I hope that Romney loses and loses BIG!

[nehalem256]

Afraid I cannot reach that conclusion. You'll have to show your work in this compare and contrast exercise.

OK. Lets say someone shoots you in the head. Who is the primary victim?

 

[jackstar7]

OK. Lets say someone shoots you in the head. Who is the primary victim?

So, if I understand you (and I'm admitting I might not), your issue is with her use of that one word?


And did I volunteer to put myself in a position where I'd likely get shot in the head?

 

[kage69]

A) That isn't 4th grade, that is pure and simple words using no fancy adjectives, or abverbs to get a point across.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I didn't make one mention of your spelling or grammar. What I was referring to was your curious ability to ignore the mountain of crazy spewing from the GOP for several YEARS in your need to maintain the false equivalency, then when being called on it you accuse me of "being blind" - quite the petulant pot-to-kettle retort really, hence me the likening it to a 4th grader like mindset. You've haven't made a single point, sorry. Up the quality of your posts if you want to be taken seriously.

B) Invalidated myself by parroting a lie that you have not proven false in any way shape or form? And knowing it is a waste of time to try and prove something to someone who is so dead set in their beliefs is futile.

Another indication of your immaturity here; you're under the impression that I have to disprove an issue that you haven't proved. Your assertion bears the requirement of proof, of evidence, and so far the only thing you've provided is personal opinion that happens to be at odds with the news and stories I've been following for the last oh, say six years.
You haven't the faintest clue about what i believe, and if you were familiar with my post history at all you'd have noticed I do not have a problem admitting I'm not an authority on politics, nor do I have a problem with admitting error or revising a position in the light of new and/or definitive info. Strike 2 kid, try again!

C) Partisan Hyperbole? Lets see... I have commented I think Obama is a better candidate, but also that the parties are equally evil to defend a blinded post about democrats are "so much better". Which means I just supported both parties. Yes I am very partisan.

You are resorting to the usual fail displayed here so often by so many shills. If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...
For instance, the original item of yours that I responded too was your claim of the parties being no different. Here now you are trying to run damage control by switching the argument to the individual candidates. You can submit that both parties are the same until you are blue in the face, that's not the issue, the issue is if you can provide anything in the way of evidence to support it. You can't, which is why you are now engaging in the Indignant BackStep. I don't care if you support both parties, who doesn't identify with at least some of what each side says? That isn't mutually exclusive to the false equivalency lie you posted, what else you got?

D) You have given no supporting facts against me. So there is "no support by the facts" and I am not talking of just this very moment of Romney V Obama. I am talking the span of 50+ years of Democrats and Republicans who have been in office. Both parties are always looking for themselves over the citizens of the country.

How does it go? That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You haven't fulfilled the burden of proof that goes along with your original statement, but that doesn't mean I can't laugh at it, especially when the GOP has been indicating your error every few days for the last several years.
I simply don't believe your observations, sorry. You should get used to that response if you're bent on making ridiculous statements. Also, really generalized, generic descriptions don't do anything for you here either, I thought you should know.

And btw calling me a hatemonger when A) I don't hate people and B) then saying i am in 4th grade... geez what is up with that???

I used the word hatemonger because you seem emotionally invested in promulgating a complete falsehood, and have reacted to criticism of it with an attitude. Standard indignant shill procedure on these forums, you'll have to excuse me from learning from past experience. Hate, or at least extreme resentment, towards the Dems seems to be a logical trait here if you are bent on attributing the GOP's behavior to the Dems where it otherwise does not exist. Noting your grade school like debate tactics doesn't indicate hate at all, I know nothing about you apart from your poor observation and comprehension skills. As a father the notion of actually hating a 4th grader is almost comical. No, what I feel towards you is more like equal parts amusement and pity.

I don't know, what is up with that? Maybe you should roll your eyes some more and think it over?

 

[Todd33]

What lie? Both parties are just as bad. Not realizing that, shows you have been blinded by some lies whatever party you currently follow has spoken.

It is a total fallacy.

Is the left run by the extreme fringe? Give some examples if so. The left may pander to working class, but they are not reality deniers, hate mongers, anti-science, racists, etc.

 

[diesbudt]

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I didn't make one mention of your spelling or grammar. What I was referring to was your curious ability to ignore the mountain of crazy spewing from the GOP for several YEARS in your need to maintain the false equivalency, then when being called on it you accuse me of "being blind" - quite the petulant pot-to-kettle retort really, hence me the likening it to a 4th grader like mindset. You've haven't made a single point, sorry. Up the quality of your posts if you want to be taken seriously.



