Will Obama now work with republicans?

[FerrelGeek]

Pretty much. I'm no fan of establishment repubs in any fashion, but I'm enjoying the denial of the dems. They have such an ingrained sense of superiority that they can't conceive of people rejecting them.

Poppycock.

There was no magical formula to the flogging that took place tuesday. Republicans brought nothing groundbreaking to the table. It's for this reason that it was a "mandate". Rethuglican gov in Maryland? Illinois? West Va. turning in to a red state? Bwahahaha. Way to break the cycle, Blue tea. Democrats very much SUCK every bit as worse than "rethuglicans" at governing and that showed tuesday. Deal with that.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Link?

What link were you asking for?

Here's a google link that has sites that discuss black slave ownership

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=UTF-8#q=black plantation owners owned slaves

Some free blacks did buy family members to protect them, but that was not the only case. Free blacks DID in fact own blacks.

Here's a link to various accounts of Michelle granting black people permission to eat fried chicken after they voted dem.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...spv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=michelle+obama+fried+chicken

Yes, some of these links are not 'politically approved' by dems, but she did say it. But I don't care if it's a black person that says that; it's reprehensible. If a black conservative said it, they'd be excoriated.

 

[Knowing]

Your second post does a pretty good job of it. Unless your new argument is that by "designed" you meant "accidentally changed by people years after the fact". (Your declarations that the founding fathers meant to leave the filibuster in notwithstanding.)

Ooh, is this going to be another one of those threads where you try to escape your own wrongness by insisting that everyone adopt a wildly implausible reading of your posts? I have enjoyed in the past when you've done that, as it's basically arguing "I'm not wrong, I'm just unable to communicate my thoughts in a rational manner."

You said something dumb. Just own it and move on. This flailing just makes things worse.

So you can't quote me making the argument you're totally sure I was making? A simple yes (and quote) or no will suffice. Since you've moved in to full damage control I was only pretending to be irrational mode, I'll accept any response not including a quote as a tacit no.

You said people could go back and read it, I provided them so you didn't even have to click the next url. This should be easy peasy.

 

[fskimospy]

So you can't quote me making the argument you're totally sure I was making? A simple yes (and quote) or no will suffice. Since you've moved in to full damage control I was only pretending to be irrational mode, I'll accept any response not including a quote as a tacit no.

You said people could go back and read it, I provided them so you didn't even have to click the next url. This should be easy peasy.

I already did: your second quote. Do I need to increase my font size when replying to you?

Is this going to be another one of those things where you accuse other people of doing exactly what you are? Damage control mode indeed. Haha.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pretty much. I'm no fan of establishment repubs in any fashion, but I'm enjoying the denial of the dems. They have such an ingrained sense of superiority that they can't conceive of people rejecting them.

And Repubs want to claim a mandate for radical policy when voter turnout is dismal. With 100% turnout, they'd be crushed. It's only their well indoctrinated base voting with zealotry that makes them a force at all.

 

[hal2kilo]

And Repubs want to claim a mandate for radical policy when voter turnout is dismal. With 100% turnout, they'd be crushed. It's only their well indoctrinated base voting with zealotry that makes them a force at all.

Really, just wait for the 2016 reset, when everyone shows up for the polls (our idiot electorate finally thinks its worth getting up off the couch).

 

[tweaker2]

Really, just wait for the 2016 reset, when everyone shows up for the polls (our idiot electorate finally thinks its worth getting up off the couch).

Add to that the fact that the Repubs haven't had time to form up their infamous circular firing squads yet.

The success or failure of this short Repub interlude rests on McConnell and Boehner being able and willing to rein in the crazies from the Tea Party screaming for more government shutdowns while keeping their own jobs safe and secure.

 

[FerrelGeek]

And Repubs want to claim a mandate for radical policy when voter turnout is dismal. With 100% turnout, they'd be crushed. It's only their well indoctrinated base voting with zealotry that makes them a force at all.

Then why didn't all the Obamafiles come out to show their support for their lord and savior?

 

[thraashman]

Then why didn't all the Obamafiles come out to show their support for their lord and savior?

