PDA

View Full Version : Why do Americans vote Republican?



Awryly
08-23-2012, 09:44 PM
Let's face it. The GOP stands for the interests of the wealthy few.

Yet blue collar whites regularly vote against their best interests. Their "best interests" being best serviced by Democrat policies on tax, education, health, voter registration, and reduced funding for the industrial/military complex.

What on earth impels average middle class workers to commit hari-kari?

roadmaster
08-23-2012, 09:53 PM
As a Conservative independent, God and country means a lot to me. I liked Carter and not ashamed to say it. None of the Presidents are perfect but if they go too much against what I believe I won't vote for them. Actions speak better than words. Obamas too far left for me and I don't think he is looking out for this countries interest.

Captain Obvious
08-23-2012, 09:56 PM
Don't kid yourself, both parties stand for the interest of the wealthy few.

Democrats just put up a good ruse and aren't as obvious. They're not stupid, why shit on their dinner plate?

Awryly
08-23-2012, 09:57 PM
As a Conservative independent, God and country means a lot to me. I liked Carter and not ashamed to say it. None of the Presidents are perfect but if they go too much against what I believe I won't vote for them. Actions speak better than words. Obamas too far left for me and I don't think he is looking out for this countries interest.

Of course, God.

87% of Americans actually believe in this flying teapot. How that happened is the subject of an entire new thread. Whicuh I may write if I need to amuse myself.

What do you mean by "country"? Are you under attack or something?

roadmaster
08-23-2012, 10:00 PM
Of course, God.

87% of Americans actually believe in this flying teapot. How that happened is the subject of an entire new thread. Whicuh I may write if I need to amuse myself.

What do you mean by "country"? Are you under attack or something?

With the unemployment rates looks like many of my fellow Americans are under attack. And Yes I am one of those Christ followers and proud of it.

wingrider
08-23-2012, 11:29 PM
Of course, God.

87% of Americans actually believe in this flying teapot. How that happened is the subject of an entire new thread. Whicuh I may write if I need to amuse myself.

What do you mean by "country"? Are you under attack or something?
you should write comedy.. that is some funny stuff right there..

you saying stuff like this is not going to endear you to 87 percent of this country.. just saying.

birddog
08-23-2012, 11:40 PM
Let's face it. The GOP stands for the interests of the wealthy few.

Yet blue collar whites regularly vote against their best interests. Their "best interests" being best serviced by Democrat policies on tax, education, health, voter registration, and reduced funding for the industrial/military complex.

What on earth impels average middle class workers to commit hari-kari?

You and the truth are far apart IMHO. Extreme liberal thinking like yours is wrong, but your chances of seeing that is nil.

Awryly
08-24-2012, 12:19 AM
With the unemployment rates looks like many of my fellow Americans are under attack. And Yes I am one of those Christ followers and proud of it.

So how is that salvation going?

roadmaster
08-24-2012, 12:24 AM
So how is that salvation going?

Well never been afraid of the dark or death. Don't ask me to preach to you, you will either find Him or not. We all have to make our own choice.

Awryly
08-24-2012, 12:30 AM
Well never been afraid of the dark or death. Don't ask me to preach to you, you will either find Him or not. We all have to make our own choice.

Why do you think that atheists are afraid of the dark or death any more than anyone else.

Life is a cycle. Death is part of it.

You don't need a deity to comfort you with vain thoughts of a supposed afterlife.

But, wait............billions do.

Mainecoons
08-24-2012, 06:31 AM
Let's face it. The GOP stands for the interests of the wealthy few.

Yet blue collar whites regularly vote against their best interests. Their "best interests" being best serviced by Democrat policies on tax, education, health, voter registration, and reduced funding for the industrial/military complex.

What on earth impels average middle class workers to commit hari-kari?

Let's face it, your thread started out with an incorrect premise. I suggest (I know this is hard for a liberal) that you check that premise with a little research and there you will find, among other things, that the average contribution size for the Democrats was considerably more than the average contribution size for the Republicans and Democrats these days have more wealthy sponsors than Republicans.

I always find it interesting when the libs come here and whine about the Kochs while they ignore the Soros, Buffetts, Gates, etc.

Go do your homework, genius. Then post.

Thread fail.

Awryly
08-24-2012, 07:17 AM
Let's face it, your thread started out with an incorrect premise. I suggest (I know this is hard for a liberal) that you check that premise with a little research and there you will find, among other things, that the average contribution size for the Democrats was considerably more than the average contribution size for the Republicans and Democrats these days have more wealthy sponsors than Republicans.

I always find it interesting when the libs come here and whine about the Kochs while they ignore the Soros, Buffetts, Gates, etc.

Go do your homework, genius. Then post.

Thread fail.


Again, another comprehension failure.

I did not ask who contributed most to whoever for whatever. Just why people vote Republican against their own best interests.

Mainecoons
08-24-2012, 07:26 AM
Your first sentence is false.

Your second sentence is a litany of failed policies.


Yet blue collar whites regularly vote against their best interests. Their "best interests" being best serviced by Democrat policies on tax, education, health, voter registration, and reduced funding for the industrial/military complex.

1. The tax policies were passed by both parties. Perhaps if you studied a little history you'd notice that for the most part, the Democrats have controlled Congress. That is where tax policies originate.

2. Health: Do you understand the impact on health care costs of Democrat policies like runaway litigation?

3. Voter registration: This is the exclusive purview of local government. Democrat controlled governments in the southern U.S. were famous for excluding blacks.

4. Again, you fail to understand that funding for the military, a topic which I suspect we agree on, has been passed by Congress, the majority of the time which has been controlled by Democrats.


You really need to start learning more about U.S. politics before you post on the topic.

Awryly
08-24-2012, 07:46 AM
Your first sentence is false.


Your second sentence is a litany of failed policies.



1. The tax policies were passed by both parties. Perhaps if you studied a little history you'd notice that for the most part, the Democrats have controlled Congress. That is where tax policies originate.

2. Health: Do you understand the impact on health care costs of Democrat policies like runaway litigation?

3. Voter registration: This is the exclusive purview of local government. Democrat controlled governments in the southern U.S. were famous for excluding blacks.

4. Again, you fail to understand that funding for the military, a topic which I suspect we agree on, has been passed by Congress, the majority of the time which has been controlled by Democrats.


You really need to start learning more about U.S. politics before you post on the topic.

I need go no further, thankfully, than to note that your first point is nonsense. The Democrats are trying to get a balance in who pays what in taxes. The GOP is, and has been, blocking it for the last two years.

Thus working clearly against the interests of all but a small fraction of its constituency.

MMC
08-24-2012, 08:25 AM
I need go no further, thankfully, than to note that your first point is nonsense. The Democrats are trying to get a balance in who pays what in taxes. The GOP is, and has been, blocking it for the last two years.

Thus working clearly against the interests of all but a small fraction of its constituency.



Really? Got an answer as to why the Democrats didnt feel it it was Necessary to raise taxes when Obama Came into Power. I mean even you should be able to understand that Obama coming into Power with a full Congress in Control of those Democrats.....Had Card Blanc! :rollseyes:

Or did those on the left forget Obama's own Words which they backed 100%? U-know where Obama Stated this was not the time to Raise taxes In America. Now knowing that Obama Officially declared the Recession over with in 2009 and the Democrats all walking round saying it was......and now after learning that Obama has Spent More Money than what he even said he would be spending and every independant source out there is saying things are worse. Must be why No Democrat decided to Vote For Obama's Idea on What a budget looks like......huh?

Also knowing that Fiscal Responsibility and that Republicans Stand For the Equal Oppourtunity of Availability for Each and Every Single Individual there is, and that they stand for Life and less government Intrusion into one's Individual Rights.....Looks Like You Have Your Answer why People Vote For What IS RIGHT! :wink:

Awryly
08-24-2012, 08:39 AM
Really? Got an answer as to why the Democrats didnt feel it it was Necessary to raise taxes when Obama Came into Power. I mean even you should be able to understand that Obama coming into Power with a full Congress in Control of those Democrats.....Had Card Blanc! :rollseyes:

Or did those on the left forget Obama's own Words which they backed 100%? U-know where Obama Stated this was not the time to Raise taxes In America. Now knowing that Obama Officially declared the Recession over with in 2009 and the Democrats all walking round saying it was......and now after learning that Obama has Spent More Money than what he even said he would be spending and every independant source out there is saying things are worse. Must be why No Democrat decided to Vote For Obama's Idea on What a budget looks like......huh?

Also knowing that Fiscal Responsibility and that Republicans Stand For the Equal Oppourtunity of Availability for Each and Every Single Individual there is, and that they stand for Life and less government Intrusion into one's Individual Rights.....Looks Like You Have Your Answer why People Vote For What IS RIGHT! :wink:

A number of things spring to mind:

1. He was spending his political capital on health care.
2 He had strong opposition from blue dog supposedly Dem senators up against Tea partiers in their own constituencies.
3. He probably thought, unrealistically as it turned out, that he would get some support from the rinos.
4. He probably did not expect to lose the House so early.

Mainecoons
08-24-2012, 08:46 AM
5. It was always about the politics of class warfare, not actually doing anything meaningful about deficits.

Remember, this is the guy who appointed a rather strong and well qualified deficit reduction commission only to totally ignore its recommendations.

Trinnity
08-24-2012, 08:53 AM
I vote Republican to annoy you, Awryyly. j/k :blob9:

Awryly
08-24-2012, 08:58 AM
Lol.

I thought so.

MMC
08-24-2012, 09:00 AM
A number of things spring to mind:

1. He was spending his political capital on health care.
2 He had strong opposition from blue dog supposedly Dem senators up against Tea partiers in their own constituencies.
3. He probably thought, unrealistically as it turned out, that he would get some support from the rinos.
4. He probably did not expect to lose the House so early.


So now after all your rationalizing......did you forget the Republican States he carried? Or the Republicans that were working in his Administration? You musta forgot about that 800 Billion in Stimulus that the Republicans gave him.....huh? Did you forget about S-Chip for Children? Oh that was another one you forgot.....huh. Thus ends that fallacy concerning Republicans. Now to the deflection.....

He was Spending his Political Capital on healthcare. Did he have full Political Capital? (Rhetorical Question) So not only could he have got his Obamacare passed as well as the LeadBetter Act. Are you saying he couldn't have got anything else he wanted passed too. Lets See he got the Repubs to back him Picking Sotomayor for the SCOTUS. Then Kagen! Since we know they Apporved them. So now that we have demonstrated that he could have got ANYTHING HE WANTED PASSED. Kinda makes that rationale look somewhat foolish don,t you think?

On the false Premise of the Tea-Partiers and their Elections. This could not be so. As such did not take place until 2010. Until Mid-Term Elections came about.

Now as to the Defeat in the House suffered by the Democrats and the excuse of Obama not having enough time. Such can hardly be the case. As Obama had 2years full Control. Plus he walked into Power with a Democratically Led Full Congress which Bush was dealing with his last 2 years. As to the Blus Dogs he had no Opposition from them until he submitted a Budget at the end of 2010 in the House. Which then not one Demo voted for it. So again.....about those excuses.....you were saying? :studying:

Deadwood
08-24-2012, 09:02 AM
As a Conservative independent, God and country means a lot to me. I liked Carter and not ashamed to say it. None of the Presidents are perfect but if they go too much against what I believe I won't vote for them. Actions speak better than words. Obamas too far left for me and I don't think he is looking out for this countries interest.



