So Many LIberals, So Few Elections

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]hedo wrote:
Yes you sound miserable and angry with your position in life. Read your posts. Why do you think being mean and foul mouthed is a quality to be admired?
[/quote]

I’m sorry, YOU are calling ME foul mouthed? You and I have BOTH sworn profusley in our argument - don’t try to use that against me if you’re just as guilty.

I’m not angry with my position in life - I’m quite pleased with my life. I AM a bit frustrated with the course our government has taken, and the Bush administration continues to anger me. Does that mean I’m miserable? Hell no! I get pissed, then I get over it.

“anti-position”? What on EARTH do you mean? I’m not anti everything, by any means! I’m PRO-choice, I’m PRO equal marrage, I’m PRO important social welfare programs, I’m PRO Civil Liberties and Human rights, and I’m PRO national security.

What I AM opposed to is the misuse of military power and irresponsible budgeting/taxing.

Those statistics were NOT out of context OR tangential. I made a point, then supported it, in response to your complain that I had no clue what I was talking about. Obviously, I DO know what the hell I’m talking about - if you’re just upset that I made you look like a fool, then just accept it like a man and stop changing the subject like an immature whelp.

I’ve NEVER rephrased my question! the FIRST TIME I asked it, it was in relation to the neo-conservative movement. It was a response to the post gloating about how the conservaties have come back into power. If you look at the context, it’s pretty clear that I was essentially asking, since you’ve GOT the power, what good has come of it?

I haven’t recieved a cojent response from you in this regard YET. You’ve handed me some crap about the growing conservative movement and Reagan, but you haven’t answered my question. I’ll ask it again: WHAT GOOD HAVE THE CONERVATIVES DONE SINCE COMING BACK INTO POWER?

Sure dude, shoot me a link, I’ll give it a read.

I never said that the republicans embrace the KKK. I said that the KKK embraces REPUBLICANS. Of course, NOBODY is going to publically embrace the KKK - that would be suicide. Its the lesser-known facts that are often the most telling.

…as opposed to you cons STARTING your argument with personal attacks.

Cheers, same to you.

[quote]
The argument is getting boring and tedious. Good for you, dull for me.
Add something new if you want to continue.[/quote]

I’ve systematically addressed every single one of your “points” - this argument is boing because it’s bloody ONE SIDED. You continually fail to address MY points because you know you have no ground to stand on. Admit defeat like a man, or step up and argue like one.

102

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Bush’s got a 33 to 38% approval rating, depending on which polls you look at.

When Bill Clinton was fighting against being impeached by the GOP, his approval rating was almost double what Bush’s approval rating is now… mid 60’s percentage.

The more people get to see of George Bush, the less popular he gets.

Lets look at some approval ratings…

66% approval: Bill Clinton
40% approval: Liver and onions
36% approval: George W Bush
32% approval: Richard Simmons
30% approval: OJ Simpson
19% approval: Crotch Rot
18% approval: Dick Cheney

I’d bet that Crotch Rot is more popular than Bush, by the time his second term is over.[/quote]

So what?

103

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Bush’s got a 33 to 38% approval rating, depending on which polls you look at.

When Bill Clinton was fighting against being impeached by the GOP, his approval rating was almost double what Bush’s approval rating is now… mid 60’s percentage.

The more people get to see of George Bush, the less popular he gets.

Lets look at some approval ratings…

66% approval: Bill Clinton
40% approval: Liver and onions
36% approval: George W Bush
32% approval: Richard Simmons
30% approval: OJ Simpson
19% approval: Crotch Rot
18% approval: Dick Cheney

I’d bet that Crotch Rot is more popular than Bush, by the time his second term is over.

So what?
[/quote]

soooo, GWB is a shitty president. …or don’t you think Democracy is important?

104

[quote]knewsom wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Bush’s got a 33 to 38% approval rating, depending on which polls you look at.

When Bill Clinton was fighting against being impeached by the GOP, his approval rating was almost double what Bush’s approval rating is now… mid 60’s percentage.

The more people get to see of George Bush, the less popular he gets.

Lets look at some approval ratings…

66% approval: Bill Clinton
40% approval: Liver and onions
36% approval: George W Bush
32% approval: Richard Simmons
30% approval: OJ Simpson
19% approval: Crotch Rot
18% approval: Dick Cheney

I’d bet that Crotch Rot is more popular than Bush, by the time his second term is over.

So what?

soooo, GWB is a shitty president. …or don’t you think Democracy is important?[/quote]

So Diane Frankenstein is a shitty senator…so what?

105

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
knewsom wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Bush’s got a 33 to 38% approval rating, depending on which polls you look at.

