2012 Poll

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Consistency will surely never accidentally be listed in the "plus" column when discussing the conservative mindset.

Thanks for a good laugh, Rupert.

The liberal mindset is short on the logic necessary to analyze the conservative mindset. Quite a conundrum there.

And the laughter always echoes from the asylum, though they don't sound too happy. Wait until November -- then the real fun begins.

Most people in the country have now correctly sized up this administration as socialist. They don't like it. They prefer freedom. And, wow, are you liberals going to get a rude awakening. I personally can't wait -- I'll be watching the big TV with some popcorn and a cold beer, smiling from ear to ear as America sends this joke of a Congress packing.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The liberal mindset is short on the logic necessary to analyze the conservative mindset. Quite a conundrum there.

And the laughter always echoes from the asylum, though they don't sound too happy. Wait until November -- then the real fun begins.

Most people in the country have now correctly sized up this administration as socialist. They don't like it. They prefer freedom. And, wow, are you liberals going to get a rude awakening. I personally can't wait -- I'll be watching the big TV with some popcorn and a cold beer, smiling from ear to ear as America sends this joke of a Congress packing.

The opposition party does that at every midterm. Glad you will get the enjoyment out of thinking you discovered some new political creature that has been invented and will happen for the first time ever because of Obama. Good for you.

And a conservative making fun of a liberal for being short on logic. Talk about a smile from ear to ear as I can't stop laughing at a total lack of self-awareness on your part.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by gales0678

no one will ever no what would have happened to unemployment if it didn't get passed

but in the real world not in your fantasy little world inside the beltway dala
it didn't work

Do you honestly not see that these two sentences directly contradict each other? You basically say that no one will ever know how well - or even if - it worked. Then you say, "it didn't work."

If you simply mean that it did not successfully keep unemployment below 10%, then you are obviously correct. Nobody would dispute that. That's like arguing the sky is blue.

But if you mean that it didn't succeed in keeping unemployment lower, well....as you said....you can't know that.

So....your argument here is either wrong by your own admission or so obvious that there is no point in even making it.

[Antitrust32]

how about the arguement that it was a waste of $1,000,000,000,000 of taxpayers dollars?

Is that similar to the sky is blue comment?


my lord a trillion dollars has a ton of zero's

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

how about the arguement that it was a waste of $1,000,000,000,000 of taxpayers dollars?

Is that similar to the sky is blue comment?


my lord a trillion dollars has a ton of zero's

Speaking of ways to waste a trillion dollars, in the end if it was a waste or not, I'd rather "waste" a trillion bucks trying to do something to help our economy that waste it invading other countries and killing people.

That's just me though, I know how much some people love war, maybe not you personally, but I don't want to step on any toes.

[dellinger63]

At least the census people are working.



I sent back the form, have been visited twice (by two different people, the 1rst a local) and was just called on the phone to verify a census worker had visited.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

how about the arguement that it was a waste of $1,000,000,000,000 of taxpayers dollars?

Is that similar to the sky is blue comment?

Of course not. Whether or not it was a wise decision is a position two reasonable people could disagree about, and I think there are valid points to be made on each side.

Whether or not it kept unemployment below 10% is not like that. It didn't, and nobody is saying that it did. Those that predicted it would accomplish that statistical feat were incorrect. That's obvious too. It also didn't cure cancer, or improve top Republicans' education levels, or other difficult things to accomplish. That doesn't really prove that it "worked," or "didn't work."

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

invading other countries and killing people.
.

I agree. That entire Hussein family got a bum deal just because of a little bit of torture and genocide. Nothing even near what the State of Arizona is doing now.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Speaking of ways to waste a trillion dollars, in the end if it was a waste or not, I'd rather "waste" a trillion bucks trying to do something to help our economy that waste it invading other countries and killing people.

That's just me though, I know how much some people love war, maybe not you personally, but I don't want to step on any toes.

I love how when someone says something.. the return 100% of the time is "Well Bush wasted all this money too"

No fucl<ing sh1t Bush wasted WAY TOO MUCH

No fucl<ing sh1t Bush royally fucl<ed up by going to war with Iraq & we will be repaying that for as long as the two of us live... AND then our hypothetical homosexual offspring will still be paying for it.

How is that an excuse for this new guy who spends like Bush on freaking steriods? How does that make the $1,000,000,000,000 spendulus program not a horrid waste of tax payers money?

THEY BOTH FUCl<ING SUCK BALLS.



Damn. I wish we could re-incarnate Reagan and make Clinton live forever and just do 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton, 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton. for ever and ever. that should at least make everyone happy!

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Damn. I wish we could re-incarnate Reagan and make Clinton live forever and just do 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton, 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton. for ever and ever. that should at least make everyone happy!

Let's say Ronald Regan or Bill Clinton took over in January, 2009 instead of Obama. How do you think the economy would be doing right now? What would Afghanistan and the Gulf of Mexico look like?
I'm pretty sure the answer to those three questions is:

economy - crap
Afghanistan - crap
Gulf - crap

In other words....not that much different from the way it looks now. Presidents don't have magic wands, no matter how much you wish they did.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

While Holder may certainly have problems to worry about, the Black Panther thing being one of them, this post is just too rich top to bottom.

When "states" try to enforce federal law he sues "them?" Them and states are both plural. Examples please. Or are you just trying to make it sound worse than it is to try to score a point? I bet the house on the latter. It's what you guys do.

And who was the last attorney general? And you're worried about an AG who doesn't follow the law and just does whatever he feels like doing?

Consistency will surely never accidentally be listed in the "plus" column when discussing the conservative mindset.

Thanks for a good laugh, Rupert.

Examples please? Huh? Have you ever heard of Arizona? I said "states" rather than "state" because Holder's policy is obviously to sue states that pass this type of legislation and there will be more to follow. Other states are already in the planning stages of coming up with similar laws to Arizona. Are you suggesting that Holder doesn't sue states that try to enforce immigration laws?

You are just arguing over semantics. Here is an analogy. Let's say a guy is prejudice against black people and this guy is about to open a business. He needs to hire employees and he starts interviewing people. He interviews a black woman who is well-qualified but he doesn't hire her because she is black. Would it be incorrect for me to say he won't hire "black people"? Would you say, "Hey Rupert. Why did you say "black people" plural? It should not have been plural. So far there was only one black person (the only one interviewed so far) that he didn't hire. Why are you making it plural? Are you trying to make it sound worse?"

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Let's say Ronald Regan or Bill Clinton took over in January, 2009 instead of Obama. How do you think the economy would be doing right now? What would Afghanistan and the Gulf of Mexico look like?
I'm pretty sure the answer to those three questions is:

economy - crap
Afghanistan - crap
Gulf - crap

In other words....not that much different from the way it looks now. Presidents don't have magic wands, no matter how much you wish they did.

Bush freaking blew, so its not right to just start this hypothetical converation in 2009.

Substitute Bush for Reagan and Obama for Clinton, and I would say that things would be significantly different right now.

& I've posted many times that one man cant single handidly ruin or save the world. Tho supposedly Bush ruined the world all by himself.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Bush freaking blew, so its not right to just start this hypothetical converation in 2009.

Substitute Bush for Reagan and Obama for Clinton, and I would say that things would be significantly different right now.

& I've posted many times that one man cant single handidly ruin or save the world. Tho supposedly Bush ruined the world all by himself.

So you agree that if Reagan or Clinton took office in '09 things in the country would look a lot like they do now? Some things (health care) would be different, but many of the big things - like the 3 examples I gave - would look the same.

But okay, let's take your example and say RR took office in 2001 instead of Bush. Would 9-11 still have happened? I think the answer is yes. Would America/NATO have invaded Afghanistan in response? Yes. Would the surplus of 2000 have been spent on large tax cuts? Probably still yes. Would the era of deregulation (begun under Clinton) have continued under RR as it did under Bush? Almost certainly yes. Would the world/American economy have collapsed in 2008? Almost certainly yes. Would DADT have been repealed? Probably not. etc. etc.

You say "Bush freaking blew," but with the possible exception of Iraq, how different would 8 years under RR really have been? I realize these counterfactuals are pure guesswork, but I think they illustrate an interesting and important point.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by miraja2

So you agree that if Reagan or Clinton took office in '09 things in the country would look a lot like they do now? Some things (health care) would be different, but many of the big things - like the 3 examples I gave - would look the same.

But okay, let's take your example and say RR took office in 2001 instead of Bush. Would 9-11 still have happened? I think the answer is yes. Would America/NATO have invaded Afghanistan in response? Yes. Would the surplus of 2000 have been spent on large tax cuts? Probably still yes. Would the era of deregulation (begun under Clinton) have continued under RR as it did under Bush? Almost certainly yes. Would the world/American economy have collapsed in 2008? Almost certainly yes. Would DADT have been repealed? Probably not. etc. etc.

You say "Bush freaking blew," but with the possible exception of Iraq, how different would 8 years under RR really have been? I realize these counterfactuals are pure guesswork, but I think they illustrate an interesting and important point.

I agree with you.

[Antitrust32]

if 2000-2008 would have been under RR, and not Bush, things would be totally different. Bush doesnt even deserve to be in the history books as POTUS next to Reagan.

Would 9/11 have happened? Most likely yes.

You do realize that just cutting out the Iraq war alone saves us a ton of and assets. So RR focuses entirely on Al Queda after 9/11.. instead of all this other mess.. Afghanistan wouldnt nearly be in the mess it is now without the Iraq war.

On the Economy? RR was an economic master. Bush an economic moron.

Do you understand the differences of the economy in the 80's when Reagan entered, to when he left?

Reagan cut taxes and also DOUBLED the total federal revenue at the same time!!

Here are some more facts:

Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:

This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10

The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11

From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12





so yes.. I truely believe it would have been a world of difference.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

if 2000-2008 would have been under RR, and not Bush, things would be totally different. Bush doesnt even deserve to be in the history books as POTUS next to Reagan.

Would 9/11 have happened? Most likely yes.

You do realize that just cutting out the Iraq war alone saves us a ton of and assets. So RR focuses entirely on Al Queda after 9/11.. instead of all this other mess.. Afghanistan wouldnt nearly be in the mess it is now without the Iraq war.

On the Economy? RR was an economic master. Bush an economic moron.

Do you understand the differences of the economy in the 80's when Reagan entered, to when he left?

Reagan cut taxes and also DOUBLED the total federal revenue at the same time!!

Here are some more facts:

Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:

This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10

The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11

From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12





so yes.. I truely believe it would have been a world of difference.

So you actually think the economic growth of the 1980s and 1990s came about because of policies enacted by the men sitting in the oval office during those decades, or perhaps their colleagues in the U.S. capital? If you actually think that, the only thing I can do is refer you to my earlier "magic wand" comment, and call it day. The U.S. president has relatively little control over the U.S. economy. Exactly how much control is up for debate, but it is certainly FAR less than you seem to think.
RR and Bubba receive far more credit than they deserve for the state of the economy during their presidencies.
W. and Obama receive far too much blame.

Oh well.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by miraja2

So you actually think the economic growth of the 1980s and 1990s came about because of policies enacted by the men sitting in the oval office during those decades, or perhaps their colleagues in the U.S. capital? If you actually think that, the only thing I can do is refer you to my earlier "magic wand" comment, and call it day. The U.S. president has relatively little control over the U.S. economy. Exactly how much control is up for debate, but it is certainly FAR less than you seem to think.
RR and Bubba receive far more credit than they deserve for the state of the economy during their presidencies.
W. and Obama receive far too much blame.

Oh well.

I agree. Economies are cyclical. Presidents can implement policies that may slightly help or slighly hinder the economy, but overall there is only so much they can do. They're not going to be able to stop a recession from happening. They may be able to delay it slightly through stimulus and that type of thing, but they're not going to be able to stop it.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The opposition party does that at every midterm. Glad you will get the enjoyment out of thinking you discovered some new political creature that has been invented and will happen for the first time ever because of Obama. Good for you.

Yeah but odds were strong in 2008 that the Dems would hold 2010. Not too many times in history has the winning party replaced a disaster like Dubya.

It's kind of frightening how bad both sides of the aisle are.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Damn. I wish we could re-incarnate Reagan and make Clinton live forever and just do 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton, 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton. for ever and ever. that should at least make everyone happy!

Hell no. God and baby Jesus no.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Examples please? Huh? Have you ever heard of Arizona? I said "states" rather than "state" because Holder's policy is obviously to sue states that pass this type of legislation and there will be more to follow. Other states are already in the planning stages of coming up with similar laws to Arizona. Are you suggesting that Holder doesn't sue states that try to enforce immigration laws?

You are just arguing over semantics. Here is an analogy. Let's say a guy is prejudice against black people and this guy is about to open a business. He needs to hire employees and he starts interviewing people. He interviews a black woman who is well-qualified but he doesn't hire her because she is black. Would it be incorrect for me to say he won't hire "black people"? Would you say, "Hey Rupert. Why did you say "black people" plural? It should not have been plural. So far there was only one black person (the only one interviewed so far) that he didn't hire. Why are you making it plural? Are you trying to make it sound worse?"

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing your words. You wrote them. Own them.

Obviously I have heard of Arizona, and that is one, so I was right about you trying to make it sound worse than it was. It's not like it was all that surprising to see it coming. When there is a "them" and when there are "states," then you can feel free to talk about it like it's some kind of epidemic. When there is only one example, talk about that one example. If it's so shockingly horrific, you shouldn't need to try to make it sound worse than it is.

Until then, though I know this isn't high on your list of priorities, a little intellectual honesty would be a good addition to your repertoire.