Couldn't have said it better myself, except the part about Carter.

Awryly
08-28-2012, 08:23 PM
Let me ask all you Goppers a question.

If Dubya and Cheney were running for the current GOP nomination, who would you have voted for?

And why?

wingrider
08-28-2012, 08:39 PM
Let me ask all you Goppers a question.

If Dubya and Cheney were running for the current GOP nomination, who would you have voted for?

And why?
they are not running .. cannot run and your question is moot.

Goldie Locks
08-28-2012, 08:46 PM
Let's face it. The GOP stands for the interests of the wealthy few.

Yet blue collar whites regularly vote against their best interests. Their "best interests" being best serviced by Democrat policies on tax, education, health, voter registration, and reduced funding for the industrial/military complex.

What on earth impels average middle class workers to commit hari-kari?

Most voted for Ubama in the last election, but he proved to be a puppet for the central banks...we're on now to restoring the republic.

Captain Obvious
08-28-2012, 08:52 PM
they are not running .. cannot run and your question is moot.

Trap diffused, well done.

Awryly
08-28-2012, 08:58 PM
they are not running .. cannot run and your question is moot.

Amuse us. Be moot.

Peter1469
08-28-2012, 10:05 PM
Both parties support the rich.

Dems just add deficit spending in to create a dependent class to vote for them like zombies.

Awryly
08-29-2012, 03:34 AM
Both parties support the rich.

Dems just add deficit spending in to create a dependent class to vote for them like zombies.

So you would say that Bush and Cheney, who merely collapsed your economy, should win the race against the two Rs - who also wish to collapse the economy?

Peter1469
08-29-2012, 05:14 AM
So you would say that Bush and Cheney, who merely collapsed your economy, should win the race against the two Rs - who also wish to collapse the economy?

How did you come to that conclusion? Bush is a lib and Cheney is a neocon.

Agravan
08-29-2012, 08:36 AM
So you would say that Bush and Cheney, who merely collapsed your economy, should win the race against the two Rs - who also wish to collapse the economy?

While the neo-cons, with a big push from democrats, were driving our economy towards collapse, obama , again with help from the democrats, hopped into the car and really stomped on the accelerator and we are now heading towards collapse at light speed.
The twoo R's, as you call them, may not be able to completely stop the collapse, but they may be able to slow it down or even mitigate it to where in may be somewhat survivable. It's still going to be hell, no matter who's driving, but it will be much worse if obama stays in the driver's seat.

Peter1469
08-29-2012, 10:38 AM
Again, another comprehension failure.

I did not ask who contributed most to whoever for whatever. Just why people vote Republican against their own best interests.

Why poison the well? Let's try this: it is in the self interests of most people to vote GOP in November. I guess if you are addicted to a government handout you might want to vote for Obama.

Peter1469
08-29-2012, 10:38 AM
Let me ask all you Goppers a question.

If Dubya and Cheney were running for the current GOP nomination, who would you have voted for?

And why?

Not Obama, and not Bush/Cheney.

Peter1469
08-29-2012, 10:42 AM
So you would say that Bush and Cheney, who merely collapsed your economy, should win the race against the two Rs - who also wish to collapse the economy?

I am not sure what you are trying to communicate here, except that you are deflecting from the fact that Obama increased the deficit more in 3 years than Bush did in eight. Is that what you mean?

URF8
08-29-2012, 10:50 AM
Let's face it. The GOP stands for the interests of the wealthy few.

Yet blue collar whites regularly vote against their best interests. Their "best interests" being best serviced by Democrat policies on tax, education, health, voter registration, and reduced funding for the industrial/military complex.

What on earth impels average middle class workers to commit hari-kari?

Most white people vote for conservatives in America out of cultural reasons and fear of Cigar.

Awryly
08-29-2012, 08:42 PM
Why poison the well? Let's try this: it is in the self interests of most people to vote GOP in November. I guess if you are addicted to a government handout you might want to vote for Obama.


Yeah, I get that. Let people who have no legs stand on their own two feet.

The GOP has been trotting that out for decades.

Awryly
08-29-2012, 08:43 PM
I am not sure what you are trying to communicate here, except that you are deflecting from the fact that Obama increased the deficit more in 3 years than Bush did in eight. Is that what you mean?

Um...without Bush's magical terms in office, there would have been no deficit.

URF8
08-29-2012, 08:54 PM
Um...without Bush's magical terms in office, there would have been no deficit.

TARP...Auto Bailout...Stimulus.

Awryly
08-29-2012, 09:10 PM
TARP...Auto Bailout...Stimulus.

All necessary because of Bush's incompetence.

And TARP was a Republican measure - badly thought out.

It took the British to lead it towards sane policy.

Peter1469
08-29-2012, 09:20 PM
Um...without Bush's magical terms in office, there would have been no deficit.

Really? Silly nonesense.

Obama made a $6T load of debt all on his own.

Peter1469
08-29-2012, 09:21 PM
All necessary because of Bush's incompetence.

And TARP was a Republican measure - badly thought out.

It took the British to lead it towards sane policy.

Public school?

Economics is hard isn't it?

Captain Obvious
08-29-2012, 09:21 PM
GW drew a pint.

BO drained the brewery.

Peter1469
08-29-2012, 09:21 PM
Um...without Bush's magical terms in office, there would have been no deficit.

And I think you mean debt. Not deficit. Even if you don't know the difference.

Awryly
08-29-2012, 10:30 PM
And I think you mean debt. Not deficit. Even if you don't know the difference.

I was trying to be kind.

Awryly
08-31-2012, 12:12 AM
Public school?

Economics is hard isn't it?

Not really. Maybe if your rich paid their taxes at the same rate the unrich do.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ea/CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png/800px-CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png

wingrider
08-31-2012, 12:20 AM
according to that chart the feds were overtaxing the American people for about 4 years...


The rich still pay more in actual dollars than anyone.. even Romney .. what is 14 percent of 20 million? the answer is 2.8 million in one year.. in effect Romney paid more in taxes in one year than the average american will pay in a lifetime,, all this amounts to is envy and greed on the part of lefties

Awryly
08-31-2012, 12:26 AM
according to that chart the feds were overtaxing the American people for about 4 years...


The rich still pay more in actual dollars than anyone.. even Romney .. what is 14 percent of 20 million? the answer is 2.8 million in one year.. in effect Romney paid more in taxes in one year than the average american will pay in a lifetime,, all this amounts to is envy and greed on the part of lefties


Ah, the "actual dollars" argument rears its ugly head.

So you expect the poor to pay the same dollars as your billionaires?

Not the same percentage of income they scrape by on?

wingrider
08-31-2012, 12:41 AM
argue with congress on that .. personally I am sick of hearing about it.. Congress set the limits on investment taxes.. so if people have an issue with it then the thing to do is contact congress and have them change the law

Awryly
08-31-2012, 12:44 AM
argue with congress on that .. personally I am sick of hearing about it.. Congress set the limits on investment taxes.. so if people have an issue with it then the thing to do is contact congress and have them change the law


You mean that Congress that wants to lower taxes on billionaires?

Which you, fancifully, elect.

Grind
08-31-2012, 12:47 AM
Let's face it. The GOP stands for the interests of the wealthy few.

Yet blue collar whites regularly vote against their best interests. Their "best interests" being best serviced by Democrat policies on tax, education, health, voter registration, and reduced funding for the industrial/military complex.

What on earth impels average middle class workers to commit hari-kari?

who are you to say what their best interests are? Not everyone is a money grabber. Some people are principled and don't believe in wealth redistribution, even if it would personally benefit themselves.

Others may have certain issues that they believe in that trump whatever economic concerns they may have.

wingrider
08-31-2012, 12:53 AM
You mean that Congress that wants to lower taxes on billionaires?

Which you, fancifully, elect.
a couple of things.. first you are not an american so you have no say in our tax system,

second you don't vote for our congress, senate or president, so your opinion of our system of governance is just that your opinion nothing more and carries no weight .. sorry to be so blunt but that is just the way it is

Awryly
08-31-2012, 12:54 AM
who are you to say what their best interests are? Not everyone is a money grabber. Some people are principled and don't believe in wealth redistribution, even if it would personally benefit themselves.

Others may have certain issues that they believe in that trump whatever economic concerns they may have.


I think that having to eat cat food and living in tents is probably not in their best interests.

Am I wrong?

Conley
08-31-2012, 01:01 AM
I think that having to eat cat food and living in tents is probably not in their best interests.

Am I wrong?

Grind makes a good point...contrary to popular belief in some foreign lands :wink: for many Americans it is not all about the money. Maybe you've been watching too many of those Hollywood movies you were railing against?

Grind
08-31-2012, 01:10 AM
I think that having to eat cat food and living in tents is probably not in their best interests.

Am I wrong?

hyperbole aside, they are obviously capable of making that decision themselves. No amount of ads or campaigning is going to make someone that truly feels their life sucks, to completely disregard that. Everyone makes their own choices and does a cost benefit analysis of the issues that are most important to them.

Awryly
08-31-2012, 01:16 AM
hyperbole aside, they are obviously capable of making that decision themselves. No amount of ads or campaigning is going to make someone that truly feels their life sucks, to completely disregard that. Everyone makes their own choices and does a cost benefit analysis of the issues that are most important to them.

"Cost-benefit" is probably is probably not a lot of help to the average American household that has lost 40% of its wealth.

Grind
08-31-2012, 01:59 AM
"Cost-benefit" is probably is probably not a lot of help to the average American household that has lost 40% of its wealth.

again, if it were such a problem for them, the solution would be self-evident.

Awryly
08-31-2012, 02:19 AM
again, if it were such a problem for them, the solution would be self-evident.


Eat the cat?

Agravan
08-31-2012, 09:27 AM
Eat the cat?

How about: sell the cell phone, the bling, the big screen tvs, the game systems, etc.. Stop buying beer, drugs, hookers and instead buy food. Those are some things they could do.

Peter1469
08-31-2012, 03:54 PM
The chart shows that we need to slash spending.

GrumpyDog
08-31-2012, 04:33 PM
Not really. Maybe if your rich paid their taxes at the same rate the unrich do.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ea/CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png/800px-CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png

It appears to me, that the intersection of revenues and spending which is exacty balanced, is at the point where Monica and Bill were discovered to be having some kind of non conventionally recognized personal relationship.

Awryly
09-02-2012, 11:26 PM
It appears to me, that the intersection of revenues and spending which is exacty balanced, is at the point where Monica and Bill were discovered to be having some kind of non conventionally recognized personal relationship.


How is getting a blow-job in the Oval Office unconventional? Dick Fuld et al gave G W Bush one. Exhausted he was.

GrumpyDog
09-03-2012, 01:51 AM
How is getting a blow-job in the Oval Office unconventional? Dick Fuld et al gave G W Bush one. Exhausted he was.

