What the Russians are Saying about Obama's USA

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]H factor wrote:

Haha, WHAT? You’re really going to ignore history? This is a pretty well established fact, but I don’t have time to teach you history.

[/quote]

Shit you’re annoying. Can’t you read? I already said the educated posters here are already familiar with your revisionist story.

[quote]
Essentially the modern Republican Party has much more in common with Democrats of older eras and vice versea. I thought everyone knew this.

Here, this will help since you missed it in school:

I don’t need to read your links as I’m familiar with your revisionist story and have already exposed it as nonsense on this forum numerous times.

182

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Haha, WHAT? You’re really going to ignore history? This is a pretty well established fact, but I don’t have time to teach you history.

[/quote]

Shit you’re annoying. Can’t you read? I already said the educated posters here are already familiar with your revisionist story.

[quote]
Essentially the modern Republican Party has much more in common with Democrats of older eras and vice versea. I thought everyone knew this.

Here, this will help since you missed it in school:

I don’t need to read your links as I’m familiar with your revisionist story and have already exposed it as nonsense on this forum numerous times.[/quote]

Lol. Right, revisionist history. That’s your handwave this time? And again with the you’ve done this before, of course your wrong you just don’t have time to do it again. God this is the stock answer for so many on this board. You’re wrong, I’d point it out to you, but I have in the past so let’s not go back down the road. Just know you’re wrong.

Shocking that so many let this get by. I’ve provided some evidence for what I said. You’ve provided none. Something tells me on this board it will get a pass (intellectual dishonest seems to often) but it shouldn’t. Stay out of the thread if you’re not going to participate in discussion. Don’t assert yourself as correct and then tell me you don’t have time to prove yourself.

Why do you think when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act he talked of losing the South for a generation? You’re really trying to argue that no shifts have been made in thinking of Democrats and Republicans in history? This would be interesting as I haven’t seen it argued before. Hopefully you change your mind and decide to do so. If not, don’t bother replying. I tire of people avoiding the discussion by claiming they don’t have time for it on here or they have done it before.

183

[quote]H factor wrote:
Stay out of the thread if you’re not going to participate in discussion. Don’t assert yourself as correct and then tell me you don’t have time to prove yourself.

[/quote]

The thread is not about the history of the Democratic Party. One of your sources is a forum. The other is an article that contains some valid points about Grover Cleveland and the start of big government with Woodrow Wilson and FDR. And yes, I have neither the time nor inclination to discuss it or ‘prove [my]self.’

No that’s not what I said. You’re putting words into my mouth which I don’t appreciate.

[quote]
This would be interesting as I haven’t seen it argued before. Hopefully you change your mind and decide to do so. If not, don’t bother replying. I tire of people avoiding the discussion by claiming they don’t have time for it on here or they have done it before. [/quote]

Well good. Hopefully this will end our discussion then.

184

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Stay out of the thread if you’re not going to participate in discussion. Don’t assert yourself as correct and then tell me you don’t have time to prove yourself.

[/quote]

The thread is not about the history of the Democratic Party. One of your sources is a forum. The other is an article that contains some valid points about Grover Cleveland and the start of big government with Woodrow Wilson and FDR. And yes, I have neither the time nor inclination to discuss it or ‘prove [my]self.’

No that’s not what I said. You’re putting words into my mouth which I don’t appreciate.

[quote]
This would be interesting as I haven’t seen it argued before. Hopefully you change your mind and decide to do so. If not, don’t bother replying. I tire of people avoiding the discussion by claiming they don’t have time for it on here or they have done it before. [/quote]

Well good. Hopefully this will end our discussion then.[/quote]

One was a forum to show you this is not a new discussion and that people HAVE talked about this before. You have been acting like this is something no one thinks or discusses. You claim I put words in your mouth, but OF COURSE that is going to happen when you say things and never elaborate on them. You just said you’re wrong.

I posted something. You said no that’s not right. I gave evidence for my position and asked you to expand on yours. You refused and now you want to complain that I’m misrepresenting your position.

Yes the discussion can be over. It never really started. You made sure of that by just saying something and then backing out. Happens a lot on this forum. Can’t be wrong when you won’t show evidence for why you are right. Just say someone else is wrong and leave. Excellent strategy.

185

[quote]H factor wrote:

You have been acting like this is something no one thinks or discusses.[/quote]

You’re being dishonest again. My first post on the subject said it’s a ‘worn out hackneyed story’ that I’m already familiar with. Worn out because it’s because discussed and proffered so many times. In a subsequent post you then pretend I’m not familiar with it and I explained otherwise. You’re now at it again.

186

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

You have been acting like this is something no one thinks or discusses.[/quote]

You’re being dishonest again. My first post on the subject said it’s a ‘worn out hackneyed story’ that I’m already familiar with. Worn out because it’s because discussed and proffered so many times. In a subsequent post you then pretend I’m not familiar with it and I explained otherwise. You’re now at it again.[/quote]

False. You called me wrong. You provided no evidence for your assertion. You called it MY revisionist story (as if I invented the idea) and said you had no need for explaining yourself. Then you complained that I was misrepresenting a position you took when your only position was I was wrong. I have to GUESS what you really mean because you won’t share it with anyone else as if it’s a secret worth guarding.

You do know we can read your earlier posts right? So when you say this type of stuff we can tell you’re incorrect.

You dodged it. You continue to dodge it. Instead of educating everyone on what they have wrong, you’re just going to call yourself correct. Apparently over and over again. I’ve said before, we can move on if you’re too coward to explain yourself. But do quit acting as if I’m the problem right now. After all I’ve taken a position and provided evidence. You haven’t.

187

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

You have been acting like this is something no one thinks or discusses.[/quote]

You’re being dishonest again. My first post on the subject said it’s a ‘worn out hackneyed story’ that I’m already familiar with. Worn out because it’s because discussed and proffered so many times. In a subsequent post you then pretend I’m not familiar with it and I explained otherwise. You’re now at it again.[/quote]

False. You called me wrong. You provided no evidence for your assertion. You called it MY revisionist story (as if I invented the idea) and said you had no need for explaining yourself. Then you complained that I was misrepresenting a position you took when your only position was I was wrong. I have to GUESS what you really mean because you won’t share it with anyone else as if it’s a secret worth guarding.

You do know we can read your earlier posts right? So when you say this type of stuff we can tell you’re incorrect.

You dodged it. You continue to dodge it. Instead of educating everyone on what they have wrong, you’re just going to call yourself correct. Apparently over and over again. I’ve said before, we can move on if you’re too coward to explain yourself. But do quit acting as if I’m the problem right now. After all I’ve taken a position and provided evidence. You haven’t. [/quote]

I said that the aricle you posted made some good points. But it doesn’t mention the history of corruption in the Republican party in the reconstruction era. Nor Grant’s civil rights achievements nor the corruption in his administraion. Nor the fact that Teddy ROusevelt was a big government type. Not sure if it mentions Woodrow Wilson’s expansion of federal power and dabbling in socialism. And Herbert Hoover paved the way for the great socialist FDR. It doesn’t mention the Democratic Party’s deep infiltration by organised crime and unions during the prohibition era in particular. Nor the radical takeover in the period between the 68 convention and the nomination of George McGovern in the 1972 primaries.

THe author mentions LBJ’s expansion of big government but doesn’t go on the explain the civil rights era voting record by party nor mention Democratics like Robert KKK Byrd who opposed them to the bitter end and remained as a party hero. Or scoundrels like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton who was/is considered heroes of the party. THe author doesn’t mention Bush II’s presidency nor the continued radicalisation of the Democratic Party and the rise of Hillaryland and the Hawaiian candidate. Nor the depth of the infilatration of the hard left under their administration.

So overall maybe ‘wrong’ was the wrong word. Take a breather. You seem to be getting all riled up.

188

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

You have been acting like this is something no one thinks or discusses.[/quote]

You’re being dishonest again. My first post on the subject said it’s a ‘worn out hackneyed story’ that I’m already familiar with. Worn out because it’s because discussed and proffered so many times. In a subsequent post you then pretend I’m not familiar with it and I explained otherwise. You’re now at it again.[/quote]

False. You called me wrong. You provided no evidence for your assertion. You called it MY revisionist story (as if I invented the idea) and said you had no need for explaining yourself. Then you complained that I was misrepresenting a position you took when your only position was I was wrong. I have to GUESS what you really mean because you won’t share it with anyone else as if it’s a secret worth guarding.

You do know we can read your earlier posts right? So when you say this type of stuff we can tell you’re incorrect.

You dodged it. You continue to dodge it. Instead of educating everyone on what they have wrong, you’re just going to call yourself correct. Apparently over and over again. I’ve said before, we can move on if you’re too coward to explain yourself. But do quit acting as if I’m the problem right now. After all I’ve taken a position and provided evidence. You haven’t. [/quote]

I said that the aricle you posted made some good points. But it doesn’t mention the history of corruption in the Republican party in the reconstruction era. Nor Grant’s civil rights achievements nor the corruption in his administraion. Nor the fact that Teddy ROusevelt was a big government type. Not sure if it mentions Woodrow Wilson’s expansion of federal power and dabbling in socialism. And Herbert Hoover paved the way for the great socialist FDR. It doesn’t mention the Democratic Party’s deep infiltration by organised crime and unions during the prohibition era in particular. Nor the radical takeover in the period between the 68 convention and the nomination of George McGovern in the 1972 primaries.

THe author mentions LBJ’s expansion of big government but doesn’t go on the explain the civil rights era voting record by party nor mention Democratics like Robert KKK Byrd who opposed them to the bitter end and remained as a party hero. Or scoundrels like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton who was/is considered heroes of the party. THe author doesn’t mention Bush II’s presidency nor the continued radicalisation of the Democratic Party and the rise of Hillaryland and the Hawaiian candidate. Nor the depth of the infilatration of the hard left under their administration.

So overall maybe ‘wrong’ was the wrong word. Take a breather. You seem to be getting all riled up.[/quote]

The point isn’t to mention stuff like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton being heroes. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. In fact, most of that is you just going off on some anti-left temper tantrum. Hilary, Obama, that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Not even a little bit.

I pointed out that the current Democratic Party has much more in common with the Republican Party of the past and the current Republican Party has much more in common with the Democratic party of the past. This shift has a long and complicated history, but MUCH behind it. It’s in multiple history books. You said this was wrong. Now you’re trying to shift from saying it was wrong to going off on some type of God knows what rant about stuff that has absolutely nothing at all to do with what we were talking about.

I’m not getting riled up. Frustrated that you had to post about 8 replies before you even ATTEMPTED to argue what you said the first time. A colossal waste of time and really coming off like you’re just trying to up your post count for some reason. And now you’re trying to change the argument (which it is nice for you to FINALLY attempt to make) because you know what you initially said was wrong. You’re trying to make it about the article and not about what you said that was wrong. You still haven’t come anywhere close to proving otherwise.

You’re trying to change the conversation because your initial post was wrong. Will always be wrong. And no amount of ninja tactics to shift that fact is going to change that.

189

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

You have been acting like this is something no one thinks or discusses.[/quote]

You’re being dishonest again. My first post on the subject said it’s a ‘worn out hackneyed story’ that I’m already familiar with. Worn out because it’s because discussed and proffered so many times. In a subsequent post you then pretend I’m not familiar with it and I explained otherwise. You’re now at it again.[/quote]

False. You called me wrong. You provided no evidence for your assertion. You called it MY revisionist story (as if I invented the idea) and said you had no need for explaining yourself. Then you complained that I was misrepresenting a position you took when your only position was I was wrong. I have to GUESS what you really mean because you won’t share it with anyone else as if it’s a secret worth guarding.

You do know we can read your earlier posts right? So when you say this type of stuff we can tell you’re incorrect.

You dodged it. You continue to dodge it. Instead of educating everyone on what they have wrong, you’re just going to call yourself correct. Apparently over and over again. I’ve said before, we can move on if you’re too coward to explain yourself. But do quit acting as if I’m the problem right now. After all I’ve taken a position and provided evidence. You haven’t. [/quote]

I said that the aricle you posted made some good points. But it doesn’t mention the history of corruption in the Republican party in the reconstruction era. Nor Grant’s civil rights achievements nor the corruption in his administraion. Nor the fact that Teddy ROusevelt was a big government type. Not sure if it mentions Woodrow Wilson’s expansion of federal power and dabbling in socialism. And Herbert Hoover paved the way for the great socialist FDR. It doesn’t mention the Democratic Party’s deep infiltration by organised crime and unions during the prohibition era in particular. Nor the radical takeover in the period between the 68 convention and the nomination of George McGovern in the 1972 primaries.

THe author mentions LBJ’s expansion of big government but doesn’t go on the explain the civil rights era voting record by party nor mention Democratics like Robert KKK Byrd who opposed them to the bitter end and remained as a party hero. Or scoundrels like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton who was/is considered heroes of the party. THe author doesn’t mention Bush II’s presidency nor the continued radicalisation of the Democratic Party and the rise of Hillaryland and the Hawaiian candidate. Nor the depth of the infilatration of the hard left under their administration.

So overall maybe ‘wrong’ was the wrong word. Take a breather. You seem to be getting all riled up.[/quote]

The point isn’t to mention stuff like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton being heroes. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. In fact, most of that is you just going off on some anti-left temper tantrum. Hilary, Obama, that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Not even a little bit.

I pointed out that the current Democratic Party has much more in common with the Republican Party of the past and the current Republican Party has much more in common with the Democratic party of the past. This shift has a long and complicated history, but MUCH behind it. It’s in multiple history books. You said this was wrong. Now you’re trying to shift from saying it was wrong to going off on some type of God knows what rant about stuff that has absolutely nothing at all to do with what we were talking about.

I’m not getting riled up. Frustrated that you had to post about 8 replies before you even ATTEMPTED to argue what you said the first time. A colossal waste of time and really coming off like you’re just trying to up your post count for some reason. And now you’re trying to change the argument (which it is nice for you to FINALLY attempt to make) because you know what you initially said was wrong. You’re trying to make it about the article and not about what you said that was wrong. You still haven’t come anywhere close to proving otherwise.

You’re trying to change the conversation because your initial post was wrong. Will always be wrong. And no amount of ninja tactics to shift that fact is going to change that. [/quote]

When I made my initial post I said I wasn’t going to read the article. I thought it was going to be the left’s narrative of the Southern strategy. That’s what I said was wrong.

190

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

You have been acting like this is something no one thinks or discusses.[/quote]

You’re being dishonest again. My first post on the subject said it’s a ‘worn out hackneyed story’ that I’m already familiar with. Worn out because it’s because discussed and proffered so many times. In a subsequent post you then pretend I’m not familiar with it and I explained otherwise. You’re now at it again.[/quote]

False. You called me wrong. You provided no evidence for your assertion. You called it MY revisionist story (as if I invented the idea) and said you had no need for explaining yourself. Then you complained that I was misrepresenting a position you took when your only position was I was wrong. I have to GUESS what you really mean because you won’t share it with anyone else as if it’s a secret worth guarding.

You do know we can read your earlier posts right? So when you say this type of stuff we can tell you’re incorrect.

You dodged it. You continue to dodge it. Instead of educating everyone on what they have wrong, you’re just going to call yourself correct. Apparently over and over again. I’ve said before, we can move on if you’re too coward to explain yourself. But do quit acting as if I’m the problem right now. After all I’ve taken a position and provided evidence. You haven’t. [/quote]

I said that the aricle you posted made some good points. But it doesn’t mention the history of corruption in the Republican party in the reconstruction era. Nor Grant’s civil rights achievements nor the corruption in his administraion. Nor the fact that Teddy ROusevelt was a big government type. Not sure if it mentions Woodrow Wilson’s expansion of federal power and dabbling in socialism. And Herbert Hoover paved the way for the great socialist FDR. It doesn’t mention the Democratic Party’s deep infiltration by organised crime and unions during the prohibition era in particular. Nor the radical takeover in the period between the 68 convention and the nomination of George McGovern in the 1972 primaries.

THe author mentions LBJ’s expansion of big government but doesn’t go on the explain the civil rights era voting record by party nor mention Democratics like Robert KKK Byrd who opposed them to the bitter end and remained as a party hero. Or scoundrels like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton who was/is considered heroes of the party. THe author doesn’t mention Bush II’s presidency nor the continued radicalisation of the Democratic Party and the rise of Hillaryland and the Hawaiian candidate. Nor the depth of the infilatration of the hard left under their administration.

So overall maybe ‘wrong’ was the wrong word. Take a breather. You seem to be getting all riled up.[/quote]

The point isn’t to mention stuff like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton being heroes. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. In fact, most of that is you just going off on some anti-left temper tantrum. Hilary, Obama, that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Not even a little bit.

I pointed out that the current Democratic Party has much more in common with the Republican Party of the past and the current Republican Party has much more in common with the Democratic party of the past. This shift has a long and complicated history, but MUCH behind it. It’s in multiple history books. You said this was wrong. Now you’re trying to shift from saying it was wrong to going off on some type of God knows what rant about stuff that has absolutely nothing at all to do with what we were talking about.

I’m not getting riled up. Frustrated that you had to post about 8 replies before you even ATTEMPTED to argue what you said the first time. A colossal waste of time and really coming off like you’re just trying to up your post count for some reason. And now you’re trying to change the argument (which it is nice for you to FINALLY attempt to make) because you know what you initially said was wrong. You’re trying to make it about the article and not about what you said that was wrong. You still haven’t come anywhere close to proving otherwise.

You’re trying to change the conversation because your initial post was wrong. Will always be wrong. And no amount of ninja tactics to shift that fact is going to change that. [/quote]

When I made my initial post I said I wasn’t going to read the article. I thought it was going to be the left’s narrative of the Southern strategy. That’s what I said was wrong.[/quote]

With all due respect your initial post had nothing to do with the article. I hadn’t even posted an article yet.

191

[quote]H factor wrote:

With all due respect your initial post had nothing to do with the article. I hadn’t even posted an article yet. [/quote]

My first post to you on this thread was relating to Obama being a socialist/community organiser. The later discussion about the Republican Party being more like the ‘old’ Democratic Party began with you citing a Steven Spielberg film as your source and then posting an article and a link to a forum. That’s the one to which I’m referring. The current subject of this derailed thread.

192

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

With all due respect your initial post had nothing to do with the article. I hadn’t even posted an article yet. [/quote]

My first post to you on this thread was relating to Obama being a socialist/community organiser. The later discussion about the Republican Party being more like the ‘old’ Democratic Party began with you citing a Steven Spielberg film as your source and then posting an article and a link to a forum. That’s the one to which I’m referring. The current subject of this derailed thread.[/quote]

I didn’t realize I had to have a ton of sources for the first part. Anyways, you STILL haven’t really challenged that either. The Lincoln reference wasn’t intended to be a “source”, but clearly Republicans were the ones fighting for increased federal power then, not Democrats. The two sides over time have pretty much flip flopped on a lot of things, and you can find tons of evidence supporting this. Some of which has been posted in this thread, the rest you can find on your own if you like.

193

Times change and issues change along with them. The major political parties of the United States have changed enough since the 19th century that to say “Republicans at the time believed this” or “Democrats at the time did that” is largely meaningless.

194

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

My first post to you on this thread was relating to Obama being a socialist/community organiser.[/quote]

And no one regardless of race, creed color or political persuasion can refute this.

And we elected him not once but twice as the President of the United States. What a horrible tragedy.

195
196

DEMOCRATS CAN BENCH MORE THAN REPUBLICANS!!!

197

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/treasury-to-sell-g-m-stake-within-15-months/?hp

What kind of socialist surrenders millions of ownership stakes in the world’s largest automaker?

198

[quote]smh23 wrote:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/treasury-to-sell-g-m-stake-within-15-months/?hp

What kind of socialist surrenders millions of ownership stakes in the world’s largest automaker?[/quote]

A socialist who’s $18 trillion in debt?

199

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/treasury-to-sell-g-m-stake-within-15-months/?hp

What kind of socialist surrenders millions of ownership stakes in the world’s largest automaker?[/quote]

A socialist who’s $18 trillion in debt?[/quote]

I thought Obama didn’t care about the debt?

Anyway, it doesn’t strike me that privatization would be high on the list of methods a socialist might use to pay the bills. In fact it doesn’t strike me that that would be on the list at all–especially not when the deal will do almost nothing to curb the total debt anyhow.

The simple answer is that the bailouts were very obviously not permanent nationalizations. Yet another item struck from the “Obama is the lost Castro brother” list of talking points.

200

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/treasury-to-sell-g-m-stake-within-15-months/?hp

What kind of socialist surrenders millions of ownership stakes in the world’s largest automaker?[/quote]

A socialist who’s $18 trillion in debt?[/quote]

I thought Obama didn’t care about the debt?

Anyway, it doesn’t strike me that privatization would be high on the list of methods a socialist might use to pay the bills. In fact it doesn’t strike me that that would be on the list at all–especially not when the deal will do almost nothing to curb the total debt anyhow.

The simple answer is that the bailouts were very obviously not permanent nationalizations. Yet another item struck from the “Obama is the lost Castro brother” list of talking points. [/quote]

It’s nothing to brag about. GM owes the taxpayers 26 billion and the sell off will be at half the price the remaining shares were bought for.