green Arrow
05-05-2015, 04:15 PM
Generalized is not synonymous with meaningless.

It might as well be. Generalizations are often meaningless.

maineman
05-05-2015, 05:00 PM
It might as well be. Generalizations are often meaningless.

you're certainly welcome to your opinion. I find the party platform to be an instructive and inspirational document that helps me reset my compass every four years.

del
05-05-2015, 05:54 PM
Partisan hacks are quite entertaining.

yes, you are

Hal Jordan
05-05-2015, 06:06 PM
you're certainly welcome to your opinion. I find the party platform to be an instructive and inspirational document that helps me reset my compass every four years.

So, the party sets your compass rather than you setting it yourself.

Mac-7
05-05-2015, 06:14 PM
And again -

there is a LOT of discussion in progressive/liberal media

that is disappointed in Pres. Obama's use of drones, on gitmo, and on other policies, including whistleblowers.

Lefties only criticize obumer between themselves.

Publicly they never admit that the clean, articulate black guy with big ears ever made a mistake .

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 06:15 PM
Lefties only criticize obumer between themselves.

Publicly they never admit that the clean, articulate black guy with big ears ever made a mistake .


Gee, I didn't realize there was a lock and key on the progressive/liberal magazines at your local newsstand, keeping you from buying them...

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 06:47 PM
and this is different from the right winger excuses....how?

yes, because the right blames the one who causes the problems.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 06:49 PM
and this is different from the right winger excuses....how? Insert Obama for Bush or blame the majority dems (veto is the booger now)


See, this is what I mean. The left can never accept any of the blame for the problems they cause. It's either someone else's fault, or business as usual.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 06:50 PM
And again - there is a LOT of discussion in progressive/liberal media that is disappointed in Pres. Obama's use of drones, on gitmo, and on other policies, including whistleblowers. So you are wrong. There are not just two positions. Although certainly the two you listed are part of the discussion.


The media criticism is timid. The partisans criticism is nonexistent.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 06:51 PM
I know very few specific defining positions of Fiorina other than the fact she is anti-abortion, she is anti-gay marriage, she believes that global warming is a hoax, and she was against cap and trade. What I do know is this: She's a republican. They all stand on the same platform. Do they all agree with every plank? Of course not, but they all HAVE to agree with enough of them or 1.) they wouldn't run as a republican, or 2.) the GOP would never nominate them. It's not like they are different species... they're all republicans and, on the other side, they're all democrats.

Do you understand how filibusters work in the Senate since the rule change in 2013, or do you need to go back and do more study?


Some day this guy will think for himself.

del
05-05-2015, 06:53 PM
The media criticism is timid. The partisans criticism is nonexistent.

so your main criticism of the critics is that their criticism isn't critical enough?

sounds like a crisis

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 06:54 PM
yes, you are

That was a witty retort.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 06:55 PM
so your main criticism of the critics is that their criticism isn't critical enough?

sounds like a crisis

there is none. The left is made up of nothing but partisan hacks.

del
05-05-2015, 07:00 PM
there is none. The left is made up of nothing but partisan hacks.

that's nice, honey

del
05-05-2015, 07:00 PM
That was a witty retort.

i'm not surprised you thought so

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 07:27 PM
He's revived his stalking habit.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 07:29 PM
I have NEVER said that....ergo, this post is a LIE.... and we know what we call folks who tell lies, don't we?


Yes you did. You claimed to know what a Republucan candidate stands for by reading the Republican platform.

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 07:34 PM
there is none. The left is made up of nothing but partisan hacks.

I suppose it takes one to know one.

Tahuyaman, you are doing yourself no favors with your line of comments. Slinging crap in spite of being shown items that contradict your view means you yourself are a partisan hack.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 07:36 PM
I suppose it takes one to know one.

No, it just takes someone with the average amount of common sense. I know, that eliminates you from the pool.

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 07:40 PM
No, it just takes someone with the average amount of common sense. I know, that eliminates you from the pool.


Tahuyaman, I don't love trading insults on a message board. Apparently you do. I am stopping. Say what you want. I won't respond to you anymore unless you start actually debating instead of throwing "partisan hack" around 20 times in a post.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 07:54 PM
Tahuyaman, I don't love trading insults on a message board. Apparently you do. I am stopping. Say what you want. I won't respond to you anymore unless you start actually debating instead of throwing "partisan hack" around 20 times in a post.


Show ow me one single time I've used the term "partisan hack" 20 times in a post? Is accuracy a foreign concept to you?

Green Arrow
05-05-2015, 10:00 PM
you're certainly welcome to your opinion. I find the party platform to be an instructive and inspirational document that helps me reset my compass every four years.

In what way is it "instructive" and "inspirational" and how does it help you reset your compass?

maineman
05-05-2015, 10:01 PM
Yes you did. You claimed to know what a Republucan candidate stands for by reading the Republican platform.
You are a liar or a moron or both. I said that any republican candidate who can win the nomination of his or her party stands on his or her party's platform, not that they embrace every plank thereon. You are both a liar and a moron. Take a basic ESL class and a civics class and come back when you've smartened yourself up betond the grade school level.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 10:13 PM
Why are you so angry? After all, you said it, not me.