The only evidence of what occured, was the dress, and that does not necessarily have to be oral, or other. It might have been some kind of Japanese massage technique, or it could have been simply a Tampa Fl. style "lap dance" of some sort.

Awryly
09-03-2012, 02:14 AM
Dick Fuld wears a dress. I hear John Cozine did to.

Until someone told them, erroneously, that hey had (very small) testicles.

GrumpyDog
09-03-2012, 09:35 AM
It should be clear to everyone now why exactly some Americans vote Republican.

It is fear of being #$%d in unorthodox ways, if they do not. Which of course is 99% unlikely, except in really wierd relationships like James Carvel and Mary Matalin.

Peter1469
09-03-2012, 10:37 AM
Unfortunately, the two major parties don't have big differences in the results of their governance. Both are driving us off a fiscal cliff. Neither deliver on their big promises.

Iron River
09-04-2012, 09:06 AM
Don't kid yourself, both parties stand for the interest of thewealthy few.

Democrats just put up a good ruse and aren't as obvious. They're not stupid,why shit on their dinner plate?

This is verytrue. Look at the leaders of the demparty and you will men and women who have become very rich using their officeto make money for themselves and their friends.

As far as why Ivote for Republicans: I care about the nation more than I care about myself. The self interests of the liberal horde arekilling our country and they know but don't care. They seem to think that their grand childrenwill be able to survive after BH Obama has cut our national power to"0" or maybe they are so selfish that they don't care about futuregenerations.

I do.

Awryly
09-18-2012, 12:33 AM
Unfortunately, the two major parties don't have big differences in the results of their governance. Both are driving us off a fiscal cliff. Neither deliver on their big promises.


You will land "with God".

Who will award you 72 virgins.

Ooops. Wrong religion.

texmaster
09-18-2012, 12:47 AM
This is verytrue. Look at the leaders of the demparty and you will men and women who have become very rich using their officeto make money for themselves and their friends.

As far as why Ivote for Republicans: I care about the nation more than I care about myself. The self interests of the liberal horde arekilling our country and they know but don't care. They seem to think that their grand childrenwill be able to survive after BH Obama has cut our national power to"0" or maybe they are so selfish that they don't care about futuregenerations.

I do.


And because you are a good Texan.

texmaster
09-18-2012, 12:49 AM
Dick Fuld wears a dress. I hear John Cozine did to.

Until someone told them, erroneously, that hey had (very small) testicles.

The voice of experience.

IGetItAlready
09-18-2012, 03:20 AM
Why do so many anti-American haters come on this board to illustrate their ignorance?
You don't see me on a Muzzy site talking shit about Shiites or Sunnis.
What's the obsession?

GrumpyDog
09-18-2012, 10:56 AM
Why do so many anti-American haters come on this board to illustrate their ignorance?
You don't see me on a Muzzy site talking shit about Shiites or Sunnis.
What's the obsession?

Well, I know for a fact, that I do not hate anti-Americans. I do not particularly like some of them that much either, but I try not to hate them. Nor do I hate pro-Americans, although some of them are too zealous in their belief that America is infallible, and that might makes right.

Awryly
09-18-2012, 09:08 PM
Well, I know for a fact, that I do not hate anti-Americans. I do not particularly like some of them that much either, but I try not to hate them. Nor do I hate pro-Americans, although some of them are too zealous in their belief that America is infallible, and that might makes right.

I have a more fraught position. I do not hate Americans. I hate their domestic systems and policies, and their international behaviour - just as I hate the policies of the NZ rightwing that seek to entrench their interests at the expense of most others.

I do hate some anti-Americans. Who are as ignorant, bellicose and cynical as many Americans also happen to be.

Which, logic tells me, I do hate some Americans.

countryboy
09-18-2012, 10:00 PM
Let's face it. The GOP stands for the interests of the wealthy few.

Yet blue collar whites regularly vote against their best interests. Their "best interests" being best serviced by Democrat policies on tax, education, health, voter registration, and reduced funding for the industrial/military complex.

What on earth impels average middle class workers to commit hari-kari?

I'm pretty sure I don't need an America hating kiwi fruit telling me what "my best interests" are. ;)

Awryly
09-18-2012, 10:11 PM
I'm pretty sure I don't need an America hating kiwi fruit telling me what "my best interests" are. ;)

I'm doing you a favour. If you had no-one to hate you, you would not know who you are.

Awryly
11-22-2012, 09:14 PM
There seems to be no answer to why a West Virginian who makes $30 grand a year votes Republican and subscribes to Milton Friedman theories that have him digging coal 14 hours a day for the privilege of earning that pittance.

GrumpyDog
11-23-2012, 07:25 PM
Let's face it. The GOP stands for the interests of the wealthy few.

Yet blue collar whites regularly vote against their best interests. Their "best interests" being best serviced by Democrat policies on tax, education, health, voter registration, and reduced funding for the industrial/military complex.

What on earth impels average middle class workers to commit hari-kari?

http://www.passportchop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Cute-Elephant-Hot-Air-Balloon-Putrajaya.jpg


They want a chance to fly in the Republican hot air balloon?

Awryly
11-23-2012, 08:23 PM
http://www.passportchop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Cute-Elephant-Hot-Air-Balloon-Putrajaya.jpg


They want a chance to fly in the Republican hot air balloon?

The odd thing is that there is no hot air from Pugs here that attempts to explain why low-paid, uneducated, and otherwise deprived American whites vote to keep themselves low-paid, uneducated and deprived American whites.

GrumpyDog
11-23-2012, 08:55 PM
The odd thing is that there is no hot air from Pugs here that attempts to explain why low-paid, uneducated, and deprived American whites vote to keep themselves low-paid, uneducated and deprived American whites.

It is not a relevant issue for them it seems. It is analogous to the plantation owner, not worried about whether the laborers are educated or not. Yet even they, in that plantation aristocracy, recognized, that at the very least, the slave labor force had to eat, to have clothing, and needed at least minimal shelter.

This "New" Corporate Aristocracy, is far worse. They literally, IMO, believe that it not a necessity anymore to worry about the health or the fittness of the "slave" majority, because in their view, the reproduction rate of humanity is already too high. Plus, they recognize that human labor is no longer needed in the numbers it was, being replaced by machines.

So my argument is, that the inevitability of the machine and computer technological advance has made human labor almost obsolete and may render it totally so, in the near future.

There are really just 2 basic paths (each having, however their own set of alternative methods). The current one, which Corporate International seems to want to take is to use the machines to replace the labor,but to continue the profiteering by limiting that production. That cannot continue, because without the jobs, the majority cannot purchase, even the artificially set low supplies, so eventually, only rich will trade with rich, while an ever greater % of the population falls into deprivation.

The other path, which was laid out to some extent by Marx, Engels, Trotsky, was to use machines and technology to produce abundance, then distributed fairly to whole of population. That vision was somewhat flawed, because it failed to include the democratic form of government, with checks and balances, and so, Lenin assassinates Trotsky, and basically imperialist Russia is recreated in new guise, calling itself Communist, when in fact, all it did was replace the word "Czar" with "Commissar".

Therefore, the sythnesis, which has emerged, from both the failed Corporate Capitalism and the failed Communist Workers Union, is the idea of a Democratic Socialist form of Capitalism which WAS working in EU, before Bush/Cheney disrupted the world economy, returning control of oil to the Saudi Cartel (out with Saddam and cheap oil production), and then the 911 manufactured event and 2 wars for profit benefiting only the Bush/Industrialist/Cayman Island/Venture Capitalists.

Mister D
11-23-2012, 08:56 PM
The odd thing is that there is no hot air from Pugs here that attempts to explain why low-paid, uneducated, and deprived American whites vote to keep themselves low-paid, uneducated and deprived American whites.

Deprived of what?

GrumpyDog
11-23-2012, 08:59 PM
And I see I still have not answered the question posed by the thread. So my best guess is, that some American people, are caught up in the perpetually generated American dream machine media, that the definition of "success" is purely related to material wealth, ability to manipulate other peoples micro economy, thus their lives (like a pimp or mafioso boss), and whatever means to that end, is okay, as long as the other guy fails.

Awryly
11-23-2012, 09:03 PM
It is not a relevant issue for them it seems. It is analogous to the plantation owner, not worried about whether the laborers are educated or not. Yet even they, in that plantation aristocracy, recognized, that at the very least, the slave labor force had to eat, to have clothing, and needed at least minimal shelter.

This "New" Corporate Aristocracy, is far worse. They literally, IMO, believe that it not a necessity anymore to worry about the health or the fittness of the "slave" majority, because in their view, the reproduction rate of humanity is already too high. Plus, they recognize that human labor is no longer needed in the numbers it was, being replaced by machines.

So my argument is, that the inevitability of the machine and computer technological advance has made human labor almost obsolete and may render it totally so, in the near future.

There are really just 2 basic paths (each having, however their own set of alternative methods). The current one, which Corporate International seems to want to take is to use the machines to replace the labor,but to continue the profiteering by limiting that production. That cannot continue, because without the jobs, the majority cannot purchase, even the artificially set low supplies, so eventually, only rich will trade with rich, while an ever greater % of the population falls into deprivation.

The other path, which was laid out to some extent by Marx, Engels, Trotsky, was to use machines and technology to produce abundance, then distributed fairly to whole of population. That vision was somewhat flawed, because it failed to include the democratic form of government, with checks and balances, and so, Lenin assassinates Trotsky, and basically imperialist Russia is recreated in new guise, calling itself Communist, when in fact, all it did was replace the word "Czar" with "Commissar".

Therefore, the sythnesis, which has emerged, from both the failed Corporate Capitalism and the failed Communist Workers Union, is the idea of a Democratic Socialist form of Capitalism which WAS working in EU, before Bush/Cheney disrupted the world economy, returning control of oil to the Saudi Cartel (out with Saddam and cheap oil production), and then the 911 manufactured event and 2 wars for profit benefiting only the Bush/Industrialist/Cayman Island/Venture Capitalists.

There will always be a need for someone to serve cognac and cigars to the rich.

The rest will just have to dream of what might have been, and twiddle with the triggers of high-tech weaponry.

Which you continue to deliver in vast quantities into the hands of those who think it's their democratic right to own WMDs.

Awryly
11-23-2012, 09:12 PM
And I see I still have not answered the question posed by the thread. So my best guess is, that some American people, are caught up in the perpetually generated American dream machine media, that the definition of "success" is purely related to material wealth, ability to manipulate other peoples micro economy, thus their lives (like a pimp or mafioso boss), and whatever means to that end, is okay, as long as the other guy fails.

It is ironic that the mirage of the "American dream" keeps so many from attaining it. Whatever it is.

So poor American Republicans are just a population of Lotto players? Consoled, when they inevitably lose, by guns, "family" (a la Petraeus), and God?

Mister D
11-23-2012, 09:20 PM
It is ironic that the mirage of the "American dream" keeps so many from attaining it. Whatever it is.

So poor American Republicans are just a population of Lotto players? Consoled, when they inevitably lose, by guns, "family" (a la Petraeus), and God?

American per capita income is higher than your own. :smiley:

GrumpyDog
11-23-2012, 09:21 PM
It is ironic that the mirage of the "American dream" keeps so many from attaining it. Whatever it is.

