ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [224] -- Stormy Weather

[ Posted Friday, August 24th, 2012 – 15:34 PDT ]

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't it seem like the Republicans just keep right on raising the bar for craziness right up into the stratosphere? Things that seemed crazy just a few months ago now seem only mildly cuckoo, in the frenzy of stark raving looniness emanating from the right wing these days.

The truly amusing part of the week, though was the mad dog that did not bark in the night. Now, mankind has been attributing bad weather to angry gods since the beginning of time, pretty much. You could indeed make a rational argument that nature's fury is what caused some of these early religions to spring up. Even today, we have otherwise-well-respected religious spokesmen who are eager to speak to the nation and decipher what is the divine reason for things like hurricanes. That is, when the hurricanes aren't aimed at their big shindig. Haven't heard a peep out of these folks this week in identifying the reason behind Isaac... strange, isn't it?

What's even more astounding, for those who like to unlock the mysteries of coincidence, is where we were exactly four years ago -- heading into the 2008 Republican National Convention. Don't have an image of this in your mind? Here's one to look at. That's Hurricane Gustav, the second-most-powerful storm of the 2008 hurricane season. Because of the storm, both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney skipped the 2008 Republican National Convention, even through they were president and vice president at the time. Nobody wanted the inevitable comparisons with Katrina, which had arrived almost exactly three years earlier. The Republicans all but canceled "Day One" of their convention as a result.

Fast-forward to today, and we have a timeline: Hurricane Katrina. Three years later, Hurricane Gustav interrupts Republican National Convention. Four years later, Isaac threatens the first days of the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Draw your own conclusions.

In other batpoop-crazy news, we have a Republican judge (a judge!) in Lubbock, Texas who is ready and willing to lead his county into seceding from the United States if Barack Obama is re-elected president. He fully expects an armed confrontation, apparently, so he is already fully aware of the Civil War implications of his proposed plan. In fact, he goes even further back in history to explain what he is ready for: "I'm thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we're not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy."

You see what I mean? When Mitt Romney stands up and cracks a birther joke, it's almost nostalgic. You sort of smile wistfully and think, "Boy, that takes me back to a time when the craziest thing Republicans were saying was that Barack Obama was born in Kenya."

Because Republicans just keep outdoing themselves on the starkly raving front. So get ready for next week, because hot air has already been clocked at 90 m.p.h. coming out of the Republican Party -- hurricane-force twistedness. And the convention hasn't even begun!

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Barack Obama wins at least an Honorable Mention this week for his response to the Todd Akin controversy. Obama's line was the most quotable all week: "Rape is rape."

Senator Claire McCaskill gets at least an Honorable Mention for her good fortune this week. But good luck comes, at times, to those who prepare -- and McCaskill had run ads during the primary to entice Republican voters to hand her Akin as a challenger. That shows foresight, and those ads have certainly now paid off. It is still too early to tell what effect it will all have on Missouri's voters (yes, Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle lost, but Rand Paul won -- I'm just sayin'...). But McCaskill's crafty move in the primaries sure is looking pretty impressive right about now.

But we're going to hand the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award to Elizabeth Warren, who is making the best argument all Democratic candidates could be making at this point. Up against Scott Brown, who was very quick to condemn Todd Akin and call for him to drop out of the race, Warren began making her case. It's a great campaign theme, and it could work for a lot of Democrats out there. In a nutshell, what Warren is arguing (paraphrased, this is not an actual quote): "Look, Brown might not be the worst Republican, but he is a Republican, and quite obviously the extremists have taken over the party. If you elect him, he is going to help them pass all sorts of crazy bills. The Republican Party has gone off the deep end, and electing Scott Brown is only going to encourage them to further nonsense in the future."

For not only making this case within her own campaign, but for providing a template for many other Democratic candidates, Elizabeth Warren is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Elizabeth Warren is not currently in office, and our blanket policy is to not link to anyone's campaign site, so you'll have to search the web on your own for her contact information. We apologize for the inconvenience.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

We have two very minor Democrats this week that have earned their Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards.

First up is Kerry Gauthier, a Minnesota state representative, who recently got caught having sex with an 17 year old boy at a highway rest stop. After first vowing to continue his bid for re-election, Gauthier later decided that withdrawing from the race was the proper thing to do. While he did the right thing by stepping down, he still receives our first MDDOTW this week.

Next we have New York assemblyman Vito Lopez, who was found guilty of some pretty reprehensible sexual harassment charges by the Assembly's Ethics Committee. Lopez has been stripped of his committee assignments, and calls are increasing for him to step down from the Assembly as well. Do the right thing, Vito. Spend some time with your family, and resign. For now, enjoy your MDDOTW award.

[Contact Minnesota Representative Kerry Gauthier on his state contact page, and New York Assemblyman Vito Lopez on his state contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 224 (8/24/12)

We're going to use all the talking points today to address Todd Akin's comments from last week. But before we get to that, we'd like to strongly urge Democrats at a national level to go back and read last week's Medicare talking points. Because, from where I sit, Democrats are blowing this one, big time.

The facts are on their side. The argument is pathetically easy to make. So why aren't Democrats making it? Are they just filled with smug complacency that "the public has always trusted our party more on Medicare, so we don't need to fight back against what Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are saying out there"?

This is dangerous, and I can prove it with two words: "Death panels." Remember those? The non-existent thing that Republicans used to scare voters in 2010? Remember how that election turned out, guys and gals?

Ryan and Romney have their talking point honed to perfection. It is ridiculous, but it is being used effectively out there. Here is their take on things: "Barack Obama raided the piggybank of Medicare, to the tune of 716 billion dollars, and he's going to use it to spend on other people to pay for his Obamacare. We are going to fight to put that money back in to Medicare to save it for you."

That's it in a nutshell. You probably recognize it, because Republicans are so much better at sticking to their script. Now, maybe the Obama team has been countering this with a few ads in swing states. I live in California, so I haven't seen any. But the Democrats' main arguments on Medicare (see last week) have not percolated up to the national news. If Obama's running ads, they aren't catching the mainstream media's eye, that's for sure.

Obama had been doing a superb job driving the issues right up until Paul Ryan was selected. They need to realize that American voters might just start believing the nonsense the Romney/Ryan team is peddling on the issue, and they need to get out there and define the issue on their terms. As I said, this is pathetically easy to do.

But we spent all last week on that subject, so let's get to this week. Things are going to get a little edgy, I warn you. Because countering a fool like Todd Akin needs to be done as viscerally as possible.

 

1
   Don't say it out loud

When stripped bare, this is the Republican Party position on the issue of rape and abortion. If you omit the "legitimate rape" and "can't get pregnant" nonsense out of what Akin said (we'll get to those in a moment, never fear), the underlying political position is what needs to be addressed.

"Republicans have all been condemning Todd Akin for taking a political position that is part of their party platform. The Republican Party stands for amending the Constitution to ban all abortion forever. No exceptions for rape victims. No exceptions for incest. That is their party's position. Now, Todd Akin exposed his monumental ignorance on basic female physiology and biology, but beyond that what he had to say about rape victims is no different than what his party stands for, and what it would legislatively pass if it had the chance. So the message from the Republican Party to its own political candidates for office is: don't talk about our platform in public. Don't admit what our legislative agenda is. Don't tell the voters what we plan on doing, because you might not get elected. I can't figure out if this is political cowardice or just plain hypocrisy, personally."

 

2
   Step down from what, exactly?

If anyone tries to argue back against that first one, that somehow the Republican Party has absolved itself from Akin's sin by calling on him to get out of the Senate race he's in, here's the proper response.

"OK, wait, let me understand what you're saying... so, why, exactly did the Republicans all call for him to get out of the race?" [...pause for answer...] "OK, then why haven't any Republicans called for him to step down from the House committee he sits on that contains the word 'Science' in its name? How many Republicans have called on him to step down from his House seat? None? I certainly haven't heard any. So what Republicans are basically saying is the guy is too embarrassing for a job promotion from House to Senate, but that it's just fine to leave him in the House and let him sit on a science committee. Sounds like nothing more than crass political opportunism to me -- not any sort of principled stand against anything. Republicans are just fine with him staying where he is, they're just afraid of losing an election, that's all. It's nothing but politics -- otherwise there would be calls for him to quit his House seat, or at least strip him of his committee assignments. Haven't heard a single Republican suggest that, yet."