Another indication of your immaturity here; you're under the impression that I have to disprove an issue that you haven't proved. Your assertion bears the requirement of proof, of evidence, and so far the only thing you've provided is personal opinion that happens to be at odds with the news and stories I've been following for the last oh, say six years.
You haven't the faintest clue about what i believe, and if you were familiar with my post history at all you'd have noticed I do not have a problem admitting I'm not an authority on politics, nor do I have a problem with admitting error or revising a position in the light of new and/or definitive info. Strike 2 kid, try again!




You are resorting to the usual fail displayed here so often by so many shills. If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...
For instance, the original item of yours that I responded too was your claim of the parties being no different. Here now you are trying to run damage control by switching the argument to the individual candidates. You can submit that both parties are the same until you are blue in the face, that's not the issue, the issue is if you can provide anything in the way of evidence to support it. You can't, which is why you are now engaging in the Indignant BackStep. I don't care if you support both parties, who doesn't identify with at least some of what each side says? That isn't mutually exclusive to the false equivalency lie you posted, what else you got?




How does it go? That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You haven't fulfilled the burden of proof that goes along with your original statement, but that doesn't mean I can't laugh at it, especially when the GOP has been indicating your error every few days for the last several years.
I simply don't believe your observations, sorry. You should get used to that response if you're bent on making ridiculous statements. Also, really generalized, generic descriptions don't do anything for you here either, I thought you should know.






I used the word hatemonger because you seem emotionally invested in promulgating a complete falsehood, and have reacted to criticism of it with an attitude. Standard indignant shill procedure on these forums, you'll have to excuse me from learning from past experience. Hate, or at least extreme resentment, towards the Dems seems to be a logical trait here if you are bent on attributing the GOP's behavior to the Dems where it otherwise does not exist. Noting your grade school like debate tactics doesn't indicate hate at all, I know nothing about you apart from your poor observation and comprehension skills. As a father the notion of actually hating a 4th grader is almost comical. No, what I feel towards you is more like equal parts amusement and pity.

I don't know, what is up with that? Maybe you should roll your eyes some more and think it over?

The quality of my posts are just fine. And that isn't a 4th grader mindset. That was me claiming defeat in trying to open your eyes into realizing no single party is "great" and that both are evil (in their own ways, whether you believe it or not) especially since they always care about themselves/their party before the populace. Which is an ultimate evil for a governing body, therefore being equally evil.

Beleive me or don't. Trying to prove it is much like trying to prove god. I have evidence, I could put it forth. But what would happen? Both parties would probably defend their party/agree with me when it doesn't deal with their party. Also for me to have enough evidence, I would have to have a prime seat in the CIA/government to know all the behind the door secrets that happen during each government.

Considering any/all state ments said on here are opinions even when evidence is shown, especially since evidence is shown, as 90% of the time said media is partisan for 1 side or another. And my opinion could be at odds for what you have heard from the past 6 years in that you maybe (I will not assume as you feel you have to point out small points in conversation like this) that you are listening to 1 side of the story from a partisan news outlet. Well I know for a fact you are more a democrat. So I do know something about you. As trying to point out 1 side is "less evil" in response to my post. If you just said it to say it, could have swung either way.

Your the one name calling and calling me "kid" or "Hate monger" (both ways of showing one is superior to another) yet claim I am the 4th grader. This alone puts my mind at ease realizing not to take you seriously. Especially more or less saying in a previous post (unless that was someone else) that I am a shill and should not be taken seriously for not converting to your idea of thought/agree with you.

That wasn't damage control, that was the original meaning of my post. The candidates themselves are no where near the only representatives of their party. So saying I can agree with 1 candidate being the "better" choice, doesn't mean the ones pulling the strings are not equivalent in evilness, when caring about your own party first and foremost to me is the most evil government can get.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

You better not believe in any religion or I will call you a liar right now.

I am tired of this thread. Was fun to begin, but now its grown boring.

 

[kage69]

The quality of my posts are just fine. And that isn't a 4th grader mindset. That was me claiming defeat in trying to open your eyes into realizing no single party is "great" and that both are evil (in their own ways, whether you believe it or not) especially since they always care about themselves/their party before the populace. Which is an ultimate evil for a governing body, therefore being equally evil.

Beleive me or don't. Trying to prove it is much like trying to prove god. I have evidence, I could put it forth. But what would happen? Both parties would probably defend their party/agree with me when it doesn't deal with their party. Also for me to have enough evidence, I would have to have a prime seat in the CIA/government to know all the behind the door secrets that happen during each government.