So poor American Republicans are just a population of Lotto players? Consoled, when they inevitably lose, by guns, "family" (a la Petraeus), and God?

Somewhat, yes, that is a good stereotype. You left out, Aryan supremacists, White Separatists, and Texan secessionists. edit.

Chris
11-23-2012, 09:26 PM
Somewhat, yes, that is a good stereotype. You left out, Aryan supremacists, White Separatists, and Texan secessionists. edit.

Stereotypical thinking is illogical. It ignores facts like...

The KKK was Democrat.

There are over 30 states considering secession.

Awryly
11-23-2012, 09:36 PM
Stereotypical thinking is illogical. It ignores facts like...

The KKK was Democrat.

There are over 30 states considering secession.

The KKK was anti-Negro. The southern Pugs are anti-Negro. QED: the southern whites simply changed parties when LBJ annoyed them with notions of black civil rights..

Peter1469
11-23-2012, 10:04 PM
There will always be a need for someone to serve cognac and cigars to the rich.

The rest will just have to dream of what might have been, and twiddle with the triggers of high-tech weaponry.

Which you continue to deliver in vast quantities into the hands of those who think it's their democratic right to own WMDs.

If you are really from NZ, and not some basement in Iowa, why should you care? And, more importantly, why should we care what a Hobbit thinks?

Awryly
11-23-2012, 10:12 PM
If you are really from NZ, and not some basement in Iowa, why should you care? And, more importantly, why should we care what a Hobbit thinks?


This is the American "what the fuck does a foreigner know about America and how did he find out?" gambit.

It stems from American ignorance about anything that happens in the other 95% of the world and the philosophy that says that "if I don't know, how can anyone else?"

I would introduce you to books, if I thought you could read.

Mister D
11-23-2012, 10:20 PM
This is the American "what the fuck does a foreigner know about America and how did he find out?" gambit.

It stems from American ignorance about anything that happens in the other 95% of the world and the philosophy that says that "if I don't know, how can anyone else?"

I would introduce you to books, if I thought you could read.

What about the rantings from you about a man named Carl Krauthammer? Yeah, you know America politics alright. :smiley:

Libhater
11-23-2012, 10:24 PM
The KKK was anti-Negro. The southern Pugs are anti-Negro. QED: the southern whites simply changed parties when LBJ annoyed them with notions of black civil rights..

Tell us Awfully, are you married to a black woman?

GrumpyDog
11-23-2012, 10:25 PM
Stereotypical thinking is illogical. It ignores facts like...

The KKK was Democrat.




The KKK were CONSERVATIVES in the Democrat party. When Kennedy got elected, it began the exit of the CONSERVATIVES from the Democrat party, following their hero Segregationist leader Strom Thurmond, in 1964, to the Republican party. From then on the Republican strategy was the "southern strategy", which is still the strategy being used today. Basically designed to get all the old southern confederacy white paranoids by using the fear of minorities.

GrumpyDog
11-23-2012, 10:32 PM
What about the rantings from you about a man named Carl Krauthammer? Yeah, you know America politics alright. :smiley:

He was refering to KrapHammer, as I recall. KrapHammer is what Krauthammer has become, after much practice being the explainer for Mondales loss to Reagan, and now the explainer extraoridinaire for Romney fail.

Peter1469
11-23-2012, 10:32 PM
This is the American "what the fuck does a foreigner know about America and how did he find out?" gambit.

It stems from American ignorance about anything that happens in the other 95% of the world and the philosophy that says that "if I don't know, how can anyone else?"

I would introduce you to books, if I thought you could read.

I doubt that Americans are telling Hobbits how to govern their lives in NZ.

Awryly
11-23-2012, 10:38 PM
I doubt that Americans are telling Hobbits how to govern their lives in NZ.


Of course not. They don't have a clue where it is. It's another general ignorance success.

Mister D
11-23-2012, 10:40 PM
He was refering to KrapHammer, as I recall. KrapHammer is what Krauthammer has become, after much practice being the explainer for Mondales loss to Reagan, and now the explainer extraoridinaire for Romney fail.

Sigh...

Go back to sleep lil' doggy. :smiley:

Awryly
11-23-2012, 10:46 PM
He was refering to KrapHammer, as I recall. KrapHammer is what Krauthammer has become, after much practice being the explainer for Mondales loss to Reagan, and now the explainer extraoridinaire for Romney fail.

I see Mister D is still bellowing into his echo chamber.

Mister D
11-23-2012, 10:48 PM
I see Mister D is still bellowing into his echo chamber.

I see you still can't quit me, babe. :kiss:

Awryly
11-23-2012, 11:05 PM
And his echo chamber appears to be bellowing back.

Nuclear fission may follow.

Chris
11-23-2012, 11:20 PM
The KKK was anti-Negro. The southern Pugs are anti-Negro. QED: the southern whites simply changed parties when LBJ annoyed them with notions of black civil rights..

The KKK was Democrat:


the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Learn some history before you revise it to your fancy.

Chris
11-23-2012, 11:25 PM
The KKK were CONSERVATIVES in the Democrat party. When Kennedy got elected, it began the exit of the CONSERVATIVES from the Democrat party, following their hero Segregationist leader Strom Thurmond, in 1964, to the Republican party. From then on the Republican strategy was the "southern strategy", which is still the strategy being used today. Basically designed to get all the old southern confederacy white paranoids by using the fear of minorities.

Another one who likes to make up history. The KKK was Democrat. Democrats have a long illustrious history of racism: The Democrat Party's Long and Shameful History of Bigotry and Racism (http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html), The Racist History of the Democratic Party (http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/3554.html).

Awryly
11-23-2012, 11:35 PM
The KKK was Democrat:



@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Learn some history before you revise it to your fancy.

Hellooooooooooo?


He (LBJ) dedicated himself to eradicating the Ku Klux Klan and finding the killers of civil rights activists, while also working diligently, and perhaps illegally, to suppress the efforts of grassroots civil rights activists to fight segregationists who had mocked the disappearance of the civil rights workers as a publicity stunt. Johnson basked publicly in the passage of the Civil Rights Acthttp://presidentialrecordings.rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/essays?series=CivilRights


Johnson was a Democrat president, no?

Peter1469
11-23-2012, 11:41 PM
Hellooooooooooo?

http://presidentialrecordings.rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/essays?series=CivilRights


Johnson was a Democrat president, no?

Yes. He said about the Civil Rights Act:
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

He is on track.

Chris
11-23-2012, 11:46 PM
Hellooooooooooo?

http://presidentialrecordings.rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/essays?series=CivilRights


Johnson was a Democrat president, no?

Yes, and what does that have to do with your denial of history, a rather dark one for Dems?

Awryly
11-24-2012, 12:01 AM
Yes, and what does that have to do with your denial of history, a rather dark one for Dems?


You have a black Democrat prezzy, no?

Awryly
11-24-2012, 12:03 AM
Yes. He said about the Civil Rights Act:
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

He is on track.

How is it curious that blacks know where their best interests lie?

Forgive me for saying this, but they seem to be smarter than poor whites.

Peter1469
11-24-2012, 12:06 AM
How is it curious that blacks know where their best interests lie?

Forgive me for saying this, but they seem to be smarter than poor whites.

So what do you think about LBJ and his comment?

Chris
11-24-2012, 12:07 AM
You have a black Democrat prezzy, no?

And he's racist.

Awryly
11-24-2012, 12:07 AM
So what do you think about LBJ and his comment?

He was right, no?

Awryly
11-24-2012, 12:09 AM
And he's racist.


How has he oppressed you? Other than to win not one but two acclamations by the general populace?

Chris
11-24-2012, 12:12 AM
How has he oppressed you? Other than to win not one but two acclamations by the general populace?

He implements social democracy, the most insidious form of socialism.

His wins were narrow, he's divided the nation when he promised to bring us together.

Chris
11-24-2012, 12:12 AM
He was right, no?

Why am I not surprised you consider a racist right.

Awryly
11-24-2012, 12:20 AM
He implements social democracy, the most insidious form of socialism.

His wins were narrow, he's divided the nation when he promised to bring us together.

I doubt he would bother trying to bring you "together". It would be a waste of energy better allocated to improving your roads. Which are collapsing.

Peter1469
11-24-2012, 04:18 AM
He was right, no?

Obama took his lead. Find stuff to give to classes of victims and they will vote for you.

Are you happy with LBJ? He didn't sign the Civil Rights Amendment because he thought blacks should be treated as equals. He signed it, because he believed it would ensure their votes for the next 200 years. Didn't Joe Biden mention something about chains?

Chris
11-24-2012, 09:30 AM
I doubt he would bother trying to bring you "together". It would be a waste of energy better allocated to improving your roads. Which are collapsing.

Thus he's a failure at living up to his promises.

GrumpyDog
11-24-2012, 05:46 PM
Thus he's a failure at living up to his promises.


Yes, we are well aware that Bush 1 and 2 were dismal failures. As you have admitted previously, by suggesting that the Clinton economy was a failure in the long run. Because Bush 2 reversed it. Which Obama had to correct. Which you said he did not, and was Bush 3.(ie. just like Bush 2). Which proves you agree, that Bush 2 was a failure, if you are saying Obama is a failure assuming it is true he is following the exact policy of Bush 2.

Which he is not, and would not, except for the 2010 Tea patsys who prevented the Bush tax cuts from expiring on the upper 10%, because they are idiots.

Which was responded to in 2012, with reelection of Obama, with mandate to return to Clinton era tax rates. Which is what is going to happen, one way or the other, no matter WTF the Reps try to do. Fiscal cliff will do it, if nothing else will.

Then in 2014, the Dems will gain more seats in the House, because Reps are going to go hard right, following advice from KrapHammer, and Rush Limbaugh.

So WIN,WIN, and more WIN, for Democrats in the next decade.

Chris
11-24-2012, 08:32 PM
Yes, we are well aware that Bush 1 and 2 were dismal failures. As you have admitted previously, by suggesting that the Clinton economy was a failure in the long run. Because Bush 2 reversed it. Which Obama had to correct. Which you said he did not, and was Bush 3.(ie. just like Bush 2). Which proves you agree, that Bush 2 was a failure, if you are saying Obama is a failure assuming it is true he is following the exact policy of Bush 2.

Which he is not, and would not, except for the 2010 Tea patsys who prevented the Bush tax cuts from expiring on the upper 10%, because they are idiots.

Which was responded to in 2012, with reelection of Obama, with mandate to return to Clinton era tax rates. Which is what is going to happen, one way or the other, no matter WTF the Reps try to do. Fiscal cliff will do it, if nothing else will.

Then in 2014, the Dems will gain more seats in the House, because Reps are going to go hard right, following advice from KrapHammer, and Rush Limbaugh.

So WIN,WIN, and more WIN, for Democrats in the next decade.


Which Obama had to correct.

But failed to. Instead he has continued Bush policies. Therefore, Bush III.


Which proves you agree, that Bush 2 was a failure, if you are saying Obama is a failure assuming it is true he is following the exact policy of Bush 2.

Now you got it. Bush, failure, Obama, more of the same, more of a failure.


