'Sarah Palin is a F'ing Retard' - Colbert

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

…So Palin’s delivery is just fine, dh, for what it’s meant to deliver…and it’s meant to deliver Conservative asses in seats,venues, bookstores and on couches as they watch “Fox”.

Cha-ching… [/quote]

…So Obama’s delivery is just fine, Muf, for what it’s meant to deliver…and it’s meant to deliver progressive asses in seats, venues, bookstores and on couches as they watch “Transform Our Republic”.

Cha-ching…(to Soros and the Chicago Machine)

Pushharder
[/quote]

Am I supposed to disagree with that or something, Push?

I’m not quite sure about the point being made.

Mufasa

103

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Or as stupid as your post?

(I appreciate that you undoubtedly have no idea of what aspects of it show stupidity, but that’s the amusing twist to it. Each can see for himself, but you will not.)[/quote]

Well at least you’re not taking the classic “I have no answer but I need to write something anyway” line. If you have a rebuttal, then go ahead, but I don’t expect one, it’s easier to use the “oh never mind you wouldn’t understand” excuse when you have no answers.

104

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tell me something, Nick, since you fashion yourself as middle-of-the-roader (and that is sooo chic is it not?), how would you classify the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence? Were they “loonies” on the extreme? If not, why?

Hint: they definitely were placed in that category by the middle-of-the-roaders of 1776. In fact, a majority of colonists supported the Crown early in the War of Independence. The Carolinas and Georgia were overwhelmingly pro-British throughout most of the war.

Why do I bring this up? Because this drumbeat for moderation is getting monotonous. This is slowly-bringing-the-frog-to-a-boil bullshit. Our country’s problem is not too little moderation; it’s too much. Think about it if you will, Tory.[/quote]

So the folks who parrot the right wing attack machine’s ‘teleprompter’ attacks are the modern day equivalent of John Adams, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Robert Treat Paine, and my ancestor George Taylor (father’s mother’s family)?

Today’s loonies back then would be saying George Washington couldn’t be trusted to lead an army because he had wooden teeth, or that King George was going to kill every first born son because inbreeding made him crazy.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence worked together, despite many serious disagreements, to forge a new nation. Sure, there was politics and sniping and silly crap, just like today, but they were able to overcome that to agree on a new beginning. Name something comparable that’s come out of the loony camps today.

It’s not the loony extremes that get things done, it’s the sensible center. The loonies are too busy trying to make the other side look bad to govern.

If the loonies were only hurting themselves it’d be ok, but they’re dragging the rest of us down with them.

106

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Nick Danger wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

-Tripling the national debt

[/quote]

Not for anything, but your pal Reagan did the exact same thing. And Bush doubled it. So I don’t want to hear it.[/quote]

Reagan took on debt to destroy the USSR. Comparing him taking on debt(which at its height I believe it was at 53-54%) to Obama taking on debt(to spend on social programs) is ridiculous.[/quote]

First, Reagan also took on debt to:
-reduce taxes for the rich
-squeeze the budget in the hopes that it’d lead to cutting social services

Defeating the Rooskies economically was just part of it, and may have been more serendipity than conscious plan (if so that doesn’t diminish Reagan’s contribution or skill in that matter)…
[/quote]
You’re not the self-professed moderate you think you are. You’re just a good ol’ fashioned history revisionist. One could even call you an “extremist”, a “loony”.

Think of the following as a meteor sent from the heavens that lands right on your revisionist lil noggin: when taxes are reduced for the rich…

EVERYBODY’S taxes go down.
Revenues go UP.
EVERYBODY wins.
Even the loonies.
Even the revisionists.

[Edit] BTW, squeezing the budget in the hopes that it leads to cutting social services actually does lead to cutting social services. Thank God. Because we don’t need the federal government to socially serve us. We need it to get out of the way. The federal government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to socially serve us; arguably the states do but not the federal govt. If you disagree you are free to cite the Article, Section and paragraph of the document that empowers our federal government, the Constitution, that in your opinion authorize Uncle Sam to do so.

If you dare cite the “general welfare” clause I’ll be happy to make a very reasonable case that the federal government is therefore obligated to provide non-slip bathtub mats for every home in America. So be careful.[/quote]
Yours are the fallacious arguments ‘Strawman’.

I pointed out 2 reasons besides defeating the Rooskies for Reagan taking on debt:
-reduce taxes for the rich
-squeeze the budget in the hopes that it’d lead to cutting social services

Instead of responding to these points you throw in the strawmen:
-the effects of reducing taxes on the rich
-the constitutionality of the welfare state

Then you use that to paint me as a revisionist (tho the points I made are accurate) and an extremist.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, as evinced by your illogical and fallacious response.

If you wish to rebut my points I’ll give you a clue:
-for the first, you’d have to argue Reagan didn’t cut taxes for the rich
-for the second, you’d have to argue that he didn’t hope that squeezing the budget would result in cuts to social services

Good luck with that.

Or you could continue to offer unrelated, Strawman arguments.

108

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You seriously miss the point if you honestly think it’s really just the teleprompter thing that rankles those to the right of center. I mean, you are adrift in the middle of the Pacific with only your hooded sweatshirt for a sail.[/quote]

You’re reading things in that aren’t in my posts, then attacking what wasn’t said. How does that help?

I have mentioned I have criticisms about Obama. I have not challenged serious criticisms of his policies (such as cap and trade, and cash for clunkers in response to Zeb).

I have criticized the silly/hypocritical right wing attack machine attacks, such as the teleprompter crap (same for the left wing version). That stuff doesn’t help. It makes those who parrot it look silly, and costs them credibility, weakening whatever valid arguments they may have. It doesn’t help, it harms. We have enough problems without that crap making things worse/harder.