 

3
   Rape is rape

But let's not let Akin off the hook for the worst part of his inane statement.

"What exactly is 'legitimate rape' as opposed to any other sort of rape? What is an 'illegitimate rape' for that matter? What do Republicans mean when they try to limit legislation to 'forcible' rape or 'violent' rape? Why this obsession with defining a term that has already been adequately defined? President Obama said it best, this week: rape is rape. Period. And guess what? Women who are raped sometimes get pregnant. It's one of those pesky 'medical facts' -- deal with it. The real questions to ask ignoramuses like Todd Akin are: if your daughter was raped, are you the one who is going to tell her that she must carry the rapist's baby to term? Are you the one who is going to tell her she will see the eyes of her rapist staring back at her from her own child's eyes for the rest of her life? Because that is exactly what you want to condemn tens of thousands of women in America to -- each and every year. So, if your teenage daughter was a rape victim, you'd better be prepared to explain why that is the only option you would leave open to her. Because that is Todd Akin's future for America, and that is the Republican Party's official position as well."

 

4
   Rapists' bill of rights

I wrote an article back when Herman Cain was still in the race which addressed the main issue Todd Akin just raised. I ran the article again this Monday, because I really didn't have to change a word of it to fit the Akin situation. The meat of why I wrote this article is a quote from a book by Drew Westen, where he suggested a few ways Democrats might take on this issue, written after Republicans first put it into their party's platform back in 2004. This is really two talking points in one, written by someone who is much better at this sort of thing than I:

"My opponent puts the rights of rapists above the rights of their victims, guaranteeing every rapist the right to choose the mother of his child. What he's proposing is a rapists' bill of rights."

This is the logical entailment of the Republicans' "culture of life." Perhaps the most fundamental right of a woman is to choose whose children she will bear. Yet in the Republican morality tale, if a woman is raped, she must have her rapist's baby. She can give up the child -- who is her own flesh and blood, mingled with the DNA of her rapist -- or she can wake up every morning and see the eyes of her rapist in her child. Those are her two choices. Tell that to the father of a teenage girl in rural Virginia and see how he responds. It is a deeply repugnant, and deeply immoral, position. But its repugnance is only apparent when you make the associative links.

Here is another example:

"My opponent believes that if a sixteen-year-old girl is molested by her father, she should be forced by the government to have his child, and if she doesn't want to, she should be forced by the government to go to the man who raped her and ask for his consent."

 

5
   Small government, except for women in doctors' offices

This is the core hypocrisy in the Republican Party stance. Attack it at the root.

"Republicans are for small government, and, quote, getting the government out of people's lives, unquote. Except, that is, for women when they go to their doctor. Then we've got to have the biggest, most intrusive government imaginable. We've got to have the whole legislative and judicial branches of the government right there in the doctors' offices with that woman. Because we certainly don't trust the two of them to make medical decisions together -- we know far better than a woman and her doctor what is right for the woman's medical health. In fact, we've written a whole bunch of laws which dictate precisely what happens in that doctors' office. We mandate what the doctor has to say -- even if its not medically factual -- we mandate what has to be done, we mandate how long a waiting period must happen, we mandate who must be informed, we even mandate that a doctor -- for no medical reason -- invade a woman's body. This is the Republicans' idea of 'small government'? Really? This is 'not getting between you and your doctor' the way Republicans promised during the Obamacare debate? Really? Why is it that Republicans only seem to care about health care when they are limiting options for women, and dictating medically-unnecessary procedures, and forcing doctors to say and do things precisely as the legislature dictates? So much for all that 'small government' nonsense, eh?"

 

6
   War on Women

It's time for this particular slogan to make a comeback.

"Republicans deny that they're waging any kind of 'war on women' but it seems like every time you turn around, they're either passing a new law restricting women's rights or telling women what their exact definition of rape is. Why have Republicans spent so much time legislating women's rights away if it is not some sort of coordinated effort? Republicans can deny it until they're red in the face, but the facts remain. The Republican Party is on record stating that it wants to limit women's reproductive freedom in all cases and in all circumstances. Republicans have even tried to pass laws that would let hospitals stand by and watch women die instead of doing a simple procedure to save that woman's life. The Republican Party wants total control over all American women's reproductive choices -- and will leave them with no choice. That, my friend, is indeed a war on women, whether you feel like admitting it or not."

 

7
   Let me guess -- did you get "abstinence-only" training?

OK, that headline isn't really probably fair to Todd Akin, because he is old enough that he probably didn't get much sex ed in school at all when he attended (he was born in 1947). But it's still a point worth making.

"You know what the whole Todd Akin situation says to me? It is the most powerful argument you could make for comprehensive sexual education in schools. The man is profoundly ignorant of basic biology, it seems. Accurate information on sexual health -- and not merely 'abstinence-only' games -- should be given to every child in America so that we never again have to witness the spectacle of a United States Senate candidate who is so wildly misinformed about how women's bodies work that he blathers sheer nonsense about the subject on television. Todd Akin is now the poster child for the need for comprehensive, accurate sexual education in America."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

108 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [224] -- Stormy Weather”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fast-forward to today, and we have a timeline: Hurricane Katrina. Three years later, Hurricane Gustav interrupts Republican National Convention. Four years later, Isaac threatens the first days of the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Draw your own conclusions.

    So, if it helps their battle against the Republicans, Democrats will adopt religion..

    Yer right..

    Things ARE getting crazy!! :D

    "Look, Brown might not be the worst Republican, but he is a Republican, and quite obviously the extremists have taken over the party. If you elect him, he is going to help them pass all sorts of crazy bills. The Republican Party has gone off the deep end, and electing Scott Brown is only going to encourage them to further nonsense in the future."

    Political bigotry at it's finest.. 100 Years ago, Warren would have been sittin' pretty as a slave owner...

    "You just can't trust dem der black people"
    -Democrats, circa 1912

    "You just can't trust dem der Republicans"
    -Democrats, circa 2012

    Am I REALLY the only one who sees how bad it's gotten???

    Get more into this later... The wife beacons and SUITS awaits :D

    Michale.....

  2. [2] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Political bigotry at it's finest.. 100 Years ago, Warren would have been sittin' pretty as a slave owner...

    Slavery in 1912? Uh...what?

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    absolutely brilliant final point. rep. akin's ignorance is positively mind-blowing, and if ever there was a more poignant demonstration of the need for comprehensive sex-ed in all publicly funded schools, i have not yet seen it.

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    You misunderstand me. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the right-wing ministers who leap to blame hurricanes on the Democratic agenda ("God is ANGRY with our country because...") who all have been strangely silent all week -- and will continue to be next week, too. That's the "dog that didn't bark in the night"...

    As for your second point, you exhibit exactly the same bigotry here on a daily basis, so what, exactly is your point?

    The dictionary says:

    BIGOT: One intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, or opinion.

    Which sums up your stance on Obama -- everything he does must be seen in the absolute worst light possible, to the extent that you can read his mind and see what he is "really" thinking on just about every issue which comes up. What is the last issue you've given Obama the "benefit of the doubt" on? Somali pirates, maybe?

    Here's a quick test for you: you have complained that Democrats are trying to "divide" the country. Watch the Republican convention next week, and see if you can count how many times Republicans are divisive.

    Now, I make no pretense that Democrats are any different. This is what is called "politics" and is actually the fundamental basis of our modern (post-Andrew Jackson) American system of government.

    I saw a cartoon recently which depicted two fighters in a ring, a donkey and an elephant. The elephant had a black eye, and was whining to the referee, "He's not supposed to FIGHT BACK!"

    That sums up my feelings of Republican crocodile tears over "divisiveness." For my ENTIRE LIFE Republicans have been attempting to divide the country along lines of sex, sexual orientation, class, religion, background, ethnicity, race, and just about any other dividing line you'd care to name. It is FREAKING LAUGHABLE to hear them complain now, that Democrats are actually fighting back using the same tools Republicans have been using for DECADES.

    In other words, go peddle that bushwah somewhere else, pal. Cause I ain't buyin' it.

    Bashi -

    Oh, snap! (Do people even say that anymore?).

    Nice. Very nice. To get Michale's attention further:

    And the quarterback is TOAST!
    - "Die Hard"

    nypoet22 -

    Yeah, well, I was thinking along these lines, but had to temper it when I looked up Akin's age. There admittedly wasn't much sex ed in schools in the 1950s and 60s. But the argument is still valid, even if you can't personally hang it on Akin's schooling.

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Here's another quick quiz. What, exactly, would you be saying if a Democratic judge said the same exact thing that Republican judge just said in Texas, when George W. Bush was president? Be honest -- what would your opinion be, in both cases? See how it shifts? When will you denounce the nutjobs on the right with the same fervency you do those on the left? That is bias, right there, no matter how much you cherish your self-image as a non-partisan independent. I denounce Democrats who deserve it on a weekly basis, here on Fridays. When's the last time you tossed a Republican under the bus when it was richly deserved?

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    CWCunningham wrote:

    It is interesting that the GOP is obsessed with righteous regulations that focus squarely on the content of other people's underwear.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    The facts are on their side. The argument is pathetically easy to make. So why aren't Democrats making it? Are they just filled with smug complacency that "the public has always trusted our party more on Medicare, so we don't need to fight back against what Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are saying out there"?

    This has been a complete and nagging mystery to me. And, it could be said of any number of issues.

    I think the Democrats - including the president's re-election team and the president himself ... maybe even Biden, too, at long last - have given up on the majority of voters and decided that they need to play to the lowest common denominator in order to re-elect Obama/Biden. This is clear from the lame stump speeches I've heard from both of the principals who too often seem to think this election is one big joke, eager as they are to provide the punchline. Well, on a number of levels, it certainly is but, still ...

    I say forget about this low-bar strategy! Make this election about critical issues and force the voters to make an intelligent decision. If they're not capable of doing that, then so be it. Let Romney and Ryan have at it...there, I've been left with nothing else to do than to cut off my nose to spite my face. :(

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Slavery in 1912? Uh...what?

    To hear black Democrats tell it today, black people are STILL enslaved...

    Which is ironic, since it was the Democratic Party WAS the enslaving Party..

    Joshua,

    absolutely brilliant final point. rep. akin's ignorance is positively mind-blowing, and if ever there was a more poignant demonstration of the need for comprehensive sex-ed in all publicly funded schools, i have not yet seen it.

    I am constantly amazed at ya'alls ability to focus on one minute speck of reality when it gives ya'all the ability to castigate the GOP and not lay blame at the feet of the Democratic Party..

    Akin was heretofore a completely unknown representative and ya'all give his words the importance of Moses' Ten Commandmants..

    EVERY Republican on the planet has repudiated Akin's statement.

    So, try to paint the entire GOP with the Akin' brush is simply not going to fly. The American People see it for what it is. A desperate attempt to change the subject away from Obama's completely and utter fraking of our economy...

    But, by all means. Continue the Akin hysteria. Not only does it amuse me but, in the end, it will turn Independents and NPAs against the Democrats..

    CW,

    Which sums up your stance on Obama -- everything he does must be seen in the absolute worst light possible, to the extent that you can read his mind and see what he is "really" thinking on just about every issue which comes up. What is the last issue you've given Obama the "benefit of the doubt" on? Somali pirates, maybe?

    So, you are saying that a person can be a bigot against one person??

    If this is true, then EVERYONE is a bigot because EVERYONE doesn't like SOMEONE...

    It's my understanding that bigotry is, like racism, when someone despises a certain group...

    Given that, I guess you can say I am bigoted. I am bigoted against ALL politicians.. Just like I am bigoted against terrorists and child-molesters..

    But I have VERY good reasons for my bigotry, so it doesn't bother me much..

    As far as giving Obama the benefit of the doubt? Yep, yer right. I haven't done that since the Somali Pirates incident..

    NOT due to lack of desire, I can assure you.

    Due to the fact that Obama hasn't EARNED it...

    In that, I am of the same mind as the Navy SEALS.. So I would say that puts me in pretty good company.. Wouldn't you?? :D

    Here's a quick test for you: you have complained that Democrats are trying to "divide" the country. Watch the Republican convention next week, and see if you can count how many times Republicans are divisive.

    I never claimed the GOP wasn't divisive...

    It's ya'all who won't admit that Democrats are being JUST as divisive, if not MORE divisive...

    Hell, Obama himself stated he doesn't think he's being divisive... Which is hilarious, because in the dictionary under 'divisive' there is a picture of Obama and the entire Democratic Party...

    Now, I make no pretense that Democrats are any different. This is what is called "politics" and is actually the fundamental basis of our modern (post-Andrew Jackson) American system of government.

    I really need to start reading things in full before I respond!! :D

    Oh, snap! (Do people even say that anymore?).

    Nice. Very nice. To get Michale's attention further:

    And the quarterback is TOAST!
    - "Die Hard"

    Kudos on the quote..

    Yea, I used the 100 year constant on that quote..

    Doesn't change the meaning though...

    As I said to Bashin above, to hear black Democrats tell it, black people are STILL enslaved to this day..

    Here's another quick quiz. What, exactly, would you be saying if a Democratic judge said the same exact thing that Republican judge just said in Texas, when George W. Bush was president?

    Actually, my opinion would be the same...

    Both are laughable, yet intriguing. How kewl would a civil war be, eh!?? :D

    Of course, I am a big fan of End Of The World scenarios.. :D

    "And you would, if you didn't harbor this morbid fascination to face the end of the world."
    -Morgan Freeman, OUTBREAK

    When's the last time you tossed a Republican under the bus when it was richly deserved?

    Throwing Republicans under the bus would be kinda redundant, he?? That's what I have YA'ALL for!!! :D

    I think the last one I threw under the bus was Akin, when the first time you brought him up...

    You know me.. I'll throw ANY politician under the bus at the drop of a dime..

    It's just, in the here and now, Democrats are MUCH more plentiful targets...

    I OWE I OWE SO OFF TO WORK I GO :D

    Michale.....

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I OWE I OWE SO OFF TO WORK I GO :D

    And, for the record, I *DID* build my business, Mr President!!!

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    {{Break Time}} :D

    The problem with the Akin attacks is two fold..

    1. It completely ignores the ONE issue that concerns voters most. The economy.. It's a desperate and obvious attempt to change the subject, to focus on a VERY minor GOP flunky and elevate him to the equivalent of the GOP Presidential Candidate. It simply will fail..

    and

    B. It caters to a voting group that Obama already (pretty much) has locked up.. In other words, it does absolutely NOTHING for Obama...

    But, as I said, by all means continue focusing on this..

    Ignore the economy..

    Guarantee a President Romney...

    It works for me.. : D

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    RE: this issue of bigotry..

    I'll ask two simple questions...

    "All black people are evil and wrong."

    "All Republicans are evil and wrong."

    Is there ANY difference between those two statements??

    Is there ANY difference in the mindset that would produce those two statements??

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You're not fooling any of us, anymore. No matter how hard you try. Any credibility that you may have started with here has long since evaporated.

    Which is why you now have conversations with yourself, for the most part ... and with other low information voters, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.

    It might be a very good idea for you to cool it for a while and give everyone a break. Take a holiday from CW.com! And, come back refreshed and rejuvenated ... sometime after Thanksgiving when you famously do this site more good than harm. And, I mean that sincerely. I'm not trying to be facetious here.

    Take care of yourself, Michale and see ya in a few short months!

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I understand completely... It's hard to defend the indefensible.. But I have to admit, ya'all give it a good shot.. :D

    And, come back refreshed and rejuvenated ... sometime after Thanksgiving when you famously do this site more good than harm.

    I have a feeling that the Holiday Drive isn't going to live up to previous drives..

    What with President-Elect Romney and the shellacking (PT1) Republicans are going to inflict on the Democratic Party..

    Don't worry.. I will definitely do my part.. And THEN some...

    But I have a feeling ya'all are going to be just too damn depressed to match me. I might have to bump my per comment to $1 to make up for ya'all :D

    Michale...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    What with President-Elect Romney and the shellacking (PT1) Republicans are going to inflict on the Democratic Party..

    Grrrrrrrr

    What with President-Elect Romney and the shellacking (PT2) Republicans are going to inflict on the Democratic Party..

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW
    The facts are on their side. The argument is pathetically easy to make. So why aren't Democrats making it?

    I have a theory about this. I read somewhere that Democrats focus-group tested various approaches to the Ryan-Romney Medicare plan and the results were bad: what Ryan and Romney want to do is SO BAD that people literally will not believe it! So they don't know what to do.