Which was responded to in 2012, with reelection of Obama

That doesn't change his failure.


with mandate to return to Clinton era tax rates

What mandate, he didn't win by that much.


Which is what is going to happen, one way or the other, no matter WTF the Reps try to do.

What brand crystal ball do you use?


Fiscal cliff will do it, if nothing else will.

How?


Then in 2014....

Wake up, you're dreaming.


So WIN,WIN, and more WIN, for Democrats in the next decade.

LOL.

Awryly
11-24-2012, 09:23 PM
Yes, we are well aware that Bush 1 and 2 were dismal failures. As you have admitted previously, by suggesting that the Clinton economy was a failure in the long run. Because Bush 2 reversed it. Which Obama had to correct. Which you said he did not, and was Bush 3.(ie. just like Bush 2). Which proves you agree, that Bush 2 was a failure, if you are saying Obama is a failure assuming it is true he is following the exact policy of Bush 2.

Which he is not, and would not, except for the 2010 Tea patsys who prevented the Bush tax cuts from expiring on the upper 10%, because they are idiots.

Which was responded to in 2012, with reelection of Obama, with mandate to return to Clinton era tax rates. Which is what is going to happen, one way or the other, no matter WTF the Reps try to do. Fiscal cliff will do it, if nothing else will.

Then in 2014, the Dems will gain more seats in the House, because Reps are going to go hard right, following advice from KrapHammer, and Rush Limbaugh.

So WIN,WIN, and more WIN, for Democrats in the next decade.


Yes, the Pugs are doomed in 2014. Doomed, I say.

The Tea Party, if it is to survive at all, will have to make more and more exaggerated claims to the fewer and fewer people who remain remotely interested.

Obama will have a Dem House. And social democratic values may well explode. Unfortunately, the best things he could do for America - reversing Citizens United by legislation and telling the Israelis where to get off - would probably come up against the corporate-funded knuckleheads in his own party.

Did I mention doom?

Peter1469
11-24-2012, 09:57 PM
It won't matter because the Dems will crash the dollar.

Awryly
11-24-2012, 10:00 PM
It won't matter because the Dems will crash the dollar.


Isn't the Federal Reserve, which is not run by Obama, already doing that?

Peter1469
11-24-2012, 10:05 PM
Obama is in control of the federal reserve. His boys manage it.

Awryly
11-24-2012, 11:02 PM
Obama took his lead. Find stuff to give to classes of victims and they will vote for you.

Are you happy with LBJ? He didn't sign the Civil Rights Amendment because he thought blacks should be treated as equals. He signed it, because he believed it would ensure their votes for the next 200 years. Didn't Joe Biden mention something about chains?


LBJ was probably your most effective progressive president. He signed - and personally wrangled - a raft of social legislation, among many other things the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act (which Pug governors tried to subvert as recently as the last election).

His programmes reduced poverty from 23% to 12%.

GrumpyDog
11-24-2012, 11:17 PM
Another one who likes to make up history. The KKK was Democrat. Democrats have a long illustrious history of racism: The Democrat Party's Long and Shameful History of Bigotry and Racism (http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html), The Racist History of the Democratic Party (http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/3554.html).

KKK were the CONSERVATIVES in the Democrat party. There were NO Liberal KKK in the Democrat party. There were NO Progressive KKK in the Democrat party. There were ONLY the CONSERVATIVES who where KKK in the Democrat party.

There was a time, when the Republican party was the FORWARD thinking party, during which time, African Americans DID vote for Republicans. That all changed in 1964, when Strom Thurmand and the CONSERVATIVES in the Democrat party (all of them Segregationists), SWITCHED PARTIES to join their Segregationist Republican Conservatives, with William F.Buckley as their intellectual apologist, and Reverend Billy Graham as their Christian Segregationist spiritual leader.

You want empirical evidence? Just look at which party the African americans have voted for overwhelmingly, since 1964, when the Republican party started going full out Conservative. Guess they are all just stupid.

And now, thanks to bubbleworld conservatives, ALL the minorities, and MOST of the women will be voting for Democrat PROGRESSIVES and LIBERALS in 2014.

Deal with it.

Awryly
11-24-2012, 11:28 PM
Deal with it.

Try not to panic. Leave that to Fox News.

They are the experts at it.

GrumpyDog
11-24-2012, 11:58 PM
Try not to panic. Leave that to Fox News.

They are the experts at it.

The only conservatives I ever thought reasonable, are all the ones purged from the Republican party, to make room for the LooneyWing.

Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Olympia Snow at least could compromise.

George Will (not suitable for Fox News), seems reasonable. (SourKrautHammer probably calls him a NE liberal by now).

Chris Christy, reasonable Governor (unless it was just catastrophe which brought him to bargain).

I even once sort of liked Reagan. A little. for a while. About 2 years. Then WW3 almost started, and Iran Contra, and NO like Reagan no more after that until near end, when he finally visited the "evil empire" and Gorbachev and He decided on START treaty and more trade. Peristroika as I recall, thanks mostly to Gorbachev, "a man we can work with" said Maggy Thatcher.

Imagine, a Russian "Reagan" in power in USSR at same time USA Reagan wanted to deploy tactical nuclear missiles along West German border. NIGHTMARE scenario.

Imagine Romney as US president. First thing on agenda, lets deploy missiles in Poland???? WHY????
Because the Soviet..uh.. Russia.. is our (meaning who? the Venture Capitalists?) no.1 geopolitical foe.

Calypso Jones
11-25-2012, 12:07 AM
Of course you love them and espouse their ability to compromise which means nothing more than allowing you to have you way and republicans walk away with nothing.

Awryly
11-25-2012, 12:24 AM
The only conservatives I ever thought reasonable, are all the ones purged from the Republican party, to make room for the LooneyWing.

Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Olympia Snow at least could compromise.

George Will (not suitable for Fox News), seems reasonable. (SourKrautHammer probably calls him a NE liberal by now).

Chris Christy, reasonable Governor (unless it was just catastrophe which brought him to bargain).

I even once sort of liked Reagan. A little. for a while. About 2 years. Then WW3 almost started, and Iran Contra, and NO like Reagan no more after that until near end, when he finally visited the "evil empire" and Gorbachev and He decided on START treaty and more trade. Peristroika as I recall, thanks mostly to Gorbachev, "a man we can work with" said Maggy Thatcher.

Imagine, a Russian "Reagan" in power in USSR at same time USA Reagan wanted to deploy tactical nuclear missiles along West German border. NIGHTMARE scenario.

Imagine Romney as US president. First thing on agenda, lets deploy missiles in Poland???? WHY????
Because the Soviet..uh.. Russia.. is our (meaning who? the Venture Capitalists?) no.1 geopolitical foe.

The US was actually saved by a liberal Soviet leader. Reagan and Thatcher just played along cos there were cameras about.

GrumpyDog
11-25-2012, 12:41 AM
The US was actually saved by a liberal Soviet leader. Reagan and Thatcher just played along cos there were cameras about.

It was Rocky III who convinced Gorbachev, remember?

Chris
11-25-2012, 06:53 AM
KKK were the CONSERVATIVES in the Democrat party. There were NO Liberal KKK in the Democrat party. There were NO Progressive KKK in the Democrat party. There were ONLY the CONSERVATIVES who where KKK in the Democrat party.

There was a time, when the Republican party was the FORWARD thinking party, during which time, African Americans DID vote for Republicans. That all changed in 1964, when Strom Thurmand and the CONSERVATIVES in the Democrat party (all of them Segregationists), SWITCHED PARTIES to join their Segregationist Republican Conservatives, with William F.Buckley as their intellectual apologist, and Reverend Billy Graham as their Christian Segregationist spiritual leader.

You want empirical evidence? Just look at which party the African americans have voted for overwhelmingly, since 1964, when the Republican party started going full out Conservative. Guess they are all just stupid.

And now, thanks to bubbleworld conservatives, ALL the minorities, and MOST of the women will be voting for Democrat PROGRESSIVES and LIBERALS in 2014.

Deal with it.

Tell me why I should deal with your fantasy world in any way other than to laugh at it.

Libhater
11-25-2012, 06:58 AM
KKK were the CONSERVATIVES in the Democrat party. There were NO Liberal KKK in the Democrat party. There were NO Progressive KKK in the Democrat party. There were ONLY the CONSERVATIVES who where KKK in the Democrat party.

There was a time, when the Republican party was the FORWARD thinking party, during which time, African Americans DID vote for Republicans. That all changed in 1964, when Strom Thurmand and the CONSERVATIVES in the Democrat party (all of them Segregationists), SWITCHED PARTIES to join their Segregationist Republican Conservatives, with William F.Buckley as their intellectual apologist, and Reverend Billy Graham as their Christian Segregationist spiritual leader.

You want empirical evidence? Just look at which party the African americans have voted for overwhelmingly, since 1964, when the Republican party started going full out Conservative. Guess they are all just stupid.

And now, thanks to bubbleworld conservatives, ALL the minorities, and MOST of the women will be voting for Democrat PROGRESSIVES and LIBERALS in 2014.

Deal with it.

Revisionist history much? You libs were the racists of the past, and now you libs are the race baiters of the present and of the future. Learn how to deal with reality. You probably don't thinks that leftists like al sharpless, jessie jackhole, reverend wright and the reverend farrakhan are not racists and don't rely on race baiting to get them through the day. Again, deal with reality for a change.

Peter1469
11-25-2012, 08:00 AM
LBJ was probably your most effective progressive president. He signed - and personally wrangled - a raft of social legislation, among many other things the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act (which Pug governors tried to subvert as recently as the last election).

His programmes reduced poverty from 23% to 12%.

First, you are talking about American government programs, so spell it right, not Brit.



Second, you don't get to toss out these numbers without supporting them:
His programmes reduced poverty from 23% to 12%.

Provide a citation for that. Also realize that America has redefined poverty up.

Third, if LBJ was republican, his results would mean zero. The MSM and the dems would focus only on his uber racism.

GrumpyDog
11-25-2012, 03:12 PM
Tell me why I should deal with your fantasy world in any way other than to laugh at it.

If you do not know this basic historical fact, that the Democrat party began to become a Progressive party, when JFK was elected, then it is senseless to continue any dialogue with you. You have already demonstrated a failure to comprehend what the word "anxiety" means. So really, what is the point?

Yours is the bubbleworld, that does not see the reality of multiracial, mulicultural, stratification of the USA, and in general, the condition which the world has evolved into.

Not much I can do to help your perspective, since the myopic goggles are so tightly stuck to your face, that your vision has become permanently impaired, probably beyond help at this point.

GrumpyDog
11-25-2012, 03:19 PM
Revisionist history much? You libs were the racists of the past, and now you libs are the race baiters of the present and of the future. Learn how to deal with reality. You probably don't thinks that leftists like al sharpless, jessie jackhole, reverend wright and the reverend farrakhan are not racists and don't rely on race baiting to get them through the day. Again, deal with reality for a change.


The confused Con elephant trying to hump a donkey, which gets the elephant vitals kicked in once again, is telling the majority of the population that they have a problem with reality?

