007 has way more time on his hands than I thought as a kid.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So what is an example of a highly populated republican city with a low murder or crime rate?[/quote]
It is almost conclusive that most of the cities with the highest crime are solidly Democrat. Flint-MI, Stockton-CA, Oakland-CA, Baltimore-MD, Chicago-IL, and on and on.
The new state education rankings came out recently as well, for the Liberal wet dream thinking that the Mecca California is light years ahead of everyone, they ranked #32 in student performance, barely beating West Virginia. Also, for those who like to demonize Texas, they ranked #21.
Recently, the California city of San Bernadino had their City Attorney to tell people to “lock and load,” the upcoming bankruptcy will have many cops laid off and chaos is expected to come.
When the mayor of San Bernadino told the City Attorney to apologize for his statements, he said, “I’m sorry, my comment was for those who own a gun, for everyone else, I recommend you look into buying one.”
Keep something in mind bro, my state was rated worst run state 2 years in a row, worst business climate 8 years in a row, ranked 48th in English and 49th in Math (k-12 education), 3rd highest unemployment, worst bond rating in the country, highest welfare recipients, largest statewide debt in the nation, highest sales tax in the nation, 2nd highest property tax, the only Global Warming tax…
You might not find a populated Republican city, but you can find a shit ton of decrepit Democratic cities.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So what is an example of a highly populated republican city with a low murder or crime rate?[/quote]
It is almost conclusive that most of the cities with the highest crime are solidly Democrat. Flint-MI, Stockton-CA, Oakland-CA, Baltimore-MD, Chicago-IL, and on and on.[/quote]
Spurious correlation. Urban areas predominantly vote Democratic and urban areas have a lot more crime. It isn’t a given that merely switching political parties for the leaders of these areas would lead to a drop in crime rate since often crime is by availability anyways or demographics that tend to be predominant in urban areas.
You gotta be careful with this. Three of the most conservative states are also three of the lowest scoring in math and reading scores therefore Republican leaning states tend to have dumb kids? Or how about three of the most religious states also score quite lower in these education scores therefore religion importance leads to stupidity?
It’s far more likely you can point at the poverty for this reasoning just as you can point to something else in the above examples.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
You might not find a populated Republican city, but you can find a shit ton of decrepit Democratic cities.
[/quote]
By their very nature, I would suspect more or less, that urban areas are going to lend themselves more towards the leftist/statist/collective Neo-American Liberal mindset.
Bottom up government/individualism is going to be more difficult in that type of setting, and people will often look towards the central “voice” to lead them. Not only that but city life offers much more in the way of “things to do”, so again it becomes easier to have the government “just take care of stuff” for you.
This doesn’t explain places like Detroit, Cali, Chicago, etc though. Government party isn’t the sole reason for the decline. The citizenry is in part ot blame, but culture is to blame as well. When government starts making laws based on emotional responces trouble starts.
Teens shooting each other? Make strict gun laws - emotional responce that doesn’t solve the problem because it doesn’t address the problem. Criminals ignore the law in the first place.
Anyway, larger issue as well: it isn’t like the Republicans of today (RINO’s to some) are much better at this, the fucking Patriot Act? Really?
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So what is an example of a highly populated republican city with a low murder or crime rate?[/quote]
It is almost conclusive that most of the cities with the highest crime are solidly Democrat. Flint-MI, Stockton-CA, Oakland-CA, Baltimore-MD, Chicago-IL, and on and on.[/quote]
Spurious correlation. Urban areas predominantly vote Democratic and urban areas have a lot more crime. It isn’t a given that merely switching political parties for the leaders of these areas would lead to a drop in crime rate since often crime is by availability anyways or demographics that tend to be predominant in urban areas.
You gotta be careful with this. Three of the most conservative states are also three of the lowest scoring in math and reading scores therefore Republican leaning states tend to have dumb kids? Or how about three of the most religious states also score quite lower in these education scores therefore religion importance leads to stupidity?
It’s far more likely you can point at the poverty for this reasoning just as you can point to something else in the above examples. [/quote]
Pretty much what I was getting at as well. It is more or less a culture problem. Local goverment, irrelevant of party, isn’t immune to culture issues.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Under what President’s watch did the current financial crisis begin, [/quote]
Clinton’s… but why drag him into it???