When Bill Clinton was fighting against being impeached by the GOP, his approval rating was almost double what Bush’s approval rating is now… mid 60’s percentage.

The more people get to see of George Bush, the less popular he gets.

Lets look at some approval ratings…

66% approval: Bill Clinton
40% approval: Liver and onions
36% approval: George W Bush
32% approval: Richard Simmons
30% approval: OJ Simpson
19% approval: Crotch Rot
18% approval: Dick Cheney

I’d bet that Crotch Rot is more popular than Bush, by the time his second term is over.

So what?

soooo, GWB is a shitty president. …or don’t you think Democracy is important?

So Diane Frankenstein is a shitty senator…so what?
[/quote]

As usual, you’ve missed the point.

Diane Feinstein’s (and what a witty little joke about her; Rush or Hannity?) approval ratings are, as of March 1st, at 50% with a disapproval of 29%.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:c-3Iy5WfO2YJ:field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2157.pdf+diane+feinstein+approval+ratings&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8

Therefore, she is NOT a “shitty” senator. YOU just don’t like the positions she holds.

Whereas the entire country has just about enough of the terrifyingly incometent cheesewit you back.

106

[quote]knewsom wrote:
…
soooo, GWB is a shitty president. …or don’t you think Democracy is important?[/quote]

Kind of sad that everyone hates GWB yet he was elected twice. Perhaps if the Dems would put up a reasonable candidate thye might have a chance.

107

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
knewsom wrote:
…
soooo, GWB is a shitty president. …or don’t you think Democracy is important?

Kind of sad that everyone hates GWB yet he was elected twice. Perhaps if the Dems would put up a reasonable candidate thye might have a chance.[/quote]

WE HAD a reasonable candidate - an AWESOME candidate - he was done in by the media for something taken COMPLETELY out of context.

108

…and furthermore, the first time 'round, he lost the popular vote and fixed the election in Florida. The second time round, he fixed it in Ohio - convenient how that was RIGHT AFTER they got those new voting machines.

I know for a fact that there is a UNIVERSAL PASSCODE that can allow a user UNLIMITED ACCESS to the contents of those machines, allowing them to change votes, add extras, etc. without leaving a trace.

That being the case, a relatively small number of people could fairly easily rig an election in one or two swing states by concentrating on liberal precincts.

109

[quote]knewsom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
knewsom wrote:
…
soooo, GWB is a shitty president. …or don’t you think Democracy is important?

Kind of sad that everyone hates GWB yet he was elected twice. Perhaps if the Dems would put up a reasonable candidate thye might have a chance.

WE HAD a reasonable candidate - an AWESOME candidate - he was done in by the media for something taken COMPLETELY out of context.[/quote]

The only good candidate the Dems have put up is Joe Liebermann but I suspect you are not referring to him.

110

[quote]knewsom wrote:
…and furthermore, the first time 'round, he lost the popular vote and fixed the election in Florida. The second time round, he fixed it in Ohio - convenient how that was RIGHT AFTER they got those new voting machines.

I know for a fact that there is a UNIVERSAL PASSCODE that can allow a user UNLIMITED ACCESS to the contents of those machines, allowing them to change votes, add extras, etc. without leaving a trace.

That being the case, a relatively small number of people could fairly easily rig an election in one or two swing states by concentrating on liberal precincts.[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

Classic. You know FOR A FACT that there is a universal passcode? Are Democrats too honest or too stupid to use it?

111

[quote]knewsom wrote:
…and furthermore, the first time 'round, he lost the popular vote and fixed the election in Florida. The second time round, he fixed it in Ohio - convenient how that was RIGHT AFTER they got those new voting machines.

I know for a fact that there is a UNIVERSAL PASSCODE that can allow a user UNLIMITED ACCESS to the contents of those machines, allowing them to change votes, add extras, etc. without leaving a trace.

That being the case, a relatively small number of people could fairly easily rig an election in one or two swing states by concentrating on liberal precincts.[/quote]

Oh yeah. I forgot it was fixed. Duh!!!

112

to tell the truth, I have no idea why the dems haven’t rigged an election with the passcode - maybe they dont’ know it, maybe they try to take the higher ground. who knows?

…but the passcode does exist for a specific brand of machine (the most popular one - I can’t recall the brandname… but I DO know it’s the one that’s currently being considered for the big gubernatorial race coming up in November here in CA). Perhaps the manufacturer has a “deal” with GOP leaders. I don’t know, but when there’s motive, means, and suspicion, how much doubt can there be?

113

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
knewsom wrote:
…
soooo, GWB is a shitty president. …or don’t you think Democracy is important?