:loco:

Chris
11-25-2012, 03:22 PM
If you do not know this basic historical fact, that the Democrat party began to become a Progressive party, when JFK was elected, then it is senseless to continue any dialogue with you. You have already demonstrated a failure to comprehend what the word "anxiety" means. So really, what is the point?

Yours is the bubbleworld, that does not see the reality of multiracial, mulicultural, stratification of the USA, and in general, the condition which the world has evolved into.

Not much I can do to help your perspective, since the myopic goggles are so tightly stuck to your face, that your vision has become permanently impaired, probably beyond help at this point.

You're getting good at poisoning the well of discussion.

Progressivism dates back to the 1800s. It had become so sullied by the 1930s that FDR who embraced it abandoned the label and hijacked liberalism. Liberalism has now become so sullied people are starting to use progressive again. Matters little as Dems have embraced both labels in their racism.

Your bubbleman straw man I won't even bother to address, it's so silly.

It's myopic to believe progressivism has its roots in JFK's election.

GrumpyDog
11-25-2012, 03:40 PM
You're getting good at poisoning the well of discussion.

Progressivism dates back to the 1800s. It had become so sullied by the 1930s that FDR who embraced it abandoned the label and hijacked liberalism. Liberalism has now become so sullied people are starting to use progressive again. Matters little as Dems have embraced both labels in their racism.

Your bubbleman straw man I won't even bother to address, it's so silly.

It's myopic to believe progressivism has its roots in JFK's election.

My statement refers to the Democrat party becoming more progressive, with the election of JFK, and by 1964, there was a demographic shift, with Africans/minorities voting for Democrats, while the segregationist likes of Strom Thurmand, left the Democratic party to create the new Conservative base of the Republican party, of which one of their unifying principles was segregation of whites from blacks.

You fault Liberalism/Progressivism, because the evolution of society was not fast enough. Yet it was the Conservatives who retarded that evolution, begining with their sucession from the USA in 1861, and continuing on with their KKK all the way up until 1968.

You can BS all you want, there is no getting around the FACT that KKK were and always will be, CONSERVATIVES. Show me ANY KKK member who was a Liberal/Progressive, WHILE being a KKK member. IF you manage to find ONE, I will find 100 Conservatives to match that anamalous one, and will also state that that one CANNOT be Liberal/Progressive, as it is defined today.

Chris
11-25-2012, 03:58 PM
My statement refers to the Democrat party becoming more progressive, with the election of JFK, and by 1964, there was a demographic shift, with Africans/minorities voting for Democrats, while the segregationist likes of Strom Thurmand, left the Democratic party to create the new Conservative base of the Republican party, of which one of their unifying principles was segregation of whites from blacks.

You fault Liberalism/Progressivism, because the evolution of society was not fast enough. Yet it was the Conservatives who retarded that evolution, begining with their sucession from the USA in 1861, and continuing on with their KKK all the way up until 1968.

You can BS all you want, there is no getting around the FACT that KKK were and always will be, CONSERVATIVES. Show me ANY KKK member who was a Liberal/Progressive, WHILE being a KKK member. IF you manage to find ONE, I will find 100 Conservatives to match that anamalous one, and will also state that that one CANNOT be Liberal/Progressive, as it is defined today.


My statement refers to the Democrat party becoming more progressive, with the election of JFK, and by 1964, there was a demographic shift, with Africans/minorities voting for Democrats, while the segregationist likes of Strom Thurmand, left the Democratic party to create the new Conservative base of the Republican party, of which one of their unifying principles was segregation of whites from blacks.

There was a demographic shift, but the Democrats were still racists.


You fault Liberalism/Progressivism, because the evolution of society was not fast enough. Yet it was the Conservatives who retarded that evolution, begining with their sucession from the USA in 1861, and continuing on with their KKK all the way up until 1968.

I fault liberals/progressives for the mistaken believe evolution is progressive, it's not.


You can BS all you want, there is no getting around the FACT that KKK were and always will be, CONSERVATIVES. Show me ANY KKK member who was a Liberal/Progressive, WHILE being a KKK member. IF you manage to find ONE, I will find 100 Conservatives to match that anamalous one, and will also state that that one CANNOT be Liberal/Progressive, as it is defined today.

I've provided three sources of the history of Democrats were and are racist. You've countered that with mere denial of history.

Mister D
11-25-2012, 04:01 PM
Dog, what kind of economic policies do you think Southern Democrats favored? That is, other than their public stance on race what distinguished them from other Dems?

Awryly
11-25-2012, 07:25 PM
First, you are talking about American government programs, so spell it right, not Brit.



Second, you don't get to toss out these numbers without supporting them:

Provide a citation for that. Also realize that America has redefined poverty up.


I really can't be bothered. With either the spelling (I speak only English) or with the statistics. Even if I show the source for the poverty statistic, you have given yourself an impenetrable out by waffling about definitions.

You work for Rasmussen?

Mister D
11-25-2012, 07:35 PM
I really can't be bothered. With either the spelling (I speak only English) or with the statistics. Even if I show the source for the poverty statistic, you have given yourself an impenetrable out by waffling about definitions.

You work for Rasmussen?

We may then dismiss your claims. :smiley:

Peter1469
11-25-2012, 08:13 PM
That is how it works....

Awryly
11-25-2012, 11:30 PM
That is how it works....

What do they drink in northern Virginia?

Peter1469
11-25-2012, 11:35 PM
lots of stuff.

Awryly
11-25-2012, 11:48 PM
lots of stuff.

Ah, yes. It seems so.

Cigar
11-26-2012, 08:13 AM
http://photos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/401294_10151150940426275_40670482_n.jpg

Libhater
11-26-2012, 09:21 AM
http://photos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/401294_10151150940426275_40670482_n.jpg


If my memory serves me right, this particular anti Christian Republican lost his bid for the presidency in a landslide. Perhaps that little fact will give you an idea of how important Christianity is in America and throughout the world. Oh yeah, you're probably embedded with Reverend right's black liberation theology as a basis for your anti/un American views.

Peter1469
11-26-2012, 09:28 AM
If my memory serves me right, this particular anti Christian Republican lost his bid for the presidency in a landslide. Perhaps that little fact will give you an idea of how important Christianity is in America and throughout the world. Oh yeah, you're probably embedded with Reverend right's black liberation theology as a basis for your anti/un American views.

It is the conflict between the religious right and the fiscal conservatives. The religious right are really Statists. Like the left.

Cigar
11-26-2012, 09:31 AM
If my memory serves me right, this particular anti Christian Republican lost his bid for the presidency in a landslide. Perhaps that little fact will give you an idea of how important Christianity is in America and throughout the world. Oh yeah, you're probably embedded with Reverend right's black liberation theology as a basis for your anti/un American views.

Enough Said!


:rollseyes:

:tongue:




http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/3499_10151151062766275_1300066787_n.jpg

Peter1469
11-26-2012, 09:34 AM
Enough Said!


:rollseyes:
:tongue:



http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/3499_10151151062766275_1300066787_n.jpg

Oh sure. Science gave us the possibility of nuclear war and the destruction of the human race.

Religion has some catching up to do.

Libhater
11-26-2012, 10:23 AM
It is the conflict between the religious right and the fiscal conservatives. The religious right are really Statists. Like the left.


Religious Rightists are statists? The fact that I have been called a Religious Rightist and that my military views are considered to be to the right of Attila the Hun, and that I've fought against statism and totalitarianism all of my adult life (including a stint of combat in Vietnam), and that I shout Ronald Reagan's message of "Get Big Govt off our backs" to the top of my lungs, and that I seek to cut taxes and entitlement programs to there basic core...makes me question your assertion that any religious right person could be considered a statist in any way imaginable.

Peter1469
11-26-2012, 10:37 AM
Religious Rightists are statists? The fact that I have been called a Religious Rightist and that my military views are considered to be to the right of Attila the Hun, and that I've fought against statism and totalitarianism all of my adult life (including a stint of combat in Vietnam), and that I shout Ronald Reagan's message of "Get Big Govt off our backs" to the top of my lungs, and that I seek to cut taxes and entitlement programs to there basic core...makes me question your assertion that any religious right person could be considered a statist in any way imaginable.

If you aren't advocating for the State to enact social policies, then you are not a statist.

Kabuki Joe
11-26-2012, 10:50 AM
Why do you think that atheists are afraid of the dark or death any more than anyone else.

Life is a cycle. Death is part of it.

You don't need a deity to comfort you with vain thoughts of a supposed afterlife.

But, wait............billions do.


...and you have proven my point about liberals like you, you have nothing to fear so you do whatever you want, whenever you want...no fear what-so-ever...


Kabuki Joe

Libhater
11-26-2012, 10:54 AM
If you aren't advocating for the State to enact social policies, then you are not a statist.

Of course I'm not advocating for the state to enact social policies--nor do any religious right people that I know of advocate for a statist government.

Chris
11-26-2012, 11:26 AM
It is the conflict between the religious right and the fiscal conservatives. The religious right are really Statists. Like the left.

I think that an overly broad generalization. On the religious right there is a division between those who want their religion enforced by government, statists, and those who want government out of religion, anti-statists.

Chris
11-26-2012, 11:28 AM
Of course I'm not advocating for the state to enact social policies--nor do any religious right people that I know of advocate for a statist government.

There are some. Dominionists come to mind. I think they are vocally loud but small in number.

Mister D
11-26-2012, 11:33 AM
Lets remember too that while there are those who embrace the term "religious right"there are others who reject the label.

Kabuki Joe
11-26-2012, 11:47 AM
How did you come to that conclusion? Bush is a lib and Cheney is a neocon.


...Bush is honest, Obama isn't...


Kabuki Joe

Kabuki Joe
11-26-2012, 11:54 AM
Yeah, I get that. Let people who have no legs stand on their own two feet.

The GOP has been trotting that out for decades.


...get out of the hole...


Kabuki Joe

Kabuki Joe
11-26-2012, 11:55 AM
I was trying to be kind.


...dishonest is now being kind?!?!?...


Kabuki Joe

Kabuki Joe
11-26-2012, 12:00 PM
according to that chart the feds were overtaxing the American people for about 4 years...


The rich still pay more in actual dollars than anyone.. even Romney .. what is 14 percent of 20 million? the answer is 2.8 million in one year.. in effect Romney paid more in taxes in one year than the average american will pay in a lifetime,, all this amounts to is envy and greed on the part of lefties

...I'm excited about this though...I can't wait to see the rich Hollywood Elites to start hming and hawing abouth their taxes go up, "but but but I'm a demorat and I'm on the common man's side"...HAH!!!!!...


Kabuki Joe

Chris
11-26-2012, 12:02 PM
Actually the label religious right is odd because the movement started on the coattails of Jimmy Carter.

Kabuki Joe
11-26-2012, 12:13 PM
The KKK was anti-Negro. The southern Pugs are anti-Negro. QED: the southern whites simply changed parties when LBJ annoyed them with notions of black civil rights..


...there are clips of LBJ using "nigger"...I've heard it a time or two with regard to using "niggers" for political means...


Kabuki Joe

Kabuki Joe
11-26-2012, 12:15 PM
If you are really from NZ, and not some basement in Iowa, why should you care? And, more importantly, why should we care what a Hobbit thinks?


...a "gay man hating hobbit" to boot...