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So what is an example of a highly populated republican city with a low murder or crime rate?[/quote]
Feeling like someone is not doing what you want them to? Do the homework and bring a few more sentences into the fray instead of lazy ass questions that put the onus on someone else.
Who’s in charge of Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington DC etc… ect… lazy ass smart alec. If you don’t like what I write read posts you agree with and don’t take up space here. Be informed not opinionated.
Opinions are like assholes everyone has one. Be original and perhaps you will become diverse. 98% of a city voting for Obama such as the city of Washington D.C. is not an example of diversity it’s the opposite.
[/quote]
You could have just said “there are none”. When you talk about how great republicans are you need to give examples of what they have done good when all else is equal, governing a small town is not a victory against decreasing crime in large cities.[/quote]
How about Giulani (sp?) cleaning up NYC and having the murder rate (since that was the example) drop from #1?
In other words, the human species believes in collectivism when they congregate together in a single place ?
What happens when the money runs out ?
Who blames who ?
Who gets the remaining scraps of leftovers, and how do you justify that to the losing side of that argument ?
I have noticed here (as I have been here for quite awhile now), that the collectivist idea might only work when the quality of it’s members is upheld. Meaning, once you get too many deadbeats, you’re fucked. Whether that is White trailer trash, or immigrant poverty, it matters not.
Both parties have royally fucked us into the ground, whether it be wars or entitlements, you cannot have this unless you plan on taxing the shit out of all people.
It’s not even partisan bullshit now, it’s just math at this point. The top 20% of Americans pay 70% of the income taxes, and when those people move (if they have to move to BFE, they will), you’re even more fucked.
Government spending is 42% of our economy, but our tax revenues bring in only 24%.
Romney was right about the 47%, while not politically correct, was true.
[quote]SRT08 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Under what President’s watch did the current financial crisis begin, [/quote]
Clinton’s… but why drag him into it???[/quote]
The fact that Bill (I did not have sexual relations with that woman) Clinton didn’t get hosed for deregulating banks is beyond me.
He pulled off a masterful illusion, or the public has a shorter memory than I thought.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Here’s another example. I guess we’re all supposed to bend over and let little Timothy Geithner screw us in the rear. Not a single “real news” program reminds us that when Barack Hussein Obama tapped him for “Treasury Secretary of the Greatest Nation on Earth” in 2008, it emerged that little Timothy Geithner had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes from 2001-2004. He was working for the International Monetary Fund, surely a position that should have reminded him that he owes taxes. I wonder if how many really believe we the other side of the isle should give in for the sake of getting something done in congress?
[/quote]
Good ol’ Timmy…
His lack of tax paying aside, the fact Bam went on and on about how evil the big bad bankers were, and then appoints him and Summers… How people voted for someone like Bam that openly lies to your face about such things is beyond me.
But the again, I’d be surprised if you asked 1000 O-Bots who Geithner was, 4 would be able to tell you.[/quote]
Obama lied about Behghazi too, but that didn’t stop most from voting for him. After all he was on Jon Stewart and Stewart is cool therefore Obama is cool.
By the way my Obama voting book keeper got a wake up call the other day. She asked our CFO for a raise and (as directed) he said, “We’ll have to wait and see if Obama is going to raise taxes on small business. If he is then no one including you will be getting a raise. If he isn’t then you will be getting a raise.”
She looked at him with big sad eyes and said “wow I never realized any that political stuff was ever going to effect me.”
Welcome to the real world babe.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
As far as who was in charge when the economy was going south? Democrats held control of both the House and Senate from 2007 into Obammy’s first term. Bush was president but the democrats held all the cards as they were the majority and also had control of Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac housing loans.
Rewrite it anyway you want we are divided, just like our enemies want.
Once again the current definition of a racist…somebody winning an argument with a liberal.
[/quote]
Of course they were. Some Democrats voted for Iraq so we can blame that on them as well. And remember Clinton’s surpluses? We can give ALL that credit to the Republican Congress. And Reagan would have WIPED OUT the debt, but those pesky Democrats and their damn budgets! Either way, he deserves ALL the credit for the economy despite the Democratic control of the legislature. Right? I’m starting to get good at this! It’s ALL the Democrats fault if something goes bad and ALL the Republicans fault when something goes good!
Surely we wouldn’t want to say anything weird like Democrats tend to grow government when in power and Republicans do the same in perhaps a different manner. Nah, let’s stay away from that. Let’s “stay divided” as you say, by painting the other side as always evil. I love having a team. FWIW as someone who says our enemies want us divided I’m surprised you come off so partisan. This is probably what our enemies want, but it’s DEFINITELY what the two parties want. They can cycle control of power in this scenario. [/quote]
Have you never heard of a communist? Is there or is there not a communist party here in the United States? Were there not stories on the “major news” networks saying that China and Russia were pleased that Obama won the election? What else can I say? Welcome comrade the change is about to become evident.
What is so good about Democrat policies and why do there cities go bankrupt before Republican run cities?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/03/us-usa-tax-irs-idUSBRE8B21HA20121203
[/quote]
This is something that I’ve pointed out repeatedly. Liberalism has never worked anywhere in the US, or (to my knowledge) anywhere in the world. Yet…we have four more years of the socialist in chief.
And…the people will pay through the nose in the end.
-
Higher prices because business will pass on the costs of Obamacare and any higher tax.
-
Lower wages because business will spend less on salaries.
-
Higher gas prices because Obama and others in his administration are against drilling.
The common man forgot the first rule: Crap rolls down hill!
idiots.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Here’s another example. I guess we’re all supposed to bend over and let little Timothy Geithner screw us in the rear. Not a single “real news” program reminds us that when Barack Hussein Obama tapped him for “Treasury Secretary of the Greatest Nation on Earth” in 2008, it emerged that little Timothy Geithner had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes from 2001-2004. He was working for the International Monetary Fund, surely a position that should have reminded him that he owes taxes. I wonder if how many really believe we the other side of the isle should give in for the sake of getting something done in congress?
[/quote]
Good ol’ Timmy…
His lack of tax paying aside, the fact Bam went on and on about how evil the big bad bankers were, and then appoints him and Summers… How people voted for someone like Bam that openly lies to your face about such things is beyond me.
But the again, I’d be surprised if you asked 1000 O-Bots who Geithner was, 4 would be able to tell you.[/quote]
Obama lied about Behghazi too, but that didn’t stop most from voting for him. After all he was on Jon Stewart and Stewart is cool therefore Obama is cool.
By the way my Obama voting book keeper got a wake up call the other day. She asked our CFO for a raise and (as directed) he said, “We’ll have to wait and see if Obama is going to raise taxes on small business. If he is then no one including you will be getting a raise. If he isn’t then you will be getting a raise.”
She looked at him with big sad eyes and said “wow I never realized any that political stuff was ever going to effect me.”
Welcome to the real world babe.[/quote]
Bush was down for starting one of the most costly wars in American history because they might have something they didn’t end up having, exploded the size of the federal gov’t, passed legislation to spy on civilians, among a million other travesties and we reelected him.
Guess you could say it doesn’t matter which side puts in a moron, we’re just stupid enough to say MORE PLEASE!
And yet another reason to quit giving Democrats and Republicans chances over and over again.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Here’s another example. I guess we’re all supposed to bend over and let little Timothy Geithner screw us in the rear. Not a single “real news” program reminds us that when Barack Hussein Obama tapped him for “Treasury Secretary of the Greatest Nation on Earth” in 2008, it emerged that little Timothy Geithner had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes from 2001-2004. He was working for the International Monetary Fund, surely a position that should have reminded him that he owes taxes. I wonder if how many really believe we the other side of the isle should give in for the sake of getting something done in congress?
[/quote]
Good ol’ Timmy…
His lack of tax paying aside, the fact Bam went on and on about how evil the big bad bankers were, and then appoints him and Summers… How people voted for someone like Bam that openly lies to your face about such things is beyond me.
But the again, I’d be surprised if you asked 1000 O-Bots who Geithner was, 4 would be able to tell you.[/quote]
Obama lied about Behghazi too, but that didn’t stop most from voting for him. After all he was on Jon Stewart and Stewart is cool therefore Obama is cool.
By the way my Obama voting book keeper got a wake up call the other day. She asked our CFO for a raise and (as directed) he said, “We’ll have to wait and see if Obama is going to raise taxes on small business. If he is then no one including you will be getting a raise. If he isn’t then you will be getting a raise.”
She looked at him with big sad eyes and said “wow I never realized any that political stuff was ever going to effect me.”
Welcome to the real world babe.[/quote]
Bush was down for starting one of the most costly wars in American history because they might have something they didn’t end up having, exploded the size of the federal gov’t, passed legislation to spy on civilians, among a million other travesties and we reelected him.
Guess you could say it doesn’t matter which side puts in a moron, we’re just stupid enough to say MORE PLEASE!
And yet another reason to quit giving Democrats and Republicans chances over and over again. [/quote]
If you really read my posts you’d have known that I argued vehemently against the Patriot act. I’ve now give you three major things that I was against that Bush did. However, compared to Obama GW Bush looks like a genius!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Here’s another example. I guess we’re all supposed to bend over and let little Timothy Geithner screw us in the rear. Not a single “real news” program reminds us that when Barack Hussein Obama tapped him for “Treasury Secretary of the Greatest Nation on Earth” in 2008, it emerged that little Timothy Geithner had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes from 2001-2004. He was working for the International Monetary Fund, surely a position that should have reminded him that he owes taxes. I wonder if how many really believe we the other side of the isle should give in for the sake of getting something done in congress?
[/quote]
Good ol’ Timmy…
His lack of tax paying aside, the fact Bam went on and on about how evil the big bad bankers were, and then appoints him and Summers… How people voted for someone like Bam that openly lies to your face about such things is beyond me.
But the again, I’d be surprised if you asked 1000 O-Bots who Geithner was, 4 would be able to tell you.[/quote]
Obama lied about Behghazi too, but that didn’t stop most from voting for him. After all he was on Jon Stewart and Stewart is cool therefore Obama is cool.
By the way my Obama voting book keeper got a wake up call the other day. She asked our CFO for a raise and (as directed) he said, “We’ll have to wait and see if Obama is going to raise taxes on small business. If he is then no one including you will be getting a raise. If he isn’t then you will be getting a raise.”
She looked at him with big sad eyes and said “wow I never realized any that political stuff was ever going to effect me.”
Welcome to the real world babe.[/quote]
Bush was down for starting one of the most costly wars in American history because they might have something they didn’t end up having, exploded the size of the federal gov’t, passed legislation to spy on civilians, among a million other travesties and we reelected him.
Guess you could say it doesn’t matter which side puts in a moron, we’re just stupid enough to say MORE PLEASE!
And yet another reason to quit giving Democrats and Republicans chances over and over again. [/quote]
If you really read my posts you’d have known that I argued vehemently against the Patriot act. I’ve now give you three major things that I was against that Bush did. However, compared to Obama GW Bush looks like a genius![/quote]
Such is the current state of politics Zeb. The Republican party argument in 2012 is essentially boiling down to “yeah, we are awful, but they are worse.” That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in me to put them back in charge. After all weren’t we all taught from an early age two wrongs don’t make a right?
Both political parties at times will acknowledge they make mistakes but man that OTHER SIDE is so much worse you better just keep going with us! Seems like a silly reason to maintain the status quo of shifting power back from party to party.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Here’s another example. I guess we’re all supposed to bend over and let little Timothy Geithner screw us in the rear. Not a single “real news” program reminds us that when Barack Hussein Obama tapped him for “Treasury Secretary of the Greatest Nation on Earth” in 2008, it emerged that little Timothy Geithner had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes from 2001-2004. He was working for the International Monetary Fund, surely a position that should have reminded him that he owes taxes. I wonder if how many really believe we the other side of the isle should give in for the sake of getting something done in congress?
[/quote]
Good ol’ Timmy…
His lack of tax paying aside, the fact Bam went on and on about how evil the big bad bankers were, and then appoints him and Summers… How people voted for someone like Bam that openly lies to your face about such things is beyond me.
But the again, I’d be surprised if you asked 1000 O-Bots who Geithner was, 4 would be able to tell you.[/quote]
Obama lied about Behghazi too, but that didn’t stop most from voting for him. After all he was on Jon Stewart and Stewart is cool therefore Obama is cool.
By the way my Obama voting book keeper got a wake up call the other day. She asked our CFO for a raise and (as directed) he said, “We’ll have to wait and see if Obama is going to raise taxes on small business. If he is then no one including you will be getting a raise. If he isn’t then you will be getting a raise.”
She looked at him with big sad eyes and said “wow I never realized any that political stuff was ever going to effect me.”
Welcome to the real world babe.[/quote]
Bush was down for starting one of the most costly wars in American history because they might have something they didn’t end up having, exploded the size of the federal gov’t, passed legislation to spy on civilians, among a million other travesties and we reelected him.
Guess you could say it doesn’t matter which side puts in a moron, we’re just stupid enough to say MORE PLEASE!
And yet another reason to quit giving Democrats and Republicans chances over and over again. [/quote]
If you really read my posts you’d have known that I argued vehemently against the Patriot act. I’ve now give you three major things that I was against that Bush did. However, compared to Obama GW Bush looks like a genius![/quote]
Such is the current state of politics Zeb. The Republican party argument in 2012 is essentially boiling down to “yeah, we are awful, but they are worse.” That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in me to put them back in charge. After all weren’t we all taught from an early age two wrongs don’t make a right?
Both political parties at times will acknowledge they make mistakes but man that OTHER SIDE is so much worse you better just keep going with us! Seems like a silly reason to maintain the status quo of shifting power back from party to party. [/quote]
Yeah, I get it you’re an advocate for a third party. Nice idea, now go out get the tens of billions that it will take to organize and then sell such a venture Then find a smart candidate with charisma and a national name and I bet it will attract a whole lot of attention. I will certainly give it a hard look. Until all of that (and much more) happens we have republicans and democrats to choose from. And while the republicans are far from perfect, the democrats are in fact the party of high taxes and big spending.
Simple my friend.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Here’s another example. I guess we’re all supposed to bend over and let little Timothy Geithner screw us in the rear. Not a single “real news” program reminds us that when Barack Hussein Obama tapped him for “Treasury Secretary of the Greatest Nation on Earth” in 2008, it emerged that little Timothy Geithner had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes from 2001-2004. He was working for the International Monetary Fund, surely a position that should have reminded him that he owes taxes. I wonder if how many really believe we the other side of the isle should give in for the sake of getting something done in congress?
[/quote]
Good ol’ Timmy…
His lack of tax paying aside, the fact Bam went on and on about how evil the big bad bankers were, and then appoints him and Summers… How people voted for someone like Bam that openly lies to your face about such things is beyond me.
But the again, I’d be surprised if you asked 1000 O-Bots who Geithner was, 4 would be able to tell you.[/quote]
Obama lied about Behghazi too, but that didn’t stop most from voting for him. After all he was on Jon Stewart and Stewart is cool therefore Obama is cool.
By the way my Obama voting book keeper got a wake up call the other day. She asked our CFO for a raise and (as directed) he said, “We’ll have to wait and see if Obama is going to raise taxes on small business. If he is then no one including you will be getting a raise. If he isn’t then you will be getting a raise.”
She looked at him with big sad eyes and said “wow I never realized any that political stuff was ever going to effect me.”
Welcome to the real world babe.[/quote]
Bush was down for starting one of the most costly wars in American history because they might have something they didn’t end up having, exploded the size of the federal gov’t, passed legislation to spy on civilians, among a million other travesties and we reelected him.
Guess you could say it doesn’t matter which side puts in a moron, we’re just stupid enough to say MORE PLEASE!
And yet another reason to quit giving Democrats and Republicans chances over and over again. [/quote]
If you really read my posts you’d have known that I argued vehemently against the Patriot act. I’ve now give you three major things that I was against that Bush did. However, compared to Obama GW Bush looks like a genius![/quote]
Such is the current state of politics Zeb. The Republican party argument in 2012 is essentially boiling down to “yeah, we are awful, but they are worse.” That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in me to put them back in charge. After all weren’t we all taught from an early age two wrongs don’t make a right?
Both political parties at times will acknowledge they make mistakes but man that OTHER SIDE is so much worse you better just keep going with us! Seems like a silly reason to maintain the status quo of shifting power back from party to party. [/quote]
Yeah, I get it you’re an advocate for a third party. Nice idea, now go out get the tens of billions that it will take to organize and then sell such a venture Then find a smart candidate with charisma and a national name and I bet it will attract a whole lot of attention. I will certainly give it a hard look. Until all of that (and much more) happens we have republicans and democrats to choose from. And while the republicans are far from perfect, the democrats are in fact the party of high taxes and big spending.
Simple my friend.[/quote]
It’s precisely that attitude that keeps it from happening.
But if I haven’t convinced you that Republicans are also the party of big spending yet I never will. I haven’t seen compelling arguments from the right on them shrinking the national debt, I usually see uhmm, Obama is worse than we were! Higher taxes I might give you, but is a party of lower taxes and increased spending something to brag about? Is that a feather in the cap for Republicans? Those guys want to raise your taxes and spend a lot of money, we just want to spend a lot of money vote us! That’s compelling? I mean we essentially just came off 8 years of a Republican President who said I want to fight two wars, expand medicare, expand the military greatly, and have government intrude in more areas of your life…but don’t worry I’ll cut your taxes!
Attempting to show people that the “choices” are increasingly similar on most anything that is huge (sites call him George W. Obama for a reason). You don’t need all that to make a change. You don’t need tens of billions. You need a populace that decides to stop supporting the status quo. When you have people who are convinced this is the way it is so they must join one team and play that game then nothing will ever change. We’ll continue to cycle back and forth between the parties, continue to fight and bicker with the other sides letter and play the same game and debate the same issues over and over.
It’s too hard to fight the big parties so pick one and join one is yet another poor and silly reason to pick one and join one. Even more silly than the right’s last 4 years of political arguments (yeah, we’re bad, BUT OBAMA!)
Reasonable, rational moderates have no voice at this moment in American politics. I think this is a GIANT problem.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Here’s another example. I guess we’re all supposed to bend over and let little Timothy Geithner screw us in the rear. Not a single “real news” program reminds us that when Barack Hussein Obama tapped him for “Treasury Secretary of the Greatest Nation on Earth” in 2008, it emerged that little Timothy Geithner had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes from 2001-2004. He was working for the International Monetary Fund, surely a position that should have reminded him that he owes taxes. I wonder if how many really believe we the other side of the isle should give in for the sake of getting something done in congress?
[/quote]
Good ol’ Timmy…
His lack of tax paying aside, the fact Bam went on and on about how evil the big bad bankers were, and then appoints him and Summers… How people voted for someone like Bam that openly lies to your face about such things is beyond me.
But the again, I’d be surprised if you asked 1000 O-Bots who Geithner was, 4 would be able to tell you.[/quote]
Obama lied about Behghazi too, but that didn’t stop most from voting for him. After all he was on Jon Stewart and Stewart is cool therefore Obama is cool.
By the way my Obama voting book keeper got a wake up call the other day. She asked our CFO for a raise and (as directed) he said, “We’ll have to wait and see if Obama is going to raise taxes on small business. If he is then no one including you will be getting a raise. If he isn’t then you will be getting a raise.”
She looked at him with big sad eyes and said “wow I never realized any that political stuff was ever going to effect me.”
Welcome to the real world babe.[/quote]
Bush was down for starting one of the most costly wars in American history because they might have something they didn’t end up having, exploded the size of the federal gov’t, passed legislation to spy on civilians, among a million other travesties and we reelected him.
Guess you could say it doesn’t matter which side puts in a moron, we’re just stupid enough to say MORE PLEASE!
And yet another reason to quit giving Democrats and Republicans chances over and over again. [/quote]
If you really read my posts you’d have known that I argued vehemently against the Patriot act. I’ve now give you three major things that I was against that Bush did. However, compared to Obama GW Bush looks like a genius![/quote]
Such is the current state of politics Zeb. The Republican party argument in 2012 is essentially boiling down to “yeah, we are awful, but they are worse.” That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in me to put them back in charge. After all weren’t we all taught from an early age two wrongs don’t make a right?
Both political parties at times will acknowledge they make mistakes but man that OTHER SIDE is so much worse you better just keep going with us! Seems like a silly reason to maintain the status quo of shifting power back from party to party. [/quote]
Yeah, I get it you’re an advocate for a third party. Nice idea, now go out get the tens of billions that it will take to organize and then sell such a venture Then find a smart candidate with charisma and a national name and I bet it will attract a whole lot of attention. I will certainly give it a hard look. Until all of that (and much more) happens we have republicans and democrats to choose from. And while the republicans are far from perfect, the democrats are in fact the party of high taxes and big spending.
Simple my friend.[/quote]
It’s precisely that attitude that keeps it from happening.
But if I haven’t convinced you that Republicans are also the party of big spending yet I never will. I haven’t seen compelling arguments from the right on them shrinking the national debt, I usually see uhmm, Obama is worse than we were! Higher taxes I might give you, but is a party of lower taxes and increased spending something to brag about? Is that a feather in the cap for Republicans? Those guys want to raise your taxes and spend a lot of money, we just want to spend a lot of money vote us! That’s compelling? I mean we essentially just came off 8 years of a Republican President who said I want to fight two wars, expand medicare, expand the military greatly, and have government intrude in more areas of your life…but don’t worry I’ll cut your taxes!
Attempting to show people that the “choices” are increasingly similar on most anything that is huge (sites call him George W. Obama for a reason). You don’t need all that to make a change. You don’t need tens of billions. You need a populace that decides to stop supporting the status quo. When you have people who are convinced this is the way it is so they must join one team and play that game then nothing will ever change. We’ll continue to cycle back and forth between the parties, continue to fight and bicker with the other sides letter and play the same game and debate the same issues over and over.
It’s too hard to fight the big parties so pick one and join one is yet another poor and silly reason to pick one and join one. Even more silly than the right’s last 4 years of political arguments (yeah, we’re bad, BUT OBAMA!)
Reasonable, rational moderates have no voice at this moment in American politics. I think this is a GIANT problem. [/quote]
It’s the attitude of pragmatism that keeps it from happening? I don’t think that’s correct. Think back to 1992 when Ross Perot challenged both parties. And he got a respectable 19% of the vote. He ran again in 1996 and didn’t do as well. The point is when the right man appears with the right backing “people like me” will give it a hard look. Until then people like me will be voting against the biggest spenders. And anyone looking at Obamacare and the recent push for higher taxes without cutting hardly any spending know that the biggest spenders are the democrats.
Again…simple my friend.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It’s the attitude of pragmatism that keeps it from happening? I don’t think that’s correct. Think back to 1992 when Ross Perot challenged both parties. And he got a respectable 19% of the vote. He ran again in 1996 and didn’t do as well. The point is when the right man appears with the right backing “people like me” will give it a hard look. Until then people like me will be voting against the biggest spenders. And anyone looking at Obamacare and the recent push for higher taxes without cutting hardly any spending know that the biggest spenders are the democrats.
Again…simple my friend.[/quote]
That is completely fine, but you will also always have people like me wondering out loud why people think like this. How someone can be so against big spending but seem as if they are most against it when a certain side does it?
I mean Republicans are all out of the woodwork now on the national debt and we gotta decrease the spending and don’t raise my taxes cut the spending. Which is a great position to take. Except the left will tell you the spending is necessary. We need to raise the taxes because the spending is necessary. We NEED this and this and this.
Which is the same position the right took when they had power. We need the Iraq War, we need No Child Left Behind, we need stimulus checks, we need to bail out the banks, we need all this. Now, out of power, they are fully against big government. Because being against big government plays really well to say, but isn’t as popular when it comes down to brass tacks of actually doing it. And they are very against big government they don’t like. Make no mistake about it though, they are big spenders. Romney wouldn’t get specific on cuts because he had to tread lightly in regards to them and knew it. The right can get down with cutting government just like the left can…as long as it is precisely the stuff the government does that they don’t like!
I won’t get in the debate on who’s worse because it’s a stupid debate if you go in thinking both are bad. If we have two mass murderers do we focus on the fact that one guy murdered 10 and not 11 so he’s so much better than Johnny murder 11?
Again, we’re really bad, but not as bad as them doesn’t fly with me whether Democrats or Republicans are making the argument.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It’s the attitude of pragmatism that keeps it from happening? I don’t think that’s correct. Think back to 1992 when Ross Perot challenged both parties. And he got a respectable 19% of the vote. He ran again in 1996 and didn’t do as well. The point is when the right man appears with the right backing “people like me” will give it a hard look. Until then people like me will be voting against the biggest spenders. And anyone looking at Obamacare and the recent push for higher taxes without cutting hardly any spending know that the biggest spenders are the democrats.
Again…simple my friend.[/quote]
That is completely fine, but you will also always have people like me wondering out loud why people think like this. How someone can be so against big spending but seem as if they are most against it when a certain side does it?
I mean Republicans are all out of the woodwork now on the national debt and we gotta decrease the spending and don’t raise my taxes cut the spending. Which is a great position to take. Except the left will tell you the spending is necessary. We need to raise the taxes because the spending is necessary. We NEED this and this and this.
Which is the same position the right took when they had power. We need the Iraq War, we need No Child Left Behind, we need stimulus checks, we need to bail out the banks, we need all this. Now, out of power, they are fully against big government. Because being against big government plays really well to say, but isn’t as popular when it comes down to brass tacks of actually doing it. And they are very against big government they don’t like. Make no mistake about it though, they are big spenders. Romney wouldn’t get specific on cuts because he had to tread lightly in regards to them and knew it. The right can get down with cutting government just like the left can…as long as it is precisely the stuff the government does that they don’t like!
I won’t get in the debate on who’s worse because it’s a stupid debate if you go in thinking both are bad. If we have two mass murderers do we focus on the fact that one guy murdered 10 and not 11 so he’s so much better than Johnny murder 11?
Again, we’re really bad, but not as bad as them doesn’t fly with me whether Democrats or Republicans are making the argument. [/quote]
Relax, we are just picking the best of the two. i’M guess many don’t like it but we don’t have a choice. Tell me do you think complaining on a message board is going to help you? Other than that what are you doing about it? Not voting? Tell me how does that help elect the best of the two people running?
I think we agree that change is needed in our system. But we do not agree on what to do until that change arrives. I’m guessing that you think ranting and raving and staying home when it’s time to vote will help, or maybe voting for a guy who is going to get less than 1% of the vote. I choose to look to the best of the two parties as I see it.
Now tell me which is the more logical choice?
I’d rather have my political voice count for something.
Should I say it again?
…Simple
[quote]ZEB wrote: Tell me do you think complaining on a message board is going to help you? Other than that what are you doing about it? Not voting? Tell me how does that help elect the best of the two people running?
I think we agree that change is needed in our system. But we do not agree on what to do until that change arrives. I’m guessing that you think ranting and raving and staying home when it’s time to vote will help, or maybe voting for a guy who is going to get less than 1% of the vote. I choose to look to the best of the two parties as I see it.
Now tell me which is the more logical choice?
I’d rather have my political voice count for something.
Should I say it again?
…Simple
[/quote]
Its the inconsistency with you I have a problem with ZEB. It’s why we see eye to eye on so very little. It seems as if almost every post you make is filled with all sorts of hypocrisies and inconsistencies. You HAMMER Obama for the debt, but didn’t say anything about it with Bush. You HAMMER Obama on Benghazi, but defended Iraq to the death. You HAMMER Obama’s decisions as commander in chief, but admonished others for doing the same to Bush as disrespectful and hurting morale. Government is the problem you say, except in all the cases where you think it is the solution. And I can’t help but think that if Obama had an R by his name on the ballot and not a D all the things he continued to do that Geogre W Bush did would be routinely defended instead of attacked.
Complaining on a message board? Isn’t that what we all do? How often have I seen you complain about Obama? Hundreds of times? What are you doing about it? You may call it ranting and raving and that’s fine. That’s exactly what I think when I see yet another post from you talking about LIBERALS, LIBERALS, DEMOCRATS, LEFT, LEFT, LEFT!!! Have you made an anti-left post over a thousand times? I’d say it’s close. What is THIS helping anyways? It’s yet another example of you being inconsistent as hell and it really boggles my mind. My posts aren’t helping anything, but yours are.
Talking to people on message boards is what I do to help the movement. Not wasting a vote on one of the two big party candidates does much more than “having my vote count!” Guess what, you’r guy and my guy have the exact same role now Zeb. Oh, Mitt got to eat lunch with Barack. I guess GJ doesn’t get to to do that. I volunteered for Ron Paul. Change won’t happen overnight and change won’t happen by not attempting to educate people. Isn’t that what you’re trying to do? If not what the fuck are you posting for? Cause you just really like to bitch to other people?
You’re telling me YOU’RE making the logical choice attempting to defend a shit party just because you think they are less shit? Fighting for a big government party because they aren’t as big government as that guy? I don’t think anything about your decision is logical.
I’d say simple, but it clearly isn’t. It’s something you’re struggling with more and more as this conversation goes on.