Well first off this right wing notion that those who would support Obama over the parade of vile pieces of filth the Republican party has been putting forth somehow consider Obama their "lord and savior", is idiotic. Not just idiotic, but simply shows just how much of a fucking jackass those who say shit like that are. Second, historically the left just doesn't get motivated for mid term elections. Why that is, I don't know. Perhaps because they tend to be younger, perhaps they tend to look at the picture too broadly and think only the big one ever 4 years matters, perhaps it's because they're not fear driven to the polls like the right. Heck, the number of people I know who voted Republican but don't actually support 80%+ of Republican policies is remarkable. They're just too stupid to realize it. The country is more liberal than it knows on a huge number of issues, it's just also remarkably stupid. And those stupid ones overwhelmingly vote Republican.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well first off this right wing notion that those who would support Obama over the parade of vile pieces of filth the Republican party has been putting forth somehow consider Obama their "lord and savior", is idiotic. Not just idiotic, but simply shows just how much of a fucking jackass those who say shit like that are. Second, historically the left just doesn't get motivated for mid term elections. Why that is, I don't know. Perhaps because they tend to be younger, perhaps they tend to look at the picture too broadly and think only the big one ever 4 years matters, perhaps it's because they're not fear driven to the polls like the right. Heck, the number of people I know who voted Republican but don't actually support 80%+ of Republican policies is remarkable. They're just too stupid to realize it. The country is more liberal than it knows on a huge number of issues, it's just also remarkably stupid. And those stupid ones overwhelmingly vote Republican.

It's interesting to see you make sweeping generalizations calling everyone stupid who's beliefs don't happen align to with your ideological beliefs. It's also interesting to see your "fucking jackass" reaction to a little hyperbole as well. Angry?

 

[BoberFett]

It's interesting to see you make sweeping generalizations calling everyone stupid who's beliefs don't happen align to with your ideological beliefs. It's also interesting to see your "fucking jackass" reaction to a little hyperbole as well. Angry?

thraashman is one of those lefty nutjobs running around wild eyed and foamy wishing death about anyone who disagrees with him. I fully suspect him to go the route of the Unabomber someday.

 

[Knowing]

I already did: your second quote. Do I need to increase my font size when replying to you?

Is this going to be another one of those things where you accuse other people of doing exactly what you are? Damage control mode indeed. Haha.

You didn't quote it, because you can't. Again I find myself doing your work for you and your evidence still being absent.

So you think it is an unfortunate oversight that our government was designed to grind to a halt when it becomes dysfunctional? Interesting. Also, you said "writers," I was unaware that Ramsey Cox was a Bush speechwriter... it's not in her bio.


I learned something about my HVAC system the other day. When the burner fails to fire (or thinks it fails to fire due to a sensor crusted with deposits) 3 times the blower fan comes on for 45 seconds to a minute and a half. At first I didn't understand this behavior, after all if the furnace needs to fire then the thermostat is calling for heat... why move around cold air? But then I realized that if the system thinks it's broken then the system thinks that it has just purged a number of therms worth of gas in to a confined space. With this stunning realization I was comforted that the system values my not blowing up more than my temporary discomfort. Thanks for reading this.

There's no mention of filibuster in here. I think you're trying to strawman me again, so lets go in some more circles. Please break this down in to the individual sentences that you think translate directly to filibuster. I want to see your amazing logic in action. I literally cannot make this any easier for you. Also, should I ever expect to hear more about Ms. Cox?

 

[fskimospy]

You didn't quote it, because you can't. Again I find myself doing your work for you and your evidence still being absent.

There's no mention of filibuster in here. I think you're trying to strawman me again, so lets go in some more circles. Please break this down in to the individual sentences that you think translate directly to filibuster. I want to see your amazing logic in action. I literally cannot make this any easier for you. Also, should I ever expect to hear more about Ms. Cox?

This is the post you replied to:

The choice to limit the filibuster was only a mistake in that they didn't eliminate it entirely. Whether it's good or bad for a party in the short term might be your primary concern, it's not mine. It was a good move for the country as a whole. Someday hopefully you have sufficient perspective to realize this.

Your reply:

So you think it is an unfortunate oversight that our government was designed to grind to a halt when it becomes dysfunctional? Interesting.

Now I imagine you'll claim that despite replying to a post that was only about the filibuster you'll claim you weren't talking about it at all. If that's the case you can just reply with "I don't know how to communicate in English" and we can move on.