There’s too many that let the right/left wing attack machines and the loonies do their thinking for them.

A good start would be to stand for a Principle, and apply it equally to both sides. For example, if one side uses a teleprompter in most of their speeches, then criticizing the other side for doing the same is wrong.

A serious example – reps complained when dems blocked bush appointees. Now dems complain when reps block obama appointees. Both sides are hypocrites.

109

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Oh dear, the sacred and oh so dreaded “strawman” charge. Ho-hum.

-for the first, your implication, a rather clear cut one by the way, is that Reagan wanted tax cuts only for the rich. You and I and my dog know that Reagan wanted and got tax cuts for everyone. That means even the yayhoos that bandy the “strawman” charge, even the guy with a median income, even your daddy, even mine, even you, and even me.

-for the second, I addressed it and essentially agreed with your point but expanded on it in order to give it an accurate historical context. By the way, in light of the second point…apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit.[/quote]

There you go again…

Arguing against not what I said, but something else – what you and Miss Clea divine I meant.

And as if that wasn’t enough, your second is to argue when you say you essentially agreed with me???

Okey-dokey…

Rest assured that from now on I shall give your responses all the consideration they merit.

112

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Core-man is a correct pronunciation. In fact I believe it is the more common correct pronunciation, though reportedly the “s” may optionally be pronounced.[/quote]
Thanks. I used Merriam-Webster as my pronunciation reference; they pronounce the “s”.

113

They have the “z” in parentheses, which isn’t the ordinary way they list that sound. Other words I tried just used a plain z.

While I didn’t find an explanation for the parentheses, perhaps it means that that is optional.

114

I noticed the “z” in parentheses, and had the same thoughts. They only provided one audio clip, though, while they normally provide multiple clips for words with more than one accepted pronunciation (see for example “Caribbean”).

115

I didn’t see an audio clip.

Oh well, the last good Webster’s was the Third International.

116

Click on the red speaker icon for the audio.

Anyway, enough on this topic.

117

[quote]Nick Danger wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Then all you have to do is answer my previous post as I was specific and to the point, not parroting anyone. If you can quell my fears about this guy by posting facts regarding what he’s done and plans to do, I’ll actually thank you.

Since when does pointing out that your parroting the silly/hypocritical right wing attack machine’s teleprompter crap means I support Obama?[/quote]

Simply because the right wing says it does not mean that it’s wrong. The fact is Obama uses a teleprompter far more than any of his predecessors. You can’t dismiss everything because it may have once been said by someone from the right. That doesn’t even make sense does it?

Lobbyists? Oh you mean the ones that have over run the White House since Obama took office? The exact ones that Obama pledged would be out if he was elected, those lobbyists?

118

[quote]Nick Danger wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

-Tripling the national debt

[/quote]

Not for anything, but your pal Reagan did the exact same thing. And Bush doubled it. So I don’t want to hear it.[/quote]

Reagan took on debt to destroy the USSR. Comparing him taking on debt(which at its height I believe it was at 53-54%) to Obama taking on debt(to spend on social programs) is ridiculous

First, Reagan also took on debt to:
-reduce taxes for the rich[/quote]

I know you’re not stupid so please stop saying stupid things.

Reagan lowered taxes fore every single American who paid taxes, not just for the rich. Should the rich be punished and not get a tax hike? Why should the rich be punished? Should they be punished for contributing more to the economy than the poor? No certainly not. As to the tax cut, for example if someone made 40-k they saved 5-k. If someone made 200-k they saved 25-k. Now tell me how is that unfair? It’s not unfair in the least. Now, are some people jealous because they’re not rich, sure and it will always be that way and democrats love to play class warfare. How is that a positive thing? It’s not.

Please stop listening to vote pandering liberals who basically lie about tax cuts from both Reagan and Bush.

Thank you,

Zeb

119

Not a lie, if viewed from their perspective.

Their perspective is one in which tax cuts are accounted as a “cost.” Seriously, Congress does this, both in official documents and in statements made by many politicians. E.g., “this tax cut will cost X billion dollars.”

In other words, ALL of what you earn is in their view entirely takable and rightly so by the government. The government lets you keep some of it.

Accordingly, taking “only” say $100,000 in taxes in a given year from say a professional or small business owner instead of say $130,000 that would be the case under an earlier tax rate comprises GIVING them $30,000.

Thus, tax cuts GIVE money to the rich. Regardless that the top 10% of income earners pay the vast bulk of the total taxes collected, and very large amounts individually.

You or I would say they are paying a lot of taxes, but from the perspective of many modern liberals and certainly the politicians of that stripe, the government is GIVING them money.

I suppose it’s the ultimate socialist perspective: Rather than the government owning the intermediate means of production – a company or a piece of a equipment – the government owns the direct source of production: the individual producing good and services of value, thereby earning an income. And therefore it is the government’s discretion as to what portion of that it will “give back” to the individual.

120

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Good grief, man. Talk about a reading comp deficiency. Look at the title and first post of this thread. It’s about the hypocrisy up and down the board, including Robert Gibbs, and the cackling about some ink on Palin’s hand.[/quote]

I responded to John S’s “Reagan took on debt to destroy the USSR. Comparing him taking on debt(which at its height I believe it was at 53-54%) to Obama taking on debt(to spend on social programs) is ridiculous.”

You responded to me, arguing against what you divined I meant and not what I said. You also argued against a point you admit you essentially agreed with.

The point I made that you fallaciously responded to was obvious, and was not the title/first post’s point.

This ain’t rocket science.

If you wanted to remain on the original topic then why answer a sidetrack post?

Who are you, the side-track police?!?!