Kind of sad that everyone hates GWB yet he was elected twice. Perhaps if the Dems would put up a reasonable candidate thye might have a chance.

WE HAD a reasonable candidate - an AWESOME candidate - he was done in by the media for something taken COMPLETELY out of context.

The only good candidate the Dems have put up is Joe Liebermann but I suspect you are not referring to him.[/quote]

You know quite well who I was referring to, but Joe Liebermann wasn’t a bad candidate either.

114

[quote]knewsom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
knewsom wrote:
…
soooo, GWB is a shitty president. …or don’t you think Democracy is important?

Kind of sad that everyone hates GWB yet he was elected twice. Perhaps if the Dems would put up a reasonable candidate thye might have a chance.

WE HAD a reasonable candidate - an AWESOME candidate - he was done in by the media for something taken COMPLETELY out of context.

The only good candidate the Dems have put up is Joe Liebermann but I suspect you are not referring to him.

You know quite well who I was referring to, but Joe Liebermann wasn’t a bad candidate either.[/quote]

Lieberman is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and as much a democrat as any Bush. I wouldn’t vote for him.

115

[quote]knewsom wrote:
hedo wrote:
Yes you sound miserable and angry with your position in life. Read your posts. Why do you think being mean and foul mouthed is a quality to be admired?

I’m sorry, YOU are calling ME foul mouthed? You and I have BOTH sworn profusley in our argument - don’t try to use that against me if you’re just as guilty.

I’m not angry with my position in life - I’m quite pleased with my life. I AM a bit frustrated with the course our government has taken, and the Bush administration continues to anger me. Does that mean I’m miserable? Hell no! I get pissed, then I get over it.

You also sound extremely fearful. You seem to live in fear of George Bush. I would guess, like many libs, you live most days in fear. Your Anti position on just about everything is merely a form of cowardice masquerading as virtue.

“anti-position”? What on EARTH do you mean? I’m not anti everything, by any means! I’m PRO-choice, I’m PRO equal marrage, I’m PRO important social welfare programs, I’m PRO Civil Liberties and Human rights, and I’m PRO national security.

What I AM opposed to is the misuse of military power and irresponsible budgeting/taxing.

Interesting stastistics, completely out of context, but that wasn’t the point you were trying to make was it. Tangents again. Try and toss aside the brainwashing you’ve recieved and look at the facts. Have you heard we are essentially at full employment? It was in all the papers? How about the stock market? Want to skew those statistics too?

Those statistics were NOT out of context OR tangential. I made a point, then supported it, in response to your complain that I had no clue what I was talking about. Obviously, I DO know what the hell I’m talking about - if you’re just upset that I made you look like a fool, then just accept it like a man and stop changing the subject like an immature whelp.

You continually try and rephrase your question, narrowing it each time, so that you think you will get the only possible answer…you do realize that is what you are attempting to do don’t you? I’ve answered it broadly. Why don’t you pull out what you want and then you’ll get the satisfaction you need to move on.

I’ve NEVER rephrased my question! the FIRST TIME I asked it, it was in relation to the neo-conservative movement. It was a response to the post gloating about how the conservaties have come back into power. If you look at the context, it’s pretty clear that I was essentially asking, since you’ve GOT the power, what good has come of it?

I haven’t recieved a cojent response from you in this regard YET. You’ve handed me some crap about the growing conservative movement and Reagan, but you haven’t answered my question. I’ll ask it again: WHAT GOOD HAVE THE CONERVATIVES DONE SINCE COMING BACK INTO POWER?

The Right Wing News article referenced a university poll…try again. Do you have something to refute the assertation or are you satisifed just attacking a source you haven’t read?

Sure dude, shoot me a link, I’ll give it a read.

By the way both parties reject the KKK as I’m sure you know. However the only member of congress that was a clan memebr was Robert Byrd, a former grand wizard. Have you heard of him…been around awhile.

I never said that the republicans embrace the KKK. I said that the KKK embraces REPUBLICANS. Of course, NOBODY is going to publically embrace the KKK - that would be suicide. Its the lesser-known facts that are often the most telling.

You sound frustrated. This is the point where the liberal usually resorts to personal attacks…

…as opposed to you cons STARTING your argument with personal attacks.

Glad your satisfied with your life and are happy.

Cheers, same to you.

The argument is getting boring and tedious. Good for you, dull for me.
Add something new if you want to continue.

I’ve systematically addressed every single one of your “points” - this argument is boing because it’s bloody ONE SIDED. You continually fail to address MY points because you know you have no ground to stand on. Admit defeat like a man, or step up and argue like one.[/quote]

Admit defeat…please keep posting you are funny.