Originally Posted by maineman
I find the party platform to be an instructive and inspirational document that helps me reset my compass every four years.


Now that's funny. A bit dramatic, but still funny.

Tahuyaman
05-05-2015, 10:16 PM
In what way is it "instructive" and "inspirational" and how does it help you reset your compass?


He he will deny that he made that comment.

Peter1469
05-06-2015, 04:21 AM
You are a liar or a moron or both. I said that any republican candidate who can win the nomination of his or her party stands on his or her party's platform, not that they embrace every plank thereon. You are both a liar and a moron. Take a basic ESL class and a civics class and come back when you've smartened yourself up betond the grade school level.


Warning: Don't call members names.

maineman
05-06-2015, 07:26 AM
In what way is it "instructive" and "inspirational" and how does it help you reset your compass?

It helps to remind me of all the areas of concern that I share with my party, and it brings me up to date on a variety of issues. It also lets me identify those areas of the platform where I differ from others in the party.

maineman
05-06-2015, 07:33 AM
Yes you did. You claimed to know what a Republucan candidate stands for by reading the Republican platform.
Learn to read for content and nuance. Few, if any people in either party believe and identify with every single line in every single plank of their party's platform. They both are consensus driven documents crafted by platform committees. What emerges from those committees is a document that captures the essence of what a consensus of the party holds true and believes. Are there pro-choice republicans out there? I would imagine so. Does the existence of a pro-life plank in the GOP platform make them no longer republicans? No. Log cabin republicans are still republicans even though they are gay and their party is against gay marriage. They happen to believe in enough of the OTHER planks in the platform to still call themselves republicans. Democrats are the same way, and if you ever got the impression from me that I thought differently, you misread and misunderstood the meaning of my words. I hope this has cleared this point up for you.

maineman
05-06-2015, 07:34 AM
He he will deny that he made that comment.

please note post #213 and retract this. Thank you.

Ransom
05-06-2015, 08:28 AM
And again... if you want to show me congressional democrats who routinely act and vote counter to their party's platform, feel free.

Obama...who voted for war funding and the Surveillance Act. Voted for all the spending programs while claiming that was unpatriotic. Good enough?

maineman
05-06-2015, 08:32 AM
Obama...who voted for war funding and the Surveillance Act. Voted for all the spending programs while claiming that was unpatriotic. Good enough?

Was the surveillance act in more than one plank of the platform?

Were the spending programs NOT part of the platform?

yes or no answers are all that I require here.

maineman
05-06-2015, 08:38 AM
It would appear that many people on this site are unaware of what party platforms actually are, and how they are created. Very few in either party wholeheartedly endorse every single plank in their platforms, but nearly every member of any political party believes in most of their party's platforms, or they wouldn't be registered members OF that party. Everyone is different, but a platform allows disparate groups of people to be joined by their overall consensus to the platform as a whole, even while disagreeing on individual aspects (planks) in that platform.

zelmo1234
05-06-2015, 08:47 AM
I think what some are trying to point out is that world domination and eating babies could be part of Hilary's platform and the Democrats would overlook it!

Or another way of putting it, is this, If there was a Republican Candidate that had the baggage that Hilary has?

You all would be screaming for criminal investigations and prosecutions. But with Hilary, because she is really the Democrats only hope to remain in some power, as they are likely to loose even more house and Senate seats. They are willing to overlook any and all actions.

maineman
05-06-2015, 08:57 AM
I think what some are trying to point out is that world domination and eating babies could be part of Hilary's platform and the Democrats would overlook it!

Or another way of putting it, is this, If there was a Republican Candidate that had the baggage that Hilary has?

You all would be screaming for criminal investigations and prosecutions. But with Hilary, because she is really the Democrats only hope to remain in some power, as they are likely to loose even more house and Senate seats. They are willing to overlook any and all actions.

Hillary doesn't HAVE a platform. Her party does. Has Hillary come out and stated her disagreement with any plank in the democratic platform? Do you think that the 2016 democratic platform will be markedly different than the 2012 one?

zelmo1234
05-06-2015, 09:05 AM
Hillary doesn't HAVE a platform. Her party does. Has Hillary come out and stated her disagreement with any plank in the democratic platform? Do you think that the 2016 democratic platform will be markedly different than the 2012 one?

Actually I think that there will be 2 major differences. with the employer mandate looming as well as the Luxury tax on Union healthcare plans, I think that the Democratic Candidate will be calling for the reform of the ACA

I also think with the middle east on fire and the total and complete failure of the Obama foreign policy, that they will be calling for a tuff stance against Iran and ISIS

maineman
05-06-2015, 09:12 AM
I take it that you are not planning on addressing the first question.

zelmo1234
05-06-2015, 09:18 AM
I take it that you are not planning on addressing the first question.

I am sorry what am I not addressing?

Is it the Hilary platform, I thought that was a statement.

Yes I agree that she does not have a platform and is likely not going to have one, until forced to do so.

The longer she can hold off supporting the failed policies of this administration the better it is for her.

When she starts to criticize them, and she will be forced to if she want any chance of winning, she will start to lose support in the minority communities.

maineman
05-06-2015, 09:24 AM
you seem to prove the basic premise of #218.