Kabuki Joe

Kabuki Joe
11-26-2012, 12:19 PM
How has he oppressed you? Other than to win not one but two acclamations by the general populace?


...are you a ballerina?...


Kabuki Joe

Kabuki Joe
11-26-2012, 01:23 PM
My statement refers to the Democrat party becoming more progressive, with the election of JFK, and by 1964, there was a demographic shift, with Africans/minorities voting for Democrats, while the segregationist likes of Strom Thurmand, left the Democratic party to create the new Conservative base of the Republican party, of which one of their unifying principles was segregation of whites from blacks.

You fault Liberalism/Progressivism, because the evolution of society was not fast enough. Yet it was the Conservatives who retarded that evolution, begining with their sucession from the USA in 1861, and continuing on with their KKK all the way up until 1968.

You can BS all you want, there is no getting around the FACT that KKK were and always will be, CONSERVATIVES. Show me ANY KKK member who was a Liberal/Progressive, WHILE being a KKK member. IF you manage to find ONE, I will find 100 Conservatives to match that anamalous one, and will also state that that one CANNOT be Liberal/Progressive, as it is defined today.


...I agree with this statement...look at our present point in societal evolution and compare it to say Rome's at the point where homosexualty becomes accepted as normal, and what comes next?...


Kabuki Joe

Kabuki Joe
11-26-2012, 01:29 PM
There was a demographic shift, but the Democrats were still racists.



I fault liberals/progressives for the mistaken believe evolution is progressive, it's not.



I've provided three sources of the history of Democrats were and are racist. You've countered that with mere denial of history.


...but it's different when demorats/liberals are racist, it's for everyone benefit...


Kabuki Joe

Cigar
11-26-2012, 01:32 PM
...I'm excited about this though...I can't wait to see the rich Hollywood Elites to start hming and hawing abouth their taxes go up, "but but but I'm a demorat and I'm on the common man's side"...HAH!!!!!...


Kabuki Joe

I'm excited watching Cons whine for the next 4 years.

Mister D
11-26-2012, 01:34 PM
IOW, Cigar can't defend his comments.

Cigar
11-26-2012, 01:36 PM
IOW, Cigar can't defend his comments.



Don't need to ... I have 4 years of Fun to look forward to.

Mister D
11-26-2012, 01:37 PM
Don't need to ... I have 4 years of Fun to look forward to.

You can't.

Oh, these ain't gonna be good times for anyone, Cigar.

Kabuki Joe
11-26-2012, 01:51 PM
I'm excited watching Cons whine for the next 4 years.


...what?...no threats?...no flexing?...


Kabuki Joe

Awryly
11-26-2012, 07:37 PM
...dishonest is now being kind?!?!?...


Kabuki Joe

You would want me to tell you how loony you really are?

Awryly
11-26-2012, 07:43 PM
I'm excited watching Cons whine for the next 4 years.

It started the day after the election. Now we have Norquist trying to rally the troops indulging in "impure thoughts".


“We’ve got some people discussing impure thoughts on national television.”

You might think that this is about fiddling with small boys. But it turns out that it is about not fiddling with some wacko pledge to screw the US economy.


Americans for Tax Reform, will “certainly highlight who has kept their commitment and who hasn’t,” Norquist told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien. But he said he wasn’t worried that lawmakers’ talk of breaking the pledge would turn into action (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/26/grover-norquist-pushes-back-on-pledge-breakers/#).

Peter1469
11-26-2012, 08:55 PM
It started the day after the election. Now we have Norquist trying to rally the troops indulging in "impure thoughts".



You might think that this is about fiddling with small boys. But it turns out that it is about not fiddling with some wacko pledge to screw the US economy.

Raising taxes in a weak economy will screw the economy. It looks like our politicians are ready to test that.

Chris
11-26-2012, 09:25 PM
It started the day after the election. Now we have Norquist trying to rally the troops indulging in "impure thoughts".



You might think that this is about fiddling with small boys. But it turns out that it is about not fiddling with some wacko pledge to screw the US economy.


You might think that this is about fiddling with small boys.

Is that your thing?

Awryly
11-26-2012, 09:33 PM
Is that your thing?


How did I guess you are a little boy.

Hint: stay away from Catholic priests.

Awryly
11-26-2012, 09:36 PM
Raising taxes in a weak economy will screw the economy. It looks like our politicians are ready to test that.

This is the tired old mantra that big business creates jobs with the taxes it doesn't pay.

So how is it that business has 2 trillion tied up in unproductive activities and the job market still doesn't work?

Chris
11-26-2012, 09:43 PM
How did I guess you are a little boy.

Hint: stay away from Catholic priests.

So you're a priest?

Peter1469
11-26-2012, 09:45 PM
This is the tired old mantra that big business creates jobs with the taxes it doesn't pay.

So how is it that business has 2 trillion tied up in unproductive activities and the job market still doesn't work?

Create a stable regulatory environment and business will be able to figure out the best way to spend their money.

Not much on finance are you>?

Chris
11-26-2012, 09:47 PM
He's too busy "fiddling with small boys".

Awryly
11-26-2012, 09:49 PM
Create a stable regulatory environment and business will be able to figure out the best way to spend their money.

Not much on finance are you>?

Yeah, we saw that, didn't we?

Business figuring out how to crash the US and global economy was the best example yet of business "spending their money". Or was it yours?

I assume you are looking forward to even more playful shenanigans.

Awryly
11-26-2012, 09:51 PM
He's too busy "fiddling with small boys".

Well, it seems to work with you.

Peter1469
11-26-2012, 09:53 PM
Yeah, we saw that, didn't we?

Business figuring out how to crash the US and global economy was the best example yet of business "spending their money". Or was it yours?

I assume you are looking forward to even more playful shenanigans.

I will with hold my opinion until you say something that makes sense. Economics and fiance are new to you, right?

Chris
11-26-2012, 09:55 PM
Well, it seems to work with you.

The echo of a troll.

Awryly
11-26-2012, 09:57 PM
The echo of a troll.

A "troll" is someone who just disagrees with you.

Man up. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi.

Awryly
11-26-2012, 10:21 PM
I still have no idea why poor white coal miners vote Republican.

Is it because they hate blacks and Hispanics? Is it because their god tells them to? Are they attracted to wealth they can never have? Are they trapped in a moral framework constructed by people who make their living out of building lucrative moral frameworks? Do they just like guns that they cannot use without facing murder charges?

Or are they just terminally stupid and should have been aborted at birth. Is that why Planned Parenthood is so threatening?

Chris
11-26-2012, 10:25 PM
A "troll" is someone who just disagrees with you.

Man up. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi.

As I explained earlier to cary, trolls take any criticism and echo it back. You, just like cary, do that.

Someone who disagrees, by stating a counter opinion and backing it up, is a contributor to discussion. Trolls don't do that, they dissemble and distract, and when it's pointed out, they echo it.

Awryly
11-26-2012, 10:27 PM
As I explained earlier to cary, trolls take any criticism and echo it back. You, just like cary, do that.

Someone who disagrees, by stating a counter opinion and backing it up, is a contributor to discussion. Trolls don't do that, they dissemble and distract, and when it's pointed out, they echo it.


All trolls here, please take note of this unfathomable wisdom.

Chris
11-26-2012, 10:29 PM
All trolls here, please take note of this unfathomable wisdom.

Dissemble and distract from the fact the message was to and about you.

Calypso Jones
11-26-2012, 10:30 PM
I still have no idea why poor white coal miners vote Republican.

Is it because they hate blacks and Hispanics? Is it because their god tells them to? Are they attracted to wealth they can never have? Are they trapped in a moral framework constructed by people who make their living out of building lucrative moral frameworks? Do they just like guns that they cannot use without facing murder charges?

Or are they just terminally stupid and should have been aborted at birth. Is that why Planned Parenthood is so threatening?

well you freakin' know everything so why don't you tell us.

Awryly
11-26-2012, 10:32 PM
Dissemble and distract from the fact the message was to and about you.


I could teach you English, if you like. I think I can translate gibberish.

Chris
11-26-2012, 10:36 PM
I could teach you English, if you like. I think I can translate gibberish.

Most of what you post is gibberish. And much as you try to dissemble and distract we're still left with you saying "You might think that this is about fiddling with small boys." Why would you think that, is it your thing?

Awryly
11-26-2012, 10:37 PM
well you freakin' know everything so why don't you tell us.


I certainly have a great deal more knowledge than just about every American I know.

But I follow a learning philosophy that makes New Zealanders some of the best educated on the planet. Certainly better-educated than most Americans.

It goes like this. Use what brain evolution has endowed you with.

If that is beyond you, seek professional help.

Chris
11-26-2012, 10:38 PM
I certainly have a great deal more knowledge than just about every American I know.

But I follow a learning philosophy that makes New Zealanders some of the best educated on the planet. Certainly better-educated than most Americans.

It goes like this. Use what brain evolution has endowed you with.

If that is beyond you, seek professional help.

The second trait of a troll is delusions of granduer. Stop stroking your ego, awryly.

Awryly
11-26-2012, 10:38 PM
Most of what you post is gibberish. And much as you try to dissemble and distract we're still left with you saying "You might think that this is about fiddling with small boys." Why would you think that, is it your thing?

No. I am not Catholic. I have no divine inspiration that would lead me to fiddle with little boys.

Just little Americans.

Awryly
11-26-2012, 10:39 PM
The second trait of a troll is delusions of granduer. Stop stroking your ego, awryly.


Why would I do that when I have you to stroke it for me?

Chris
11-26-2012, 10:43 PM
Why would I do that when I have you to stroke it for me?

Echo.

Just leave off fiddling with little boys.

Awryly
11-26-2012, 10:45 PM
Echo.

I think you might need to adjust your hearing aid.

The stereo setting is giving you feedback you believe in.

Awryly
11-26-2012, 11:02 PM
Did you know the Middle Ages ended in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople?

Only to be revived by the GOP in 2000?

Chris
11-27-2012, 06:40 AM
More distraction from the fiddler.

Awryly
11-27-2012, 07:15 PM
More distraction from the fiddler.

You're not very good at this, are you? :grin:

Chris
11-27-2012, 08:22 PM
You're not very good at this, are you? :grin:

I see you're back for your regular evening dog and pony show.

GrumpyDog
11-27-2012, 08:33 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4kkT22kuvoA/TTnBGfY90lI/AAAAAAAADQQ/UvqB41_C1sk/s1600/elephants-child-2.jpg



Republican party keeps getting itself into trouble with minorities.

Mister D
11-27-2012, 08:35 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4kkT22kuvoA/TTnBGfY90lI/AAAAAAAADQQ/UvqB41_C1sk/s1600/elephants-child-2.jpg



Republican party keeps getting itself into trouble with minorties.

Alligators went for Obama 9-1.

Chris
11-27-2012, 08:44 PM
Democrats keeping getting themselves in trouble...

http://i.snag.gy/nb6qw.jpg

Awryly
11-27-2012, 08:50 PM
Democrats keeping getting themselves in trouble...

http://i.snag.gy/nb6qw.jpg


Off topic.