116

[quote]hedo wrote:
Admit defeat…please keep posting you are funny.
[/quote]

…that’s IT!? After all THAT!? That’s ALL YOU GOT???

sigh stupid trolls.

117

[quote]knewsom wrote:
hedo wrote:
Admit defeat…please keep posting you are funny.

…that’s IT!? After all THAT!? That’s ALL YOU GOT???

sigh stupid trolls.[/quote]

Hedo’s a lot of things, but he ain’t a troll.

118

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Hedo’s a lot of things, but he ain’t a troll.

[/quote]

…you didn’t find that in the least bit trollish?

well, perhaps I need to think of a more precise adjetive.

119

[quote]knewsom wrote:
hedo wrote:
Admit defeat…please keep posting you are funny.

…that’s IT!? After all THAT!? That’s ALL YOU GOT???

sigh stupid trolls.[/quote]

Now you are funny. You have less then 200 posts and obviously from your profile have little or no interest in bodybuilding and working out. You are a fucking new guy with little to say, and plenty of time to say it. Got it. You bored me. Nothing more. You are the definition fo a troll. Not cause I think you are a simplistic dipshit who I disagree with. Simply because you are a dull boring simplistic dipshit who I disagree with.

Sit down, shut the fuck up and learn something. You are boring. Say something interesting or accurate, with respect, and you’ll get an answer. Otherwise go annoy somone who cares about about your opinion is. You haven’t earned the right to have an opinion as far as I’m concerned…troll.

You’ll be gone in a month anyway, most of you are.

120

[quote]hedo wrote:
Now you are funny. You have less then 200 posts and obviously from your profile have little or no interest in bodybuilding and working out. You are a fucking new guy with little to say, and plenty of time to say it. Got it. You bored me. Nothing more. You are the definition fo a troll. Not cause I think you are a simplistic dipshit who I disagree with. Simply because you are a dull boring simplistic dipshit who I disagree with.

Sit down, shut the fuck up and learn something. You are boring. Say something interesting or accurate, with respect, and you’ll get an answer. Otherwise go annoy somone who cares about about your opinion is. You haven’t earned the right to have an opinion as far as I’m concerned…troll.

You’ll be gone in a month anyway, most of you are.

[/quote]

lol - AHA! That’s the spirit. :wink:

Sorry dude, I guess you’re not a troll. With 2005 posts, I stand corrected.

That being said:

Yes, I’m new, to training and to T-Nation. I really enjoy this site, for many reasons, no the least of which are the many fine articles, the excellent discussions, and the vast, vast wealth of knowledge contained on these pages. I’ve recently started training again (2 months ago), and not only have I trained better and harder than ever before, I’ve made the best gains in my life - plenty of which is thanks to T-Nation’s free info and fine supps. Don’t get me wrong. I have LOADS of respect for bodybuilding science. True, I’m not a bodybuilder - I’m more interested in strength and speed - I’m a martial arts/contact sports competitor, and I’m sure that the strenght gains I’ve already made will help me step my game up. As to my posts, I’ve made OVER 200, not UNDER, and what part of my profile gave you the impression that I have “no interest?”

From time to time in a rant, I tend to swear and use somewhat disrespectful words when describing persons (not necessarily you) whom I have little respect for. I also try to get people’s goat a bit, but I want you to know that for me, this is all in good fun. If I’ve shown you aggregious disrespect and mortally offended you, then I apologize. My aim was simply to frustrate you a bit. It looks like I went a bit far, and you took it a bit personal. That’s ok, shit happens, but I’m still left in the dark wondering a great many things. Part of the reason I do this is to come to a greater understanding of what makes republicans tick. Still to this day, after YEARS of trying, I have not been able to figgure you guys out.

I’m curious to know how someone with such an interest in economics (ESPECIALLY one who espouses conservative dogma left and right), called the statistics I listed “tangential” and “inaccurate”. I got them from a FEDERAL website, and they directly pertained to our argument as to whether or not Repubs are all they’re cracked up to be when it comes to the economy. What I gathered from them was that the economy has consistently done better when the Democrats are at the helm - and ironically, I didn’t just go looking for statistics that would prove my point - I just went looking for statistics, and drew conclusions from what I found.

…If you will continue our discussion, I will in good faith, refrain from using disrespectful language, since it obviously offends you, if you will do the same. What I do, I do for an HONEST search for understanding. If you share a similar goal, then by all means, let our discussion continue. If your goals are wholly different, then do please inform me as to what they are - again, I’m a curious bastard. :wink: