The correction of spelling and grammer is the ultimate admission of losing an arguement. Your surrender is acknowkedged and acceptedQuote:
Originally Posted by skibuminwyo
Printable View
The correction of spelling and grammer is the ultimate admission of losing an arguement. Your surrender is acknowkedged and acceptedQuote:
Originally Posted by skibuminwyo
You know what I look like because I lack critical thinking skills??? So what are you saying that I'm tall and black? Sorry but wrong on both accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Garnett
You know YSE, your argument that you ignore a bunch of stuff on this board and don't really care what people think isn't exactly supported when you post obsessively.
2 minutes in between posts... don't you have something better to do?
The best that you can do is to accuse me that I think quick?Quote:
Originally Posted by iceclimb
Ha, you actually have to try and redefine what I said to make an argument? We've seen a lot of that in politics lately... I said EXACTLY:Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
If you believe that this is not accurate... PROVE IT.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
Oh, and BTW... I didn't post in the "Why do you hate... Supreme..." thread because I don't hate on you mang. I've always believed that "everyone is entitled to their own stupid opinion" (both me and you included), I just take issue when someone is WAY beyond social norms or tries to have their own private facts.
I can't claim to have a perfect recall, so I will say when I am not absolutely certain something along the lines of "I think" or "If I remember correctly" or (other proviso/hedge) to indicate when I don't have the exact specifics at my finger tips. If I was to be later proven to have been incorrect in my recall, I can handle being wrong... well, granted it doesn't happen often, but when it does... I SAC up and accept it. You could use a bit more of this IMVHO.
I think the fun thing about arguing with you, is when someone makes a good point against your side of the argument, you try and shift/shimmey to some other part and just try and pretend nothing happened. I see it, most here do, I am actually entertained by it... sounds like most here are not. Either way, thanks for the time for your response.
Oh, and BTW... on this YOU ARE WRONG!!! :the_finge
I will not pretend to be the politico wonk BUT through personal recollection I would think that a partial explanation for the "Old Money" going democratic would be family traditions. Lemme do some splainin.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
Democratic core values have shifted over the past 50 or so years. Try listening to old State of the Union address from JFK sometime, you would think you fell into moderate Republican land. Basically what I'm saying is the previous iterations of the Democratic party were more favorable to wealthy individuals than the Republicans were. Today however I see a reversal of that trend. Corporate wealth and therefore big money is more favorably protected by the Republicans.
Now then, back to my thesis; What was once your fathers political party ain't no more yet do to what you have heard and were tutored to believe as a youngster you follow along with and adhere to the family mantra, after all daddies money is still here.
[2 glasses of wine] [robot voice] Does not compute! [/robot voice] [maybe more wine (or use of some additional punctuation marks) will help me parse this part] :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 3centshort
let me try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
People remain in their forefathers political party because it is tradition and until there is a major paradigm shift there they shall remain.
It's MY responsibilty to prove YOUR dumb opinions??? How interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
Well, lets see. You had A) YOUR stated opinion. I had B) MY stated opinion -AND- C) a concurring Wikipedia article... as I mentioned earlier, granted not the strongest source, but push me and I'd happily spend the time to absolutely bury you on this point!Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
I don't know if you threw that Wikipedia in there as part of your edit or if I just skipped over that since I figure most of what you say is bullshit but I find it interesting that you choose to take statistics on a few hundred CONGRESSMEN and not the tens of millions who voted them in (that's like saying that since John Kerry has more money then Bush then all Democrats are richer!). I also find it intriguing how you consider those with net worth between $1 million to $10 million to be middle class and not rich. I mean fuck if you just want to use billionaires then why don't we just ask who Bill Gates is going to vote for and then declare that to be the party of the rich! And most importantly, that article talks about the past election cycle! Here we are talking about the history of the two parties and you want to go off of limited demographics for the past election cycle and a few hundred current congressmen (all the while ignoring the fact that I said that in recent years the wealth/education gap has shifted). Anyways you're going to have to do better then that bullshit that adds absolutely nothing whatsoever to the arguement.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
YSE=toasted credibility.
How so, because I won't succomb to the absolutely ridiculous assertion that over their history Democrats haven't been for poor people, minorities, and social services whereas Republicans haven't been for rich people, educated professionals and not taxing those wealthy two? That is why my credibility is toasted? Jesus christ, I wonder how many on this board are laughing their asses off at you two and wondering what the fuck you are thinking and just don't want to say anything so as not to be on my side. I'm not even going to respond to this crap anymore because at this point I don't see how there is no way in hell that you just aren't fucking with me because I don't see how there is anyway in the world you two are actually this fucking stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by rideit
You'll keep responding.... It is your crack. Obviously have no life, probably still live at home, massive pornography collection, probably cruel to animals, probably been raped by a priest, at some point in your life.... am I getting close? Is the profile matching up?
It's because you feel the need to post pure drivel, as exemplified in this last post.
And you won't gain your credibility back: it is clear that you don't even ski.
Sure I'll respond to other topics but I'm done trying to convince morons what they should already know in that FDR implemented social security and Reagan cutt the taxes for the rich, not the other way around.... And I haven't lived at home since 17, my porno collection I doubt is any bigger then anyone elses and most of it is just leftover from my younger days, I've never been raped by a priest (although I have met a few nuns I wish would have gave a go at it), and I can ski any terrain that anyone else can in here and probably a hell of a lot better then anyone in this thread so no I don't suck at skiing and yes your FBI profiling skills are way off (reminds me of a Reno 911 episode).Quote:
Originally Posted by skibuminwyo
this 'reads' as slightly racially charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
and by 'look' i obviously meant 'sounds' or 'reads' or 'comes across as.'
i think you are missing some fundamentals.
OK, OK, I'll play... I still have a half a bottle of red wine and some nacho chips laying around. And as I said earlier, I actually like this. :D This will take a while and I'll probably miss something good on another thread dammit!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
In the edit the only thing I added was the apology to the rest of the Mags for the HUGE RED TEXT. I added it, as it turns out, to deal with EXACTLY the above tendency of yours...
First excuse me a minute; HA HA HA HA HAAA HA!!!
OK, I think I can focus now;
-This quote "but I find it interesting that you choose to take statistics on a few hundred CONGRESSMEN" : I highlighted it in some perverted sense of irony, it had nothing specific to do with the points at hand... My main corroborating points were additionally UNDERLINED. I could have been more clear I admit.
-The quote "I also find it intriguing how you consider those with net worth between $1 million to $10 million to be middle class and not rich. I mean fuck if you just want to use billionaires then why don't we just ask who Bill Gates is going to vote for and then declare that to be the party of the rich!" : HA HA HAA! You had said in that first post "...when Republicans had a monopoly on the educated and upper-classes..." and in the second "...The fact is for the majority of the last century the masses of rich and educated people were diehard Republicans..." First: I did NOT call those in the $1 mil to $10 mil middle class, YOU just did. I said "the top percent or two, especially 'old money', have been Democratic for many generations now." Second: A net worth of $10 Million is NOT that rich. There are tens and tens of thousands who have net worths above that $10,000,000 mark... and they have voted more for liberal/progressive candidates than conservative since time began... The last 80 years or so that has basically been Democrats. They can afford to vote against their own interests as it were. And my last point on this... come on mang, by crying "I mean fuck if you just want to use billionaires then why don't we just ask who Bill Gates is going to vote for and then declare that to be the party of the rich!" YOU JUST TOTALLY MADE MY POINT, YOU BASICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE MOST RICH OF THE RICH MIGHT TEND TO VOTE DEMOCRATIC"... Jeebus mang, you are trying to be the hard ass arguing guy here on TGR, this just makes you look like a total PUSSY! Stop that!!!
OK, this part "And most importantly, that article talks about the past election cycle! Here we are talking about the history of the two parties and you want to go off of limited demographics for the past election cycle and a few hundred current congressmen (all the while ignoring the fact that I said that in recent years the wealth/education gap has shifted)." To correct the record as it were, the article specifies in some parts about the votes of the intelligenica that it specifically referred to 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2006... So on it's face not the "past election cycle" you comment on. Also, are you so bent on trying to win an argument at any cost that you wouldn't admit that the most educated - ie: Professors, PHD's, graduate degrees, or how ever you want to measure their education, haven't been advocates of the liberal side since way before the civil rights struggle (1950's) and Vietnam (1960's to 1970's). I know you added in the definer "last century" in the second post, and good on ya, or I'd have to start arguing about the Whig and Federalist Parties... You wouldn't like me then!!! But do you have something to suggest that the most educated from say 1908 to 1950 were polar opposites of the remainder of the century? I really don't want to have to google your ass to death. Really.
If you wanted to argue that the dynamics's of this type of arguement changed at the "New Deal"... I'd guess I'd have to give you that. I'd could waste a dozen pages just on the change in the definition of "liberal" and "conservative" which occured at that historic juncture.
Lastly, I know I talk (write) WAY too much... sorry all. But you could condense almost the entirety the premise of my above argument in a simple "day to day" analogy; Anyone who has spent much time in a "Country Club" (or similar) upper crust environment can tell you that there is a distinct difference between member who are "old money" and the "newly rich"... "Old money" tends to be generous and talks to help more as equals, "New money" is more likely to be rude and rash and generally treats "help" as shitheads...
Need to fill my wine glass again, if I missed a point let me know...
Edit reason: Add italics to first quote...
OH GREAT, I post my treatise and you add in the words "BEEN FOR"... I'll try and digest the rest I missed creating my crappy post. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
Edit: Oh and before I get the "edited" tag, I personally don't care if he/she skis...
I'll bite,Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
guess what.
I challenge you to a ski off!
Meet me on top of once is enough, and we will dice.
The conservatives may back mccain with money, but theyre not going to get wild-eye yuppies to go knock on doors or soccer moms to drive over to the voting booth. McCain is just not very likeable, old and not inspiring at all.
Both hillary and obama will blow him away in every debate. he just doesnt have the style or temperment to come off well.
And the democrats will blow him away with charges of being another 4 years of Bush. Mitt or Huck may have been able to get away with being for change but McCain can't and he's not even trying. Hil, Obama, Mitt and Huck all figured that's what the people want, but McCain likes to dance to his own tune and not listen to anybody. Say what you will about GW, but he at least tried to go with what the GOP wanted as far as taxes, oil and the environment is concerned.
If you're a GOPer, it's going to be a blood bath, McCain will have no coattails, lose more seats in congress and even cause losses in state races.
The best shot the GOP has is for Obama to win the presidency and screw it up by being in over his head, Hillary and Bill know what to do when they get in and will hold it for another 8 years.
And I say all this as a far right conservative who has campaigned for GW and other GOPers all over the country since 2002. Neither sides have performed well for 4 years, but the GOP officeholders continue to do what they dam well please(as evidenced by rush, savage and hannity losing it on a daily basis) and it's going to continue to cost them.
Makes sense. I just didn't understand what you were getting at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Garnett
My mind has officially been blown.Quote:
Originally Posted by altagirl
you're forgetting the important question: Who am I going to endorse? :fmicon:
You guys are incorrectly using the term neo-con. These aren't the guys pushing the social and political discourse to the right. Neo-Con's became a presense under the tutelage of Scoop Jackson. A Dem senator. The neo-con's of the Weekly Standard, Irving and Bill Kristol, the Podhoretz's, and their ilk are generally fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and hawkish on foreign policy. How they have supposedly pushed the debate on political issues to the conservative right is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel99
edit:
[edit] Neoconservative policies
Irving Kristol, the "god-father" and one of the founders of neoconservatism, stated five basic policies of neoconservatism that distinguish it from other "movements" or "persuasions"[8]. These policies, he claimed, "result in popular Republican presidencies":
Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol's view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth."[8]
Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."[8]
Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservatives in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power."[8]
Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ... distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you."[8]
National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ... [will] feel obliged to defend ... a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ...that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ... that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today."
it is people like the Focus on the Family's of the religous right that are guilty of these inane litmus(abortion, second amendment, etc.) tests for Judges, congressman, and presidents atleast in the GOP.
A question I have, is if McCain and Thompson ran a campaign that rebuked the Religous Right, how many independents and Democrats vote for them? Would you?
Hillary had a lot of presence in WA (and I think all the Lesbians are supporting her ;) ) all kidding aside I wasn't surprised Obama won the caucus here, but more surprised by the margins. You could kind of feel the momentum when he drew 20,000 people to Key Arena for a speech and still had to turn away more than 3,000. Pretty cool- he made sure to go outside for a quick appearance w/bullhorn to greet those who couldn't make it inside.Quote:
Originally Posted by enlosandes
Overall there's a lot of energy in WA right now on the Democratic side - will be interesting to see how this translates into the Fall.
If Obama gets the nomination, the wave he is riding is only going to get bigger. Honestly I don't think McCain has a chance, unless votes are fixed.
Six words that should scare the crap out of anyone (Republican or Democrat):Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
Project for a New American Century
Regardless the American people have had enough of the perpetual fearmongering and horrible 'legacy' of the Bush.
As much as I would like to agree, there are kooks like YSE and squishy face people in the midwest that have fallen for the lies and will vote for another protector of the "radical Islamic extremists".Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel99
I don't think so, for a couple reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
First, many I's and D's are anti war, and McCain and Thompson are huge cheerleaders for war. McCain seems to actually LIKE war, I mean shit, he said it's OK if we are in Iraq for 10,000 years. That line right there will cost him a million votes.
Second, there are plenty of I's and D's who actually believe we have a responsibility to help our fellow man, and that the conservative philosophy is selfish and favors the rich. I don't intend to argue this case here, I'm just saying that this is what people feel.
I didn't realize you had the pulse of the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
And not to go George Patton on you, but as the surge continues to turn the tide in Iraq you will see quite a few Americans that like war when we are winning. I couldn't find where McCain said it is ok for us to be in Iraq for 10k years. but I doubt the figurative 1mm votes were his in the first place.
Here's the pulse of the people: McCain to lose, 65% probability. And you could still make a killing betting against him.
Takin' money from fools, dude - you know that's what you're all about, so go get it.
I'm equal opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
Well, don't ask for opinions if you don't want to hear them.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
I have yet to hear ANYONE give a satisfactory explanation of what, exactly, victory will look like in Iraq. A democratically elected Islamist government? That will be swell. :rolleyes:
I disagree. Karl Rove most assuredly has a laboratory in his secret Volcano Lair where he and his pals are cloning flying monkeys at a prodigious rate. When he lets them loose, watch out. Obama is incredibly vulnerable from a number of angles. I see the wave he is on now - but that wave is only among a certain set of Democrats in certain places. And his team has been adept at dodging issues with the family, as it were, that will be un-dodgable in a broader context. A general election will be a very different breed of cat - both in character and the strange mechanics of the electoral college.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel99
I'm betting the the top Republican strategists are praying for Obama to get the nod...
So, did we ever figure out who would be the VP if McCain gets the nod. What about Obama? I can't imagine McCain would be dumb enough to slay is campain by having Huckabee or Romney join up. And I think Mrs. Clinton is above being VP to Obama.
six years in the senate accomplishing exactly nothing, and eight years explaining your husband's infidelities and you're overqualified for the office of the VP???Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush
WoW.
Mr. G, I agree. I don't think she's over qualified...I think she thinks she is though. No way she'd be Obama's running mate...and I don't think he'd want her anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
If a guy had HRC's experience and credentials you'd be kissing his ass.
What are McCain's credentials? Former POW and current doddering idiot member of senate who is willing to pander to religious nuts (and may well be one himself), member of the Keating 5, and guy who had an affair & dumped his disabled wife for the new model in a manner that makes him look like substantially weaker sauce than Bill on the issue? Get real... WRT credentials, experience, intellectual horsepower, and even ethics - Clinton makes McCain look like an impotent sniveling wreck. And I don't even like her voting track record...
Seriously spindrift, I realize we don't agree on much, but tell me this:
Hillary is about to lose. The Clintons play dirty, as dirty as anyone...if they had something on Obama, do you really believe they wouldn't have already trotted it out?
edit: and to anyone suggesting an Obama/Hillary ticket (or vice versa), get the fuck off TGR and go inform yourself of the impossibility of this situation.
edit again:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2073/...79a23b90db.jpg
You talking to me? Trust me man, I like HRC over McCain. The dude is insanely too old to be president. I imagine my grandfather at his age, already retired for 15 years, driving a motorhome, fishing, drinking, and chilling...then I think of him trying to run the country. Yeah, terrible fucking idea. McCain should step down from his senate seat and retire. At most he should be touring around trying to recruit new neocons.Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift
All I'm saying about HRC is that she is either too pround or too self absorbed to be Obama's runningmate.