    When your opponents plans are so bad they are literally not believable, it's both a very tough and very good position to be in ;)

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    When your opponents plans are so bad they are literally not believable, it's both a very tough and very good position to be in ;)

    Or, another explanation is that people really like the Romney plans and/or really HATE the Obama plans and are having trouble reconciling that with the fact that they have always voted Democrat...

    I'm a lifelong Democrat and I might vote for Romney
    The guy to my right had already struck up a conversation with another counter dweller and said: “I’ve always voted Democrat, but I’m worried about my business and Obama’s not showing me anything so I’m gonna give the other guy a chance.”
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/24/im-lifelong-democrat-and-might-vote-for-romney/

    Employing Occam's Razor, it's clear which explanation is more likely..

    Ya'all simply refuse to accept the possibility that the majority of Americans simply DO NOT LIKE how Obama and the Democrats have been governing...

    It's not racism...

    It's not messaging...

    The Majority of Americans simply DO NOT LIKE the policies..

    The sooner the Left accepts this factual reality, the sooner they can take steps to actually win the election...

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all simply refuse to accept the possibility that the majority of Americans simply DO NOT LIKE how Obama and the Democrats have been governing...

    Let me amend that to say "MOST" of ya'all refuse to accept the possibility yada yada yada yada....

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    The Majority of Americans simply DO NOT LIKE the policies..
    The sooner the Left accepts this factual reality, the sooner they can take steps to actually win the election...

    Lol I just laughed at you calling this a factual reality! You know that this is easily disprovable by looking at polls? Like raising taxes on the wealthy and not turning Medicare into a voucher system both have MASS public support? Just that, as was my point, the latter is so extreme that people don't actually believe that Ryan-Romney plan to do this...

    I'm a lifelong Democrat and I might vote for Romney

    These turn up every election. I can almost guarantee that, given how right the Republicans have gone, there will be more lifelong Republicans voting for Democrats in this election than the other way round...

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/25/why-this-lifelong-republican-will-be-voting-for-obama/

    I realised why this guy changed early in the article: Not long after the Occupy Wall Street protests began, and 15 months into my unemployment, I started to really pay attention to politics. I did my own research, checked out sources when I had questions, and paid attention to the news.

    Once you realise how much Republican stuff is pure rhetoric, because they can't find things Obama has done that they really disagree with, you would probably change your mind to...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know that this is easily disprovable by looking at polls?

    Yes, if you cheery pick the polls and the issue, you could probably find what you are looking for..

    But it wouldn't reflect factual reality on the economy..

    The economy is the key to this election..

    And, on the economy the polls and the facts are clear..

    Americans don't trust Obama and the Democrats..

    These turn up every election. I can almost guarantee that, given how right the Republicans have gone, there will be more lifelong Republicans voting for Democrats in this election than the other way round...

    Assumes facts not in evidence...

    Like I said, we'll know who's wrong and who's right in 73 days..

    Hope ya stick around for the Michale gloat-fest that is sure to follow. :D

    Michale...

    Michale...

  20. [20] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, try to paint the entire GOP with the Akin' brush is simply not going to fly. The American People see it for what it is. A desperate attempt to change the subject away from Obama's completely and utter fraking of our economy...

    umm, who do you think you're responding to?? i'm talking about using Akin's comments to highlight the need for sex education. my post (and even CW's "talking point" for that matter) didn't mention any political party, much less a presidential candidate. just one very ignorant representative making a series of very inaccurate statements, highlighting the need to preserve comprehensive sex-ed in all publicly funded schools.

  21. [21] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    CW,

    I denounce Democrats who deserve it on a weekly basis, here on Fridays. When's the last time you tossed a Republican under the bus when it was richly deserved?

    michale is a contrarian; he loves to get under people's skin and expose their political biases, no matter what they may be. his own bias seems to be the opposite of whomever he's talking to. i bet you five quatloos that over on the right wing sites he frequents, he's backing the bus over akin even as we speak.

    ~joshua

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    umm, who do you think you're responding to??

    Anyone who thinks that Akin's bonehead comment is somehow representative of the GOP in general and anyone who thinks that the boneheaded comment is somehow pertinent to the election...

    michale is a contrarian; he loves to get under people's skin and expose their political biases, no matter what they may be. his own bias seems to be the opposite of whomever he's talking to.

    What you are describing is an Internet Troll.. And I am as far from an Internet Troll as you are.... :D

    My views have always been consistent. I don't change my opinion just for the purposes of debate..

    I only change my opinions when I am presented with facts that show I am in error...

    Which happens quite infrequently... :D

    Michale.....

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    What you are describing is an Internet Troll.. And I am as far from an Internet Troll as you are.... :D

    My views have always been consistent. I don't change my opinion just for the purposes of debate..

    I only change my opinions when I am presented with facts that show I am in error...

    incorrect on the first point. internet trolls mess with people just because they can. you mess with people to educate them. so even though your methods may be a bit trollish, that's definitely not what i'm calling you.

    you may not change your opinions to fit the situation, but you definitely do change which of your opinions you see fit to share. this of course makes perfect sense, since left-wingers are already fully aware of right-wing hypocrisy, and vice versa. each side being unaware of their own blind spots, you see fit to let them know. yes, perhaps somewhat trollishly at times, but i stand by what i wrote. you're a skeptic, michale. own it.

    and on this particular issue, i notice that you didn't actually disagree with CW's talking point (nor my interpretation of it), you just chose to focus on something different. any politician of either party who says something particularly boneheaded will get skewered by the other party, no matter how high or low on the food chain he is. that's just politics.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    i bet you five quatloos that over on the right wing sites he frequents, he's backing the bus over akin even as we speak.

    You would lose that bet..

    With the exception of PC TechBytes, CW.COM is the only forum I post on...

    I have been booted from several, if that counts.. :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    Anyone who thinks that Akin's bonehead comment is somehow representative of the GOP in general and anyone who thinks that the boneheaded comment is somehow pertinent to the election...

    Uhm when the party is putting a ban on abortion even including cases of rape and incest on your party platform it is definitely an issue. It also reflects how far right and crazy they have gone...

    I only change my opinions when I am presented with facts that show I am in error...

    Actually what you usually do is try to find silly 'flaws' or 'bias' in the facts (birthers tend to be the worst at this) ;)

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    incorrect on the first point. internet trolls mess with people just because they can. you mess with people to educate them. so even though your methods may be a bit trollish, that's definitely not what i'm calling you.

    I stand corrected.. And thank you.. :D

    and on this particular issue, i notice that you didn't actually disagree with CW's talking point (nor my interpretation of it), you just chose to focus on something different. any politician of either party who says something particularly boneheaded will get skewered by the other party, no matter how high or low on the food chain he is. that's just politics.

    Agreed.. I think we are ALL in agreement as to the intelligence (or lack thereof) of Akin's comment..

    The only bone of contention is:

    A> How representative Akin is to the rest of the GOP

    and

    2> The relevance of Akin and his comment to the upcoming election..

    The answer to both is "NONE AT ALL"...

    Michale.....

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uhm when the party is putting a ban on abortion even including cases of rape and incest...

    Can you quote the relevant portion of the GOP Party Platform that says this...

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/21/republican-party-abortion-ban-endorsement

    Pro-choice Republicans expressed disappointment and said that the document does not reflect the beliefs of the majority of the party but a more extreme view of the right.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Republican party, which has supported a constitutional ban on abortion since 1984, has once again officially endorsed such a ban without exceptions for rape, incest or a threat to the mother's life, according to reports.

    Just when you thought the Republican Party couldn't get more moronic, they outdo themselves..

    Well, I have always thought that the Right's views on abortion were stoopid..

    I guess I have to acknowledge that they have left stoopid behind and are firmly embedded in crazy stoopid...

    Eh, what are ya gonna do.....

    Michale.....

  30. [30] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Apropos for most Weigantians:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW9-FOLG-iA

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You would lose that bet..

    With the exception of PC TechBytes, CW.COM is the only forum I post on...

    ah well, guess i'm a few quatloos poorer today. :)

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apropos for most Weigantians:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW9-FOLG-iA

    If I recall correctly, the time before last that I had an extended absence, you posted first, very concerned for my welfare...

    "You lil snookems, you!!"
    -Genie, ALADDIN

    :D

    Michale....

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pro-choice Republicans expressed disappointment and said that the document does not reflect the beliefs of the majority of the party but a more extreme view of the right.

    So, we agree.

    While it is part of the Party platform, it is NOT representative of the Republican Party as a whole..

    Which, I believe, is what I said in the first place..

    Michale.....

  34. [34] 
    Kevin wrote:

    You used to entertain me before you went Full Wingnut Metal Jacket :)

  35. [35] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    To all -

    I've been saving this for an appropriate moment. I'll be back later to answer comments, but just had to share this for now.

    Think arguing and trolls and flamewars are some new thing? Guess again. Here is a bit from my writing project, about the debate surrounding the proposed Constitution (called then the "New Constitution") in 1787 and 1788. The quote it ends on was from a one-page broadside some guy paid to have printed up. Plus ça change, plus ça même chose, eh? Enjoy.

    Amusingly enough, for any online blog reader today, the back-and-forth between opposing writers often got just as heated as any spirited comment thread of the present day. For example, a one-page broadside from “A Flatbush Farmer” contained nothing but withering contempt for the insults which had been flung at him by the Antifederalist “King’s County Farmer.”

    He has trod again in the same dirty path in which he first set out, as if he expected to carry his point by mere abuse. I well know your sentiments and feelings, with respect to a language of that kind, and I am convinced you will universally condemn the mean subterfuge of this man. -- It matters not whether I am a madman or a fool, whether I am in office, or in pursuit of an office: the point is, whether or not my arguments in favour of the New Constitution are founded on truth. -- If they are not, this King’s County Farmer ought to have endeavoured, by reasoning, to convince you of it. Has he attempted this? Or has he not contented himself with dealing out low, mean invective, against my character. He may rest assured, that such kind of attacks are, and ever shall be, treated with due contempt by me.

    :-)

    -CW

  36. [36] 
    LewDan wrote:

    CW,

    To save us all time could you just put the "A Flatbush Farmer's" quote into boilerplate and assign it to a "default reply" button?!

  37. [37] 
    statusquoteme wrote:

    Mr. Weigant, the cartoon you referred to http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/2012/08/17/819-mike-luckovich-cartoon-election-2012/ he has some great ones.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    You used to entertain me before you went Full Wingnut Metal Jacket :)

    Iddn't it interesting..

    A disagreement about a controversial scientific theory and, all of the sudden, I am a "Full Wingnut Metal Jacket"..

    Not to belabor the point, but....

    What kind of liberal are you?

    Michale.....

  39. [39] 
    statusquoteme wrote:

    Michale,

    "All black people are evil and wrong."

    "All Republicans are evil and wrong."

    Is there ANY difference between those two statements??

    Is there ANY difference in the mindset that would produce those two statements??

    A political party has a set standard of beliefs that the ones that call themselves such (mostly) agree on, they chose the label, right? Unless political affiliation is determined at conception.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    A political party has a set standard of beliefs that the ones that call themselves such (mostly) agree on, they chose the label, right? Unless political affiliation is determined at conception.

    So, you are saying that Republicans "CHOOSE" the label of "evil" and "wrong"??

    Your source for that... ahem.. interesting tidbit of information??

    Bigotry is defined as:
    stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

    That seems to fit most people around here to a "T"... Emphasis on "most"...

    Don't seen ANYTHING in that definition that would require said bigotry to be conception-based... Perhaps you have a different dictionary??

    Michale.....

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    And another great one passes...

    Neil Armstrong dies at 82...

    I am so unbelievably depressed, it's hard to bear...

    Michale....

  42. [42] 
    statusquoteme wrote:

    Michale, I wasn't commenting on the descriptors you decided to use, I was focusing on the two groups you used them on. Republicans choose (and chose) to be R/republicans, can that same one do so with their race? You asked if there was any difference in the two statements you proffered, that is one glaring difference. Ignorance is required for bigotry, it can blind us to the whole of the outside world, mirrors included. It may be one of the best coping mechanisms for those in the rabbit hole of bigotry.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    SQM,

    Ignorance is required for bigotry, it can blind us to the whole of the outside world, mirrors included. It may be one of the best coping mechanisms for those in the rabbit hole of bigotry.

    So, those who are bigoted against Republicans are ignorant..

    Yea, I could agree with that...

    But I still don't see the difference insofar as the definition of bigotry is concerned..

    Most everyone's feelings about the GOP here are textbook examples of bigotry... Like I have pointed out and provided factual data to prove.

    That '-D' or '-R' after the name makes all the difference. One only has to see the support from the Left for Obama being more Bush than Bush to know it's true...

    Me?? I hate both Partys.. Which is why no one here will every win in a debate.. Because they start from a position of "Democrats are good, Republicans are bad" and move on from that faulty assumption..

    There's a term for it.

    G I G O

    Garbage In, Garbage Out...

    Michale.....

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I have a feeling that the Holiday Drive isn't going to live up to previous drives..

    What with President-Elect Romney and the shellacking (PT1) Republicans are going to inflict on the Democratic Party..

    Oh, I think you're going to be in for a rude awakening, ole pal of mine.

    What d'ya say we make a little wager ... if President Obama is re-elected, then you have to pledge $2.50 per comment made between Thanksgiving Day and New Year's Day, inclusive. to be paid in full by the dawning of 2013.

    And, if Geithner also stays on as Secretary of the Treasury OR becomes the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, then each of your comments in said time-frame will be worth a full five bucks to the CW.com Holiday Fund Drive.

    If Obama is denied a second term, then it won't matter what you pledge per comment as I will personally ensure that your contribution to the fund will be monumental. It will be so huge, in fact, that Chris will be able to add a bloody edit function to the site so that you can correct your own mistakes for a change! Heh.

    Come on! I dare ya ...

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Plus ça change, plus ça même chose, eh?

    Indeed!

    And, yet, I can't help but think that there is something quite different about what's going on today ...

  46. [46] 
    statusquoteme wrote:

    Michale, There is a lot more that goes into human ventures than a word's definition offers, I was not defining bigotry, I was only trying to pull layers off. Projection is a suit no one looks well in, no matter their honorific. Is one that blindly pushes away an idea because it comes from 'the other side' a bigot, yes, does it mean they are ignorant-maybe. They do not always travel together, even if they do tread swimmingly.You say people here have problems with Republicans, maybe they have a problem with republicanism? Or what they perceive as blind trust in it. There is no way for us as humans that care about politics to have it otherwise, that D and that R encapsulate core beliefs of the party the representative has taken a stand with. One only has to see the support from the Left for Obama being more Bush than Bush to know it's true... Each administration is built on the previous, history makes foundations for the relevancy of context. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/15/would-paul-ryan-break-up-the-big-banks/ Does it matter he has an R? With what has transpired these past few years in banking combined with Republican smaller government mantra. This seems a more 'outrageous' Republican proposal than it would coming from a Democrat. One, that, nonetheless, is agreed upon in both parties. And for it to truly be enacted by both parties working together, not likely, and why? That R and that D mean a lot. I will try to bring this back to your initial two questions; a person hearing of a Republican speaking in favor of breaking up big banks would probably be taken aback, that same individual hearing a person that is black speaking of being in favor of such would more than likely be nonplussed. Why? Context. Evil and wrong? Wrong or evil? There is no debate to win, there is only forging ahead and finding new thoughts, be they reinforcing old ones or enlivening new ones. Is there a 'democrat' stance you agree with?

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is there a 'democrat' stance you agree with?

    I'll answer the easy question first and then get to the tough stuff throughout the day..

    There are many Democratic Party stances I agree with.

    Socially, I am very liberal and agree with most democrat principles, w/ some variations. I would wager that we agree on much more than we disagree..

    The "problem" is that, on the areas we disagree on, I would wager that we really REALLY disagree.. :D

    When it comes to issues of National Security, LEO, Military, Self Defense, etc etc etc I am very much Right of Center...

    Here in Florida, I am a registered NPA which means No Political Affiliation..

    Given the opportunity, I castigate both political Partys equally. It's a forgone fact that no one here will take the Democratic Party to task as much as I take the Republican Party to task.. With the exception of not being hard enough against Republicans, the consensus around here (with a few notable exceptions) is that the Democratic Party can do no wrong and the Republican Party can do no right...

    Our resident poet, NYPoet has summed up my position succinctly and quite accurately..

    I dislike Republicans, but I REALLY dislike Democrats..

    I'll get to the rest as time permits today..

    Michale.....

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    "Your stakes are indeed high, Captain."
    -The Provider, STAR TREK, Gamesters Of Triskelion

    I'll have to mull over your proposition. :D

    You might have hit upon the ONE way to limit my postings here.. :D

    I'll let you know when I have time to really think about things..

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    GOP winning national Medicare debate two weeks after Romney picked lightning rod Ryan

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/26/gop-winning-national-medicare-debate-two-weeks-after-romney-picked-lightning-rod-ryan/

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    Do you have anything at all to say about the link you provide?

  51. [51] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    CB,

    that's true, all the polls seem to show that the public believe ryan on medicare and disbelieve his detractors. whenever you do something that's so radical, people won't immediately believe it when they hear what it does, and will dismiss it as hyperbole. Obamacare, on the other hand, is much closer to the status quo, and as such is much easier to criticize, nevermind which criticism is true and which is false.

    at the risk of running afoul of godwin's law, the more dramatically terrible you tell people something is, the more difficult it is for them to believe you. it's easy to believe that obama is taking money out of one health program and putting it in another. it's not so easy to believe that medicare under ryan's plan would eliminate full medical coverage for seniors, which in fact it would.

    in that sense, the greatest challenge that democrats face vis-a-vis the ryan plan is to convince people that it actually does what it actually does.

    I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.
    ~Harry S Truman

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks for encouraging more empty links dropped in drive-by fashion.

  53. [53] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Thanks for encouraging more empty links dropped in drive-by fashion.

    so, you really want to hear what CB has to say? perhaps she'll oblige. as for me, i think it's an interesting question. i've looked at a few different polls, and it seems pretty accurate that people are not believing the reality of the ryan plan, while they're believing essentially inaccurate accusations about obamacare's impact on medicare.

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, I'd much rather read what Chris1962 has to say about this than to see another link dropped by this commenter in typical drive-by fashion.

    I can easily refute what Chris1962 has to say. Chris1962 understands this which is why we see so many empty links in place of real discussion and fact-based debate.

    I'm not questioning the accuracy of what the polls say about what Americans think about any particular issue or how far from reality their thoughts may be.

    By the way, why do you think so many Americans are confused about the benefits of Obamacare or about who will work to ensure the sustainability of Medicare?

  55. [55] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    By the way, why do you think so many Americans are confused about the benefits of Obamacare

    because it's very big, very partisan and does not accomplish what it claims, namely affordable care. i'm not blind to obamacare's benefits, especially for children, college students and people with chronic illnesses. many of its provisions are positive changes. it's certainly better than nothing. the trouble is, it's not what it was advertised to be.

    or about who will work to ensure the sustainability of Medicare?

    i think i answered that question above in [51]: the more dramatically terrible you tell people something is, the more difficult it is for them to believe you.

    ~joshua

  56. [56] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    Pro-choice Republicans expressed disappointment and said that the document does not reflect the beliefs of the majority of the party but a more extreme view of the right.
    So, we agree.
    While it is part of the Party platform, it is NOT representative of the Republican Party as a whole..
    Which, I believe, is what I said in the first place..

    Actually what you said, in addition to this, was that Akin and his stupid comments weren't pertinent to the election. I disagree on the basis:

    1. A ban on all abortions (with no exceptions) will be on the Republican platform at their convention.
    2. The newly anointed Republican VP candidate believes on a ban on abortions (with no exceptions).
    3. (1)+(2) = it is an election issue as it represents how wacko a chunk of the Republican party and their VP is. Remember if Romney is elected and something happens to him, this is the guy who will be President. A guy who thinks like Akin does...

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    mitchy,

    While we are likely of the same mind regarding abortion etc etc, I still maintain that the WORST possible scenario of a Republican presidency would still be mile and miles and miles and miles better for this country than an Obama second term...

    Gods willing, we won't have to find out exactly how bad an Obama 2nd term will be...

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    michty6 wrote:

    WORST possible scenario of a Republican presidency would still be mile and miles and miles and miles better for this country than an Obama second term

    Truthfully I don't particularly care about abortion, I think even debating it is a complete waste of time as it is an issue which there is unanimous agreement between experts in almost every field - the only 'debate' is created by religious fanatics. I just think it shows how crazy America is that one party thinks it's actually still worthy of debate and manages to drag America along with it in this sorry state of affairs...

    And no, the Republican solution is: let's continue the failed economic policies that we forced Obama into adopting (trickle down + austerity). This would be a disastrous result for both the American and world economic recoveries (my 2 articles that have been posted here pretty much sum up why I believe this...). For me the economy is still the key issue for this election. Abortion is an issue I use to point out something like 'you really want to continue listen to THESE guys on the economy when THIS is what they think about a simple issue like abortion?'

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    michty,

    Obama has NOT adopted the failed economic policies of the Republicans in the name of trickle down and austerity, not even by a long shot.

    I just wanted to be crystal clear on that.

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    You say that “Obamacare is certainly better than nothing.”

    The real trouble is that attitudes such as this coming from the left side of the political spectrum that belittle the accomplishment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and suggest that this is the end of healthcare reform instead of the beginning of healthcare reform - and similarly inspired attitudes on what this administration has done to stabilize and reform the US financial system and on any number of other issues - may end up being the reason that Americans will have to endure at least four years of more failed Republican economic policies and social policies inspired by a political party that is increasingly anti-Enlightenment.

    If the worst should happen and Romney/Ryan are elected, then those who espouse and promote such attitudes that fail to acknowledge the real accomplishments of Obama/Biden because the policies have not been perfect in the face of unprecedented financial crisis and Republican obstructionism will have only themselves to blame for what they have allowed to become unleashed.

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If the worst should happen and Romney/Ryan are elected

    elizabeth,

    believe it or not, that's not the worst thing that could happen to the country. culturally it's been great to have an african-american president, and i'd prefer an obama presidency over a romney presidency because of its impact on the supreme court, but i think obama's overall impact from a policy perspective has been negligible. republican obstruction or not, he has alienated the people who ought to be his base by governing overcautiously, courting wall street money and refusing to live up to his campaign promises. at this point, it would take some dramatic changes for obama to convince me that he deserves my vote. if he wins, more power to him. if not, then it serves him right.

    ~joshua

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mitchy,

    This election is going to be about the economy.

    Period.

    The only people who are going to be talking about abortion will be Democrats. And they will be largely ignored by Joe and Jane SixPack...

    Truthfully I don't particularly care about abortion, I think even debating it is a complete waste of time as it is an issue which there is unanimous agreement between experts in almost every field - the only 'debate' is created by religious fanatics. I just think it shows how crazy America is that one party thinks it's actually still worthy of debate and manages to drag America along with it in this sorry state of affairs...

    See!!?? We DO agree on somethings!! :D

    For me the economy is still the key issue for this election.

    And, we agree again!!! :D

    And, since the economy is going to be issue numero uno and Obama has PROVEN beyond any doubt that he can't handle the economy AND all the polls about the economy show Americans prefer Romney to Obama, the only logical conclusion is that Romney is going to win..

    This is supported by the UOC's prediction that has been accurate predicting the Electoral College results a whopping 89.6% of the time and has correctly predicted each presidential election since Reagan...

    Joshua,

    believe it or not, that's not the worst thing that could happen to the country. culturally it's been great to have an african-american president, and i'd prefer an obama presidency over a romney presidency because of its impact on the supreme court, but i think obama's overall impact from a policy perspective has been negligible. republican obstruction or not, he has alienated the people who ought to be his base by governing overcautiously, courting wall street money and refusing to live up to his campaign promises. at this point, it would take some dramatic changes for obama to convince me that he deserves my vote. if he wins, more power to him. if not, then it serves him right.

    Couldn't have said it better myself... :D

    "Stuart, don't agree with me. It just makes me doubt myself."
    -Michael J. Fox, SPIN CITY

    Michale.....

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    Yes, I think I had you pegged from the beginning.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    culturally it's been great to have an african-american president,

    Although, I would have to disagree with this part.

    Having THIS particular black president has created the worse possible outcome for race relations in this country.. Race relations have been set back 60 years... Racial equality has tipped to the other side of the scale...

    Although, to be fair, Obama himself had little to do with that.. It has been mostly caused by the immaturity and racism of the so-called "leaders" of the black community.

    Michale.....

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Truthfully I don't particularly care about abortion,

    My personal feeling is that, up until the fetus is actually a person (as I define it above), it's the woman's choice..

    Here in Florida we have a special license plate that says "CHOOSE LIFE" which is ostensibly a Pro Life Anti Abortion license plate. But when you really analyze it's actually a PRO CHOICE license plate. It acknowledges that it IS a choice, but just encourages people to choose "Life"...

    Ya just gotta love the irony..

    Michale.....

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Truthfully I don't particularly care about abortion,

    My personal feeling is that, up until the fetus is actually a person (as I define it above), it's the woman's choice..

    My bust.

    I took what you said to mean that you don't care FOR abortion...

    In that you don't care ABOUT abortion we are, once again, in agreement...

    Michale.....

  67. [67] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    I meant if I was to list issues important to me abortion would be near the bottom because, as far as I'm concerned, it has been a resolved issue amongst every single expert across the world for many decades now.

    Again my point (and the Democrats point) is: you have a party that has got such a simple, easy, straight-forward issue so wrong. The majority of Americans know abortion is a stupid issue that has already been resolved. So the message is that when one party has become so extreme that it gets such a simple issue horribly wrong then you (and voters) should consider what else they have gotten wrong and consider that perhaps their views on other issues are also extreme (which they are).

    And yes, this election should and will be fought on the economy. Obama is seeking a democratic mandate for his economic plan, including tax raises on the wealthy, since the Republicans blocked it first time round. I have two articles on this site now that demonstrate very clearly using data, reason and logic how disastrous I believe Romney's economic plan would be for the American and world recovery.

    Joshua
    believe it or not, that's not the worst thing that could happen to the country. culturally it's been great to have an african-american president, and i'd prefer an obama presidency over a romney presidency because of its impact on the supreme court, but i think obama's overall impact from a policy perspective has been negligible. republican obstruction or not, he has alienated the people who ought to be his base by governing overcautiously, courting wall street money and refusing to live up to his campaign promises. at this point, it would take some dramatic changes for obama to convince me that he deserves my vote. if he wins, more power to him. if not, then it serves him right.

    Sorry but this is a complete kop-out.

    Firstly, just referring to Obama as being 'culturally' good for American is nonsense and suggests to me you have bought into the views and rhetoric of those on the right regarding his Presidency. I am very critical of him on this site but that doesn't mean I am going to kop-out and blame Obama for Republican obstructionism.

    Secondly, it is YOU who Republicans have targeted their policies and tactic to for the last 4 years. The Republicans have blocked legislation and ran the worst House ever seen in the history of America, with the aim of alienating voters like you against the Democratic President. By kopping out you, and others like you, are basically giving in to these tactics and electing one of the worst Presidential candidates, with one of the most extreme right-wing agendas ever seen, based on this completely flawed logic and reason.

    Republicans deliberately divided and polarised American politics for 4 years. And based on your comments, you have decided to reward them for these tactics. I suggest you reconsider.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    I meant if I was to list issues important to me abortion would be near the bottom because, as far as I'm concerned, it has been a resolved issue amongst every single expert across the world for many decades now.

    Agreed...

    Again my point (and the Democrats point) is: you have a party that has got such a simple, easy, straight-forward issue so wrong.

    By "you" I assume you mean "you Americans"....

    So the message is that when one party has become so extreme that it gets such a simple issue horribly wrong then you (and voters) should consider what else they have gotten wrong and consider that perhaps their views on other issues are also extreme (which they are).

    I submit that the Pro-Choice fanatics are as extreme as the Pro-Life fanatics are...

    And yes, this election should and will be fought on the economy. Obama is seeking a democratic mandate for his economic plan, including tax raises on the wealthy, since the Republicans blocked it first time round.

    And the American people have spoken on Obama's plans..

    They don't like them. Period...

    I have two articles on this site now that demonstrate very clearly using data, reason and logic how disastrous I believe Romney's economic plan would be for the American and world recovery.

    I respect your opinion...

    But I (and the majority of Americans) disagree. We all view Obama's plans as the greater threat to this country than Romney's..

    If the election is on the economy than Obama will likely lose... I say "likely" because who knows what the future holds. Democrats might get so desperate that they resort to cheating... Wouldn't surprise me a bit..

    Republicans deliberately divided and polarised American politics

    And Democrats would NEVER resort to divisive actions, would they!!???

    Pardon me while I go throw up.... :D

    Obama's entire campaign is BASED on divisiveness... Obama can't run on his record, so he has no choice but to go negative 24/7..

    Romney, on the other hand, has a "sterling" (Clinton's word, not mine) record...

    Don't take my word for it. Read any recent poll on the economy and you'll see that Americans overwhelmingly go for Romney and the Republicans and not Obama and the Democrats..

    It all boils down to one thing and one thing only.

    The Democrats had their shot. They frak'ed everything up..

    Time to give the other team another shot...

    That's how the majority of Americans are looking at things...

    At least we have one comforting point.

    There is NO WAY that Romney could be any worse for this country than Obama has been.

    No way, no how...

    Michale.....

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Republicans have blocked legislation and ran the worst House ever seen in the history of America, with the aim of alienating voters like you against the Democratic President.

    Obama had TWO YEARS with a virtual LOCK on the government that NO Republican could TOUCH...

    And what did he do with it???

    Absolutely NOTHING... The ONE piece of garbage legislation that Obama DID push thru, by hook or by crook, 75% of the American people were against..

    Obama has ONLY himself to blame for the state of this country.. He had it all. Political capital up the wazzooo and a LOCK on all government..

    He blew it.. Pure and simple, Obama scrooed the pooch... It's all on him...

    Only those drunk on the Obama kool-aid can't see that...

    Michale.....

  70. [70] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Michty,

    Re. comment #67...
    Precisely, and bravo!

  71. [71] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    The last comment wasn't meant for you, it was meant for Joshua. I KNOW that the Republican tactics worked on you hook, line and sinker already - everyone on this board knows that! I just was surprised that Joshua was kopping out and giving into the tactics too...

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    The last comment wasn't meant for you, it was meant for Joshua. I KNOW that the Republican tactics worked on you hook, line and sinker already - everyone on this board knows that! I just was surprised that Joshua was kopping out and giving into the tactics too...

    The fact that the "tactics" worked on me **AND** Joshua has two possible conclusions..

    One is the one you postulate...

    The other conclusion is that they are not "tactics" at all, but rather they reflect the reality of what the majority of Americans believe..

    That Obama is an incompetent leader.

    If you ARE rational and not drunk on the Obama kool-aid, you MUST acknowledge the possibility that you COULD be wrong and I and Joshua are right..

    So.... Do you acknowledge the possibility that you might be wrong and Joshua and I are right??

    Hmmmmmmmmm?????? :D

    Michale....

  73. [73] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    The fact the tactics worked on you is not surprising because you already have a more extreme (and right wing) view of the world - so these Republican tactics, with accompanying rhetoric, fit into your extreme belief system.

    However, Joshua has made many comments on here that indicate he looks at things more objectively using facts and logic to justify things - not rhetoric and lies.

    Like I've said before many times, Obama has done many things worth criticising and I can and will criticise him (sorry Liz!). But to jump from criticising some of his mistakes to the statement 'if he doesn't get elected it serves him right' is basically buying into the right wing rhetoric without looking at the facts and tactics surrounding his Presidency and the circumstances around his mistakes rationally.

    Such statements also completely ignore the extremely dangerous proposals and policies being offered by the other guy - this is EXACTLY what the Republicans want people like Joshua to do; this is why Romney is so quiet on almost every single policy - he wants you to blame Obama for everything and let him and his ludicrous policies in the back-door while you're too busy doing this. And it saddens me to see it working on people like Joshua.

  74. [74] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    michty

    (just as an aside, it really annoys me when others here misspell your name - i mean really michale, it's the same first four letters as your own name, sheesh!),

    Firstly, just referring to Obama as being 'culturally' good for American is nonsense

    if you believe this, you really don't understand US culture. there's always been the mythos that any american child no matter who they were could grow up to be president. but there's also been a long-standing reality in the black community that they have been systematically excluded from such dreams. the fact that someone black is now president is so huge there's no possible way to overstate it. even more than the possibility of another nutjob conservative on the supreme court, the biggest reservation i have about not voting for obama is the fear that african-american children might feel like no matter how high they might rise, they are still denied the same consideration as their peers. when i second-guess myself about voting third-party, THAT is what most worries me.

    Secondly, it is YOU who Republicans have targeted their policies and tactic to for the last 4 years. The Republicans have blocked legislation and ran the worst House ever seen in the history of America, with the aim of alienating voters like you against the Democratic President. By kopping out you, and others like you, are basically giving in to these tactics and electing one of the worst Presidential candidates...

    if you think that the likelihood i'll vote third party stems from republican obstruction or media messaging, you really have not been paying attention. in the conflict between multinational corporations and labor, the environment or regular people, the president has sided with organized money every time. i'm not suggesting that he doesn't care, because i truly believe he does. it's just that through his words and actions, he has repeatedly slapped his friends in the face.

    as repugnant as the thought of a romney presidency may be to me, i will not vote based on that fear. even if other obama policies weren't equally corporate-aligned, it would be very difficult for me to vote for a guy to keep HIS job who (through race to the top and other bogus education "reform") has championed a policy that threatens my own.

    if all you brits and canucks want to second guess my voting decisions, perhaps it's time to immigrate. god save the queen.

    ~joshua

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    (just as an aside, it really annoys me when others here misspell your name - i mean really michale, it's the same first four letters as your own name, sheesh!),

    DOH!!! I never even noticed that...

    My bust.... :D

    Michty, :D

    Nice dodge...

    It's a simple question..

    I don't understand why you can't answer.

    Is it POSSIBLE that you are wrong and Joshua and I are right???

    A simple YES or NO is all that is required.. If you feel you must explain your answer, by all means..

    But simply dodging the question w/o answering is beneath any intelligent person...

    Michale.......

  76. [76] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Joshua

    Thanks for the name point-out, I'm always surprised by how so few people get this right!

    RE:The culturally good comment - we can forget that, as I can see your point more clearly now and it makes sense - I probably misunderstood it originally because of the context it was in.

    I can definitely sympathise with you because the American political system is so money dominated and the fact it is a 2 party system in the 21st century is ridiculous. For this reason I can see why you'd consider a 3rd party. However:

    in the conflict between multinational corporations and labor, the environment or regular people, the president has sided with organized money every time

    I think if you're looking at organized money vs the people you are both exaggerating the extent that Obama has sided with organized money a little (ignoring the cases where he hasn't) and underestimating the damage in this battle an election of Romney will cause. I'm sure I don't need to tell you how no party like ever seen before has stood for organized money and turning America into a plutocracy than the current Republican party and candidates...

    i will not vote based on that fear

    But I think you are voting based on a different fear - the fear that Obama will repeat the same mistakes again or play the game the same again. The sad thing about Obama's first term was it was the first two years which he had control over Congress. By the time he learned to play the game better, he had lost control and Republicans were playing their 'let's not pass any bills ever' game. I think you are basing your vote on the fear that Obama has not learned from his first term mistakes and will continue to be manipulated by the other side... If anything the way Democrats are conducting this campaign should be enough of a sign as to how they have crossed the threshold and are sick of the same old Republican games.

    if all you brits and canucks want to second guess my voting decisions, perhaps it's time to immigrate. god save the queen.

    I didn't mean to second guess, I was just surprised that you felt how you did but I can see why after some explanation.

    And don't get me started on the monarchy! ;)

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    But simply dodging the question w/o answering is beneath any intelligent person...

    "Yer speaking like a victim! No intelligent species gives up that easily!!"
    "Well, then. I guess I prefer not to die under a label of stupidity. By all means, lead on."

    -STAR TREK: The Final Frontier

    :D

    Michale.....

  78. [78] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    Is it POSSIBLE that you are wrong and Joshua and I are right???
    A simple YES or NO is all that is required.. If you feel you must explain your answer, by all means..

    No. I mean I already explained this, you and Joshua have completely different views and rational.

    For one, Joshua is criticising Obama for legitimate reasons (these reasons lead him to vote 3rd party); you are just following the right wing rhetoric and criticising him for nonsense reasons (leading you to vote for extreme right party who present these nonsense reasons).

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    No. I mean I already explained this, you and Joshua have completely different views and rational.

    OK, so there is no possible way that you are wrong in this...

    Seems to me you are exhibiting the same fanatical close-mindedness you accuse Republicans of....

    That's where you and I differ. I have an open mind and can entertain other possibilities up to and including the possibility that you are dead on ballz accurate and I am as wrong as wrong can be..

    The fact that you cannot even CONCEIVE of even the POSSIBILITY that you are wrong simply proves who is enslaved by political dogma and ideology and who isn't...

    In case you need a hint, you are the former and I am the latter... :D

    Mihcale..... {yuk yuk yuk}

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    My gods!

    http://www.soopermexican.com/2012/08/26/obama-remembers-neil-armstrong-with-a-big-picture-of-himself/

    Does Obama's narcissism know ANY bounds!??

    Obama's the greatest President since George Washington!

    Just ask him!!

    Nov 6 simply CAN'T come fast enough...

    Michale.....

  81. [81] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    I judge everything using facts and logic, not rhetoric. Flawed logic is flawed logic regardless of ideology. Here is an analogy of the Presidential race to show you how the difference in logic between you, Joshua and I:

    President follows economic policy (A) for 4 years. Then at election time he says "I wanted to pass economic policy (B) but it was blocked; give me a democratic mandate to now follow it"

    Challenger comes along and says "the economy has sucked under economic policy (A). Vote for me and I will fix it... with economic policy (A)! Also the President is a socialist, not born here etc..." Michale says "This is the guy for me! His rhetoric fits in perfectly with my extreme views but I'll convince myself that it is his economic plan why I'm really voting for him..."

    Joshua comes along and says "Do I believe that Obama will actually be able to push through his plans for economic policy (B)? I'm not sure, so I'm going to kop-out (;)) and vote for another candidate and his economic policy (C)..."

  82. [82] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    While we are talking of Neil Armstrong, I just want to posit a wild guess: do you by any chance believe that the moon landing was faked? ;)

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    For one, Joshua is criticising Obama for legitimate reasons (these reasons lead him to vote 3rd party);

    Joshua's reasons are his own. While they may appear political, I have a sneaky suspicion that some of them are personal.

    *MY* reasons are unequivocally and undeniably personal...

    I judge everything using facts and logic, not rhetoric. Flawed logic is flawed logic regardless of ideology. Here is an analogy of the Presidential race to show you how the difference in logic between you, Joshua and I:

    If you cannot even conceive of the possibility that you may be wrong, there is absolutely NOTHING logical or rational about your position...

    "When does confidence become close-minded arrogance?"
    -Bart Mancuso, DEBT OF HONOR

    While we are talking of Neil Armstrong, I just want to posit a wild guess: do you by any chance believe that the moon landing was faked? ;)

    Are you kidding!???

    Of COURSE it was faked!! It was all done on a sound stage in Hollywood..

    And if you believe that, I have some prime swampland in Florida that I want to sell you.

    I own it. No, really I do! :D

    Michale.....

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    While we are talking of Neil Armstrong,

    So, you don't want to comment about how President Obama thought that a picture of HIMSELF is a fitting tribute to the memory and accomplishments of Neil Armstrong??

    Michale.....

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Philly blogger supporting accused cop killers also behind 'Kill Mitt Romney" Facebook page

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/27/philadelphia-blogger-cop-killer-support-page-removed-from-facebook/

    No outrage???

    If this were a Facebook cage calling for the killing of Barack Obama, the Left would be apoplectic with hysteria...

    But the Left Wing MSM doesn't even REPORT it....

    The hypocrisy is so blatant it's nauseating...

    Michale.....

  86. [86] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale
    I thought it was a cool photo - Obama looking at the moon and remembering Neil Armstrong. Absolutely no idea how right-wing-nut-jobs have turned this into a news story at all, but then they are right-wing-nut-job news outlets so got to find something Obama is doing 'wrong' everyday to talk about. Plus I'd guess they think the moon landing was a conspiracy anyway - maybe that's why their unhappy with a photo of Obama looking at the moon...

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    You see, it's really simple...

    You accuse me of buying into the Right Wing fanaticism...

    But then YOU buy into the LEFT Wing fanaticism...

    Yea, yea yea.. You claim you have logical and rational reasons for your beliefs..

    Guess what?? So do I!!!

    The only difference is, YOU cannot concede the possibility that you are wrong...

    I can...

    So, WHO is the fanatic??

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought it was a cool photo -

    Of course, you do.. It's OBAMA, after all. ANY photo of Obama is a cool photo to you. You are drunk on the Obama kool-