GrumpyDog
11-27-2012, 08:51 PM
Democrats keeping getting themselves in trouble...

http://i.snag.gy/nb6qw.jpg

The Romney Alligator has been neutered and rendered harmless now. Young Progressives have been saved. But it was close call.

Chris
11-27-2012, 09:01 PM
Ah, so soon you forget Obamagator and his chomp...

http://i.snag.gy/uSEGQ.jpg

Awryly
11-27-2012, 11:20 PM
Ah, so soon you forget Obamagator and his chomp...

http://i.snag.gy/uSEGQ.jpg

Isn't "Forward" the only way left for you to go?

Peter1469
11-27-2012, 11:29 PM
Isn't "Forward" the only way left for you to go?

The problem is Obama's forward is towards a collapse of the USD.

Awryly
11-27-2012, 11:30 PM
The problem is Obama's forward is towards a collapse of the USD.

How so?

Not that I care much.

Peter1469
11-27-2012, 11:40 PM
How so?

Not that I care much.


Our debt levels are not sustainable. The regime is making no effort to control the debt levels. The Eurozone is about to collapse and if US banks have as much exposure to European sovereign debt as I believe they do- we crash with them.

Awryly
11-27-2012, 11:43 PM
Our debt levels are not sustainable. The regime is making no effort to control the debt levels. The Eurozone is about to collapse and if US banks have as much exposure to European sovereign debt as I believe they do- we crash with them.

What does a crash of the Europeans have to do with Obama?

For that matter, what does the US debt have to do with Obama. He inherited much of it, and the need to spend more on his fiascoes, from Bush.

Peter1469
11-27-2012, 11:44 PM
What does a crash of the Europeans have to do with Obama?

For that matter, what does the US debt have to do with Obama. He inherited much of it, and the need to spend more on his fiascoes, from Bush.

Obama allowed the Federal Reserve to transfer trillions of dollars to Europe (in exchange for sovereign debt). This is off the book debt.

Obama added over $6T in on-the books debt to the US. More than any other world leader in the history of man.

roadmaster
11-27-2012, 11:53 PM
That's easy, most of them think like cons, not all. I would prefer an independent but Cain would have been my choice.

Awryly
11-27-2012, 11:58 PM
Obama allowed the Federal Reserve to transfer trillions of dollars to Europe (in exchange for sovereign debt). This is off the book debt.

Obama added over $6T in on-the books debt to the US. More than any other world leader in the history of man.

You have to pay to survive. That's a law of nature.

If you run up debt fighting wars that do not need to be fought, you take the consequences.

If you let your corporates run amuck, you eventually have to pay.

If you spend beyond your means, and do not produce, you have to do desperate things.

Peter1469
11-28-2012, 12:06 AM
You have to pay to survive. That's a law of nature.

If you run up debt fighting wars that do not need to be fought, you take the consequences.

If you let your corporates run amuck, you eventually have to pay.

If you spend beyond your means, and do not produce, you have to do desperate things.

10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan cost under 1 year of Obama's deficit spending.

Awryly
11-28-2012, 12:12 AM
10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan cost under 1 year of Obama's deficit spending.

Have a look at this:


Spending

Spending initiated by Bush policies: 4 percent of total deficits in 2009, 2010 and 2011
Spending initiated by Obama policies: 11 percent
Other increases in discretionary spending: 32 percent
Other increases in mandatory spending: 6 percent

Revenue reductions

Revenue reductions initiated by Bush policies: 11 percent
Revenue reductions initiated by Obama policies: 13 percent
Other unclassified revenue reductions: 5 percent

Interest

Net interest: 19 percent

The spending increases traceable to programs clearly attributable to Obama, combined with the increase in discretionary spending on his watch (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/09/american-crossroads/ad-says-barack-obamas-spending-drove-us-5-trillion/#), account for about 43 percent of the three years worth of deficits.

So if you’re talking about what "drove us $5 trillion deeper in debt," then a clear majority stemmed from sources other than "Obama’s spending."

If you expand the definition from "Obama’s spending" to "Obama’s spending and tax cuts," you get to a total of 56 percent. Throw in 13 percentage points for the added interest costs of Obama’s policies and you’re at 69 percent.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/09/american-crossroads/ad-says-barack-obamas-spending-drove-us-5-trillion/

Interest seems to be one of the biggest spenders.

Peter1469
11-28-2012, 12:14 AM
Have a look at this:



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/09/american-crossroads/ad-says-barack-obamas-spending-drove-us-5-trillion/

Obama never made a peep about this increased spending. Bush's problem was that he wouldn't veto a spending bill. Obama's problem was that he wanted more spending.

Awryly
11-28-2012, 12:20 AM
Obama never made a peep about this increased spending. Bush's problem was that he wouldn't veto a spending bill. Obama's problem was that he wanted more spending.

So, after adjusting for inflation, how much did federal spending increase from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2012, which ended Oct. 1? Any guesses?Just to give you some guidance in making that guess, federal spending under the sainted President Reagan grew by 9.6 percent from 1980 to 1984. (Again, all of these numbers are inflation-adjusted.) Under the second President Bush, with a largely Republican Congress, federal spending grew by 16.5 percent from 2000 to 2004.
So how much has it increased under Obama’s “spending inferno”? 25 percent? 35 percent?
The answer is 9.9 percent. Between 2008 and the recently completed fiscal 2012, total federal spending has increased by 9.9 percent, about the same amount as under Reagan and considerably less than under Bush.

Uh huh.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/files/2012/10/fedspend.jpg

Your problem is revenue.

I have already shown you how to fix that.

Regardless, the debt level is coming down.

Chris
11-28-2012, 06:54 AM
Your problem is revenue.

The problem is spending.

Cigar
11-28-2012, 08:48 AM
The problem is spending.

Yea ... glad we're working on that.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Obama-Spending-1.jpg

Chris
11-28-2012, 01:12 PM
http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/VE-PRESIDENTIAL-SPENDING-R2.png

Awryly
11-29-2012, 02:29 AM
http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/VE-PRESIDENTIAL-SPENDING-R2.png


Link?

Even if accurate, it's hardly surprising that welfare spending has gone up with record unemployment stemming from Dubya's handling of the economy, is it?

You thought it better if they starved?

Chris
11-29-2012, 09:09 AM
Sources are in the chart, lower right hand side. You're right, Bush was a disaster. Obama is worse.

Awryly
11-29-2012, 06:00 PM
Sources are in the chart, lower right hand side. You're right, Bush was a disaster. Obama is worse.

How so? He has largely stabilised spending, apart from welfare which goes hand in hand with higher unemployment, and the military, which is an obvious Bush legacy.

Chris
11-29-2012, 06:27 PM
How so? He has largely stabilised spending, apart from welfare which goes hand in hand with higher unemployment, and the military, which is an obvious Bush legacy.

See chart I posted and you asked about. Blame Bush all you want, he was a liberal--and Obama is just more of the same.

Peter1469
11-29-2012, 07:15 PM
How so? He has largely stabilised spending, apart from welfare which goes hand in hand with higher unemployment, and the military, which is an obvious Bush legacy.

Obama stabilized spending at ~$1.3T above tax receipts.

Bush never approached a $1T deficit.

GrumpyDog
12-01-2012, 03:05 PM
What is in the "other" 1/3rd of the pie chart?

That must include:

Earmarks
Donations
Corporate Welfare to Relocate out of USA
Special Home construction for Congressmen
Government daily operations
Witness protection program
Witness termination program
CIA, NSA, HSA, TSA, FBI, and other surveillance
Infrastructure
Foriegn Aid to Israel and Middleeast
Bilderberger expenses
Caymen Island services
Bribery of South American drug merchants
Alqaeda toll taxes and bribery
Iran/Abomb Watch
Counter Industrial Espionage (private interests)
Alien Watch
SETA
NASA (or not)
Gingrich Moon Relocation Project

Awryly
12-01-2012, 09:01 PM
See chart I posted and you asked about. Blame Bush all you want, he was a liberal--and Obama is just more of the same.

Huh? Obama wants most things that did not cross Bush's tiny mind - affordable and reliable health care, an end to the Afghan war, a fair tax regime, renewable energy (did you know most of NZ's already is?), an infrastructure not rated as "D", and raising the US above 17th on international education indices.

Chris
12-01-2012, 11:05 PM
Huh? Obama wants most things that did not cross Bush's tiny mind - affordable and reliable health care, an end to the Afghan war, a fair tax regime, renewable energy (did you know most of NZ's already is?), an infrastructure not rated as "D", and raising the US above 17th on international education indices.

What Obama says he wants and what Obama does are worlds apart. You pick out healthcare and education. Bush pushed through the Medicare Drug bill, the most costly healthcare package, till Obama bested him. And Bush pushed through No Child Left Behind. Both the Drug bill and NCLB were stolen from one of the biggest liberal prior to Obama, Ted Kennedy. Bush was a liberal. He was bad for the country, Obama is worse.

Awryly
12-01-2012, 11:10 PM
What Obama says he wants and what Obama does are worlds apart. You pick out healthcare and education. Bush pushed through the Medicare Drug bill, the most costly healthcare package, till Obama bested him. And Bush pushed through No Child Left Behind. Both the Drug bill and NCLB were stolen from one of the biggest liberal prior to Obama, Ted Kennedy. Bush was a liberal. He was bad for the country, Obama is worse.

I whine for you. So who was the prezzy that lived down to your lowest expectations?

Chris
12-01-2012, 11:13 PM
I whine for you. So who was the prezzy that lived down to your lowest expectations?

Don't cry, it's unbecoming.

If you meant up to my expectations, I'd have to say Goldwater.

Awryly
12-01-2012, 11:22 PM
Don't cry, it's unbecoming.

If you meant up to my expectations, I'd have to say Goldwater.


Newsflash. Goldwater was not a prezzy.

Try to understand the question.

Chris
12-02-2012, 06:44 AM
Newsflash. Goldwater was not a prezzy.

Try to understand the question.

:dang:

Awryly
12-02-2012, 11:03 PM
I still have no idea why down-trodden and poor corporate white slaves vote Republican.

Am I to suspect that they don't have any idea either?

Peter1469
12-02-2012, 11:15 PM
I don't know why people vote either republican or democrat. They are both corrupt.

Awryly
12-02-2012, 11:21 PM
I don't know why people vote either republican or democrat. They are both corrupt.

That helps as little as the rest of the responses so far.

Try to address the question with sagacity, accuracy and balance.

Awryly
12-02-2012, 11:25 PM
That helps as little as the rest of the responses so far.

Try to address the question with sagacity, accuracy and balance.

I doubt this meets the sagacity test:

http://www.worldmeets.us/images/republicans-spanish-for-dummies_torontostar.jpg

Bit it's accuracy is uncanny.

corrocamino
12-03-2012, 07:15 AM
I don't know why people vote either republican or democrat. They are both corrupt.

Bingo!!!!!

Chris
12-03-2012, 09:02 AM
I still have no idea why down-trodden and poor corporate white slaves vote Republican.

Am I to suspect that they don't have any idea either?

Perhaps if you didn't ask loaded questions, we could all get into a discussion, if that's what you want.

For instance, why do you load your question with the assumption there are "down-trodden and poor corporate white slaves" in the US?