Considering any/all state ments said on here are opinions even when evidence is shown, especially since evidence is shown, as 90% of the time said media is partisan for 1 side or another. And my opinion could be at odds for what you have heard from the past 6 years in that you maybe (I will not assume as you feel you have to point out small points in conversation like this) that you are listening to 1 side of the story from a partisan news outlet. Well I know for a fact you are more a democrat. So I do know something about you. As trying to point out 1 side is "less evil" in response to my post. If you just said it to say it, could have swung either way.

Your the one name calling and calling me "kid" or "Hate monger" (both ways of showing one is superior to another) yet claim I am the 4th grader. This alone puts my mind at ease realizing not to take you seriously. Especially more or less saying in a previous post (unless that was someone else) that I am a shill and should not be taken seriously for not converting to your idea of thought/agree with you.

That wasn't damage control, that was the original meaning of my post. The candidates themselves are no where near the only representatives of their party. So saying I can agree with 1 candidate being the "better" choice, doesn't mean the ones pulling the strings are not equivalent in evilness, when caring about your own party first and foremost to me is the most evil government can get.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

You better not believe in any religion or I will call you a liar right now.

I am tired of this thread. Was fun to begin, but now its grown boring.

So much fail in that reply I honestly don't know where to start!

I'm tempted to give your assumptions and lack of thought another drubbing, but it looks like you maybe understand what I was talking about and are now conceding you got nothing by the sudden disinterest in maintaining your fervent positions.

lol better luck next time kid, thanks for playing!

 

[hardhat]

Why didn't you post the context of that quote, Nehalem?

I’ve heard many stories preparing to come here, and even since I’ve been here, about how so many individuals were able to forgive, leave the past behind, and work with people who were once their sworn enemies in a spirit of cooperation. A former Army Colonel and ex-guerilla fighter, working side-by-side to rebuild schools, roads and wells in a former region of conflict. They embraced on the side of the road, marveling how a few years earlier they had been trying to kill one another. I’ve heard stories like that in other countries that have also taken the hard, but rewarding road to peace. I remember sitting at a meeting in Cape Town, South Africa across from two men who could not have been more different. One, the General of the Army of the former Apartheid regime, the other a Black Liberation fighter who is now the leader of one of the houses of the legislature. And the white General said “You know, I would have just as soon killed him a few years ago.” And the black President in the Senate said “And I would have just as soon responded in kind...but now we know we have much more in common to build a stronger country than we’ve ever dreamed possible.” I’ve heard of the Mayors of six small towns in one war torn region who came together to put collaboration over conflict, providing their funds to build a road, linking the two most needy and remote villages. As a result, those war-ravaged ghost towns have been transformed into flourishing communities. Bombed-out buildings are the foundations for new homes and silent, deserted streets are now filled with the voices of children. Each of you in this room, I know, has a story that you could tell -- a story of loss, a story of tragedy, a story of disappointment from the past. But I also know you can tell new stories, and those new stories are about rebuilding and moving forward. Despite how difficult that must be for all of you, and how hard it is to live with the memories of lost loved ones, you are setting an extraordinary example for the rest of the world.

The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well. Throughout our hemisphere we have an epidemic of violence against women, even though there is no longer any organized warfare that puts women in the direct line of combat. But domestic violence is now recognized as being the most pervasive human rights violation in the world. Here in El Salvador, according to the statistics gathered by your government, 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and the number of domestic abuse complaints at just one agency topped 10,000 last year. Between 25 and 50 percent of women throughout Latin America have reportedly been victims of domestic violence. The problem is all pervasive, but sometimes difficult to see. Every country on earth shares this dark secret. Too often, the women we see shopping at the markets, working at their jobs, caring for their children by day, go home at night and live in fear. Not fear of an invading army or a natural disaster or even a stranger in a dark alley, but fear of the very people -- family members -- who they are supposed to depend upon for help and comfort. This is the trust-destroying terror that attends every step of a victim of violence. For these women, their homes provide inadequate refuge, the law little protection, public opinion often less sympathy. That’s why we have to say over and over again, as Elizabeth has done and as so many of you have echoed, that violence against women is not simply cultural or a custom. It is simply criminal, a crime. The devastating effects of domestic violence on women are just as dramatic as the effects of war on women. The physical injury, the mental illness, the terrible loss of confidence limits the capacities of women to fulfill their God-given potentials.
...

She wasn't arguing that women were somehow the only victims of war was she? She was talking about how domestic violence in many ways is just as bad as war is for women and the family. Stop projecting your irrational gender politics onto everything that you hear and read.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I think we need two rational political parties.