You said something dumb and now you're trying to weasel out of it. Why not just own it and try to be better next time?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Well first off this right wing notion that those who would support Obama over the parade of vile pieces of filth the Republican party has been putting forth somehow consider Obama their "lord and savior", is idiotic. Not just idiotic, but simply shows just how much of a fucking jackass those who say shit like that are. Second, historically the left just doesn't get motivated for mid term elections. Why that is, I don't know. Perhaps because they tend to be younger, perhaps they tend to look at the picture too broadly and think only the big one ever 4 years matters, perhaps it's because they're not fear driven to the polls like the right. Heck, the number of people I know who voted Republican but don't actually support 80%+ of Republican policies is remarkable. They're just too stupid to realize it. The country is more liberal than it knows on a huge number of issues, it's just also remarkably stupid. And those stupid ones overwhelmingly vote Republican.

The butthurt is strong in this one. ^^^^^^^^^^^

It's interesting to see you make sweeping generalizations calling everyone stupid who's beliefs don't happen align to with your ideological beliefs. It's also interesting to see your "fucking jackass" reaction to a little hyperbole as well. Angry?

And this man gets it! ^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, I was employing hyperbole in my comment. And all the young hipsters that don't get that we have a 2 year election cycle for representatives and 1/3 of the senate can go ah heck themselves with barbed wire if they don't get out and vote. If they all want liberal ideology to rule the day, they better get out there and make their wishes known. Thrash, go cry to your sniveling constituents instead of wasting our time with your 2-year-old temper tantrum.

 

[hal2kilo]

The butthurt is strong in this one. ^^^^^^^^^^^



And this man gets it! ^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, I was employing hyperbole in my comment. And all the young hipsters that don't get that we have a 2 year election cycle for representatives and 1/3 of the senate can go ah heck themselves with barbed wire if they don't get out and vote. If they all want liberal ideology to rule the day, they better get out there and make their wishes known. Thrash, go cry to your sniveling constituents instead of wasting our time with your 2-year-old temper tantrum.

I've never understood why you would want to diminish your message by hurling insults. I may make a sacastic jab from time to time but I really don't debate, and feel the need to show you my e-penis. It's an internet forum where people say things to people they would never say in person.

 

[Knowing]

This is the post you replied to:

Now I imagine you'll claim that despite replying to a post that was only about the filibuster you'll claim you weren't talking about it at all. If that's the case you can just reply with "I don't know how to communicate in English" and we can move on.

You said something dumb and now you're trying to weasel out of it. Why not just own it and try to be better next time?

I disagree that the filibuster was a "mistake," I never said it was part of the founder's design (which you don't care about anyway). That's why you can't quote me saying it. I never obfuscated what my argument was and once I figured out that you expected me to defend your strawman I tried to correct you... but you didn't care.

[...]the filibuster was part of how our government was designed.

I don't think the filibuster was a mistake, but I never said that it was deliberately designed by founders. I'm sorry you wasted so much time arguing against your own creation, but your issues aren't my problem.

Your links do nothing to support your contention that the filibuster was part of the deliberate design of our government.

A contention I never made, that you cannot quote. A strawman you tried to force on me because you cannot argue against the claim that I did make.

So you think it is an unfortunate oversight that our government was designed to grind to a halt when it becomes dysfunctional?

My links support my belief that the filibuster was adopted as part of the parliamentary procedures we inherited from the British. My assertion was that our government was "designed" to "grind to a halt" when it becomes dysfunctional.

If you'd like to have yourself debate your own puppet then be my guest.

Then why can't you stick to claims I've made rather than whatever you want to try to drag in to the discussion.

What's my central argument according to you?

Sorry your strawman didn't work, it's not like I never told you that you were trying it. I assume you'll now try to secure your victory by insulting me some more and thereby vacating the moral high ground. Congratulations on your win against yourself, if you ever want to have a productive discussion just let me know. I'm not sure how you could be confused about my claims at this point but you never cease to amaze me.

Why do you hate Ms. Cox, are you some kind of sexist? (that's a strawman btw, don't reply at all unless you actually believe it :^) and intend to defend it for the rest of the thread) Seriously though, you don't intend to ever defend your claim that she was a Bush speechwriter do you? You know people can go back and read that, right?