It's not going to happen until we have a rational populace.

Did I mention that the vast majority of our populace believes in an all-powerful imaginary sky God-being and that a large percentage of the populace (Christian Taliban) take that belief seriously? Furthermore, because of a failure to enact a light-handed eugenics program, the nation's poor people breed much faster than the smarter people. If IQ or g-factor is inheritable, the result could be something akin to the situation portrayed in the movie Idiocracy. Don't count on having a rational populace or a rational president anytime soon.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Are we talking about liberals or Democrats? Wow, you can find a few examples of fringe liberals who maybe see racism where it might not exist. The Republican party as a whole have adopted insane platforms. Not just questionable platforms. Full blown insane platforms. Talk to me when the Democrats as a whole adopt a completely batshit insane platform.

The Reps are awful. The Dems somewhat less. Neither party has proposed solutions that deal with the problems we have. We are presented with bad vs awful. That's a reason to applaud either side? "We suck, but not as much" is hardly an inspiring thing although it's true.

 

[TheSlamma]

Does anyone here honestly believe that those promises Obama made 4 years ago are held up just because he miscalculated how long it would take to fulfill them all?

If he wins another term, and doesn't keep his promises (including adding all those jobs), what will be the next action?

I still want to be told how a president adds jobs. And the tax cuts thing is BS, corporations already pay next to nothing or actually come out on top and they still do lay-offs so it can't contain that lie. It also can't contain a scheme like dotcom, house flipping or mortgage scheme.

Now explain how a president creates jobs subtracting the schemes and political BS.

 

[nageov3t]

if (when) Romney loses, the take-away isn't going to be "oh my, maybe we've moved too far to the right as the Republican party and should reject some of the more extremist elements from our party."

the takeaway is going to be "we nominated a moderate RINO from Massachusetts; clearly we need to go even further to the right and nominate a real Republican if we want to win in 2016."

 

[nehalem256]

Why didn't you post the context of that quote, Nehalem?

She wasn't arguing that women were somehow the only victims of war was she? She was talking about how domestic violence in many ways is just as bad as war is for women and the family. Stop projecting your irrational gender politics onto everything that you hear and read.

Unfortunately men are just as likely to be victims of Domestic violence. Which makes her statement even more absurd. And of course she was not arguing that women are the only victim. Just the primary victim. Apparently having your head blown off makes you the secondary victim. You wife and daughters are the "primary victim"... and of course your sons don't matter at all they are just cannon-fodder for then war :\.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/r-ferrer/...ort-Myths-of-ABA-Commission-on-DV-Summary.pdf

1. Women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner aggression.
A recent Centers for Disease Control survey of young adults found that in cases of one-way partner aggression, women were the instigators in 71% of cases
(see Figure 1 on the next page 8). Fewer than one in five cases of female violence are explained by the woman acting in self-defense.

 

[Throckmorton]

Democrats are no better. Both sides are irrational, on top of both sides biggest supporters are blinded by the best course of action so certain without a doubt their party is right.

I personally hope for all that is Holy that Romney wins.

Not because I am supporting him, not because I am against Obama, not because I give a damn with an election with 2 horrible candidates and parties involved.

But because, and only because, this forum would EXPLODE with a lot of amusing posts for months to come after the election to give me entertainment.

A big loss also wont change anything for the Republicans. All they will do is bide their time until people get sick of the horrible democrats and forget about horrible republicans, then swoop in with a "change/hope" presidential candidate and sweep the nation again. Then Democrats will sit back and wait.

Its an endless circle.

The surest sign of political ignorance is the statement "both sides are equally bad"

 

[Throckmorton]

Unfortunately men are just as likely to be victims of Domestic violence. Which makes her statement even more absurd. And of course she was not arguing that women are the only victim. Just the primary victim. Apparently having your head blown off makes you the secondary victim. You wife and daughters are the "primary victim"... and of course your sons don't matter at all they are just cannon-fodder for then war :\.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/r-ferrer/VisitationSchedule/Domestic%20Violence/RADARreport-Myths-of-ABA-Commission-on-DV-Summary.pdf

Is the fact that most of our military is composed of men just lost on you?

I guess you could just be unfamiliar with the high number of returning troops with PTSD and how many of them beat their wives http://ptsd.about.com/od/infoforfriendsfamily/a/PTSDViolence.htm

 

[nehalem256]

Is the fact that most of our military is composed of men just lost on you?

Of course they are mostly men. Which is why men would be the primary victims.