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree that the filibuster was a "mistake," I never said it was part of the founder's design (which you don't care about anyway). That's why you can't quote me saying it. I never obfuscated what my argument was and once I figured out that you expected me to defend your strawman I tried to correct you... but you didn't care.

Well at least we've been able to dispense with your attempt to lie that nothing you wrote was about the filibuster. Like I said, we can read what you write, you realize.

Now we can move on to the next attempt to weasel out of things:

Apparently when you talked about our system being designed a certain way you didn you didn't mean the people who designed our system, and you didn't care that its inclusion was a mistake.

Gotcha.

This flailing is really transparent, just so you know. Your later attempts to make a different point in no way change the original post you made. Trying to throw your original post down the memory hole and argue a new one doesn't work.

Sorry your strawman didn't work, it's not like I never told you that you were trying it. I assume you'll now try to secure your victory by insulting me some more and thereby vacating the moral high ground. Congratulations on your win against yourself, if you ever want to have a productive discussion just let me know. I'm not sure how you could be confused about my claims at this point but you never cease to amaze me.

Why do you hate Ms. Cox, are you some kind of sexist? (that's a strawman btw, don't reply at all unless you actually believe it :^) and intend to defend it for the rest of the thread) Seriously though, you don't intend to ever defend your claim that she was a Bush speechwriter do you? You know people can go back and read that, right?

I've tried repeatedly to have productive discussions with you, but I have unfortunately never been successful.

I will strongly encourage you to attempt to have productive discussions in the future. I'm sure I'm not the only one that wishes you would do so.

 

[Knowing]

Well at least we've been able to dispense with your attempt to lie that nothing you wrote was about the filibuster.

I've never denied that I intended to discuss the filibuster. I denied that I said the filibuster was deliberately included in the the founder's vision of the country... mostly because I never said that.

Apparently when you talked about our system being designed a certain way you didn you didn't mean the people who designed our system, and you didn't care that its inclusion was a mistake.

You're still trying to strawman me? Still?

The system was designed to fail closed. This is my claim.
The inclusion of the filibuster (more accurately, talking a bill down) was not an accident. This is related to the filibuster.
The filibuster is not offensive to a system that is designed to fail closed. This is how the filibuster is related to the design of our government.

There, plain English. No further need for your strawmen.

This flailing is really transparent, just so you know. Your later attempts to make a different point in no way change the original post you made. Trying to throw your original post down the memory hole and argue a new one doesn't work.

How could it be a different point? You're the one who claimed I said something that you cannot quote. I repeatedly called you on it. This is not up for debate as it is a fact that has been verified several times over.

I've tried repeatedly to have productive discussions with you, but I have unfortunately never been successful.

Someday hopefully you have sufficient perspective to realize this.

Insult.

You may have been the recipient of some poor civics education. I'm open to helping you remedy this if you'd like.

Implied insult.

Maybe if you'd attended a few civics classes you would know that.

Insult.

Wow. Much productive. Very mutual respect. Wow.

Ms. Cox?

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't say I tried to engage you in a productive conversation here. Strawman. (taking a cue from you, haha)

I do enjoy how you claim that the filibuster was never part of the initial design of our government and then try and go back and claim that it was part of the initial design of our government. Or wait, are you now further attempting to weasel out by saying that the inclusion of something that's not offensive to a design is now part of the design?

This is getting pathetic, I'm losing you in all the knots you're tying yourself in trying to get out of the simple fact of your post that I quoted.

As for my lack of civility towards you, I have long since given up on some kind of productive discussion with you as you've never shown yourself to be capable of it. All of my offers for help in civics are genuine though, so long as you show a desire to learn. Why would there be mutual respect when I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't respect you?

 

[FerrelGeek]

I've never understood why you would want to diminish your message by hurling insults. I may make a sacastic jab from time to time but I really don't debate, and feel the need to show you my e-penis. It's an internet forum where people say things to people they would never say in person.

I'm normally a very soft-spoken, mild-mannered person - even in online forums; and those who know me irl consider me an extremely patient person. But I've run out of that patience with many people of late. Thrash's frothing outrage pushed me too far. I sick of of people spewing out 'your side is full of hate!' when most of the rage I see is coming from people like him. It isn't a manner of a p*ssing contest for me - at all. Why aren't you calling thrash out for hurling insults?

And I went back and re-read what I said and frankly, it was mild compared to his outburst.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm normally a very soft-spoken, mild-mannered person - even in online forums; and those who know me irl consider me an extremely patient person. But I've run out of that patience with many people of late. Thrash's frothing outrage pushed me too far. I sick of of people spewing out 'your side is full of hate!' when most of the rage I see is coming from people like him. It isn't a manner of a p*ssing contest for me - at all. Why aren't you calling thrash out for hurling insults?

And I went back and re-read what I said and frankly, it was mild compared to his outburst.

That's what I thought as well and wondered why he called you out instead.

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm normally a very soft-spoken, mild-mannered person - even in online forums; and those who know me irl consider me an extremely patient person. But I've run out of that patience with many people of late. Thrash's frothing outrage pushed me too far. I sick of of people spewing out 'your side is full of hate!' when most of the rage I see is coming from people like him. It isn't a manner of a p*ssing contest for me - at all. Why aren't you calling thrash out for hurling insults?

And I went back and re-read what I said and frankly, it was mild compared to his outburst.

You think I was calling you out? Sorry for the misunderstanding. No, I was trying to side with you. As much as I agree with alot of what Trash says, I don't get the peronal attacks, and over the top hyperbole. Should of stayed out of it.
,

 

[Knowing]

I didn't say I tried to engage you in a productive conversation here. Strawman. (taking a cue from you, haha)

At least you're being honest. I've started to think that "winning" debates on the internet is more important to you than having any sort of debate.

I do enjoy how you claim that the filibuster was never part of the initial design of our government and then try and go back and claim that it was part of the initial design of our government.

I never made the first claim- the one I keep reminding you that you can't quote, you did that. It was part of the rules for the Senate which were adopted from parliamentary procedures.

Or wait, are you now further attempting to weasel out by saying that the inclusion of something that's not offensive to a design is now part of the design?

No, I never have. I've tried to correct you when you made an ass of u on a number of occasions.

This is getting pathetic, I'm losing you in all the knots you're tying yourself in trying to get out of the simple fact of your post that I quoted.

It's still getting pathetic? You first mentioned that the argument you provided to me was pathetic yesterday. It seems you're pretty sensitive to the state of being pathetic. The post you quoted doesn't say what you keep saying it does. It's plain English so I'm not sure how it's meaning eludes you.

As for my lack of civility towards you, I have long since given up on some kind of productive discussion with you as you've never shown yourself to be capable of it. All of my offers for help in civics are genuine though, so long as you show a desire to learn.

You have not demonstrated that you know anything more than I do.

Why would there be mutual respect when I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't respect you?

All you've ever needed to say. Thanks for giving up the game in such quotable fashion.

 

[Zorkorist]

Obama who?

-John

 

[fskimospy]

At least you're being honest. I've started to think that "winning" debates on the internet is more important to you than having any sort of debate.

Considering your very first response to me was a straw man of my position it would appear you might be protesting too much in your appeal for debate, haha.

I never made the first claim- the one I keep reminding you that you can't quote, you did that. It was part of the rules for the Senate which were adopted from parliamentary procedures.

Yes you did, and I already quoted it. Your second claim is also false, as it was not part of the original rules of the senate and its creation in the senate was an accident. This is basic, factual information.

More weaseling.

No, I never have. I've tried to correct you when you made an ass of u on a number of occasions.

It's still getting pathetic? You first mentioned that the argument you provided to me was pathetic yesterday. It seems you're pretty sensitive to the state of being pathetic. The post you quoted doesn't say what you keep saying it does. It's plain English so I'm not sure how it's meaning eludes you.

You seem to have this problem quite often, that what you believe to be plain English means very different things to those whom you are trying to communicate with. At what point do you conclude that you are not good at communicating?

You have not demonstrated that you know anything more than I do.

You had two bites at the apple to make a defensible argument about the filibuster and failed both times. I feel just fine about our relative levels of knowledge.

All you've ever needed to say. Thanks for giving up the game in such quotable fashion.

Haha! Nice projection. Your previous history of this kind of weasely bullshit makes me not respect you. If you ever decide to stop doing that then I'm open to debate. You can't expect someone to think you've improved without showing it though. If you want respect, shape up.