I guess you could just be unfamiliar with the high number of returning troops with PTSD and how many of them beat their wives http://ptsd.about.com/od/infoforfriendsfamily/a/PTSDViolence.htm

And still overall women are just as likely to commit domestic violence.

 

[Smoblikat]

I honestly hope Romney loses so badly that it will go down in history as the most crushing defeat in history. Only then will Republicans be forced to listen to the millions of minority conservatives, paleo conservatives, female conservatives, non Christian conservatives, libertarian conservatives, etc.

Thats an oxy-moron. Libertarian is a political affiliation much like conservative is. THey all just happen to be under the Elephant flag.

 

[Agent11]

When did the Democrats ever cause a government shutdown because they were playing political games? Did they ever cause the credit rating of our country to be downgraded?

How can you say the Democrats are just as bad? 20 years ago I may have agreed but recently the Republicans have gone insane.

 

[nageov3t]

When the Democrats were a minority did they ever cause a government shutdown because they were playing political games? Did they ever cause the credit rating of our country to be downgraded?

yes?

after seeing the Republican wave in the 2010 elections, Democratic leadership in Congress deliberately chose not to raise the debt ceiling prior to the new Freshman Republicans taking office, because they wanted to play political games and force the GOP to raise it.

 

[Agent11]

They did raise it in 2010. That is some creative memory you have there though.

 

[nageov3t]

They did raise it in 2010. That is some creative memory you have there though.

sorry, I was referring to the decision not to bring it to a vote in December 2010

“I want the Republicans to have some buy-in on the debt,” he said. “They’re going to have a majority in the House. I think they should have some kind of a buy-in on the debt. I don’t think it should be when we have a heavily Democratic Senate, a heavily Democratic House and a Democratic president.”

The tax cut bill was probably the only vehicle by which Dems could have averted a filibuster and raised the debt ceiling this year

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...willingness-to-rumble-over-debt-ceiling-1.php

 

[Agent11]

I had forgotten about that wrinkle thanks for pointing it out. Reid obviously was trying to make a point, and in the end I think the republicans performed as badly as he was betting they would.

I would be curious what his view is on that decision in hindsite after the way it played out.

The fact remains though that it was the republicans who refused to negotiate, and it wasn't a new tactic for them.

 

[JoeyP]

I still want to be told how a president adds jobs. And the tax cuts thing is BS, corporations already pay next to nothing or actually come out on top and they still do lay-offs so it can't contain that lie. It also can't contain a scheme like dotcom, house flipping or mortgage scheme.

Now explain how a president creates jobs subtracting the schemes and political BS.

They do it by leading, signing bills that encourage domestic business growth and labor, giving people more of their own money so that they can spend more (creating demand) and possibly start up their own business.

It also requires some spending cuts.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Past time for the Republican party to bite the dust and the Democrats to split in Liberal and Conservative factions. The only thing keeping them alive for the last forty years is their absorbtion by the Racist Southern Dixiecrats when the main stream Dems grew enough balls to throw them out of their party.

 

[monovillage]

It's not going to happen until we have a rational populace.

Did I mention that the vast majority of our populace believes in an all-powerful imaginary sky God-being and that a large percentage of the populace (Christian Taliban) take that belief seriously? Furthermore, because of a failure to enact a light-handed eugenics program, the nation's poor people breed much faster than the smarter people. If IQ or g-factor is inheritable, the result could be something akin to the situation portrayed in the movie Idiocracy. Don't count on having a rational populace or a rational president anytime soon.

Obamas go to church
http://www.politico.com/politico44/whiteboard/2012/8/Obamas_go_to_church.html

Pelosi, devout Catholic
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/11/nancy-pelosi-devout-catholic

Biden attends mass
http://www.azcentral.com/community/...n-attends-mass-scottsdale.html?nclick_check=1

Reid: a Mormon in the middle
http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_13629152

 

[TheAdvocate]

I think we need two rational political parties. And the Republicans have abdicated their responsibility as a rational opposition party that stands for real idea; an opposition party which our democracy is dependent on. I believe only a major political loss will cause the beneficial upheaval and subsequent shift from the "fringe crazy" the party is currently.

Sorry - I didnt have a chance to read through all the replies.

I would generally agree with your theory, but for a tragic flaw. The conservatives did not want Romney in the first place. So if he gets slaughtered, instead of taking that to mean that the GOP has to actually become rational again and you know... compromise from time to time, they'll just say he "wasn't conservative enough" and swing even further right and even more intractable. Just wait, it'll happen. It'll take Fox News 10 minutes tops to start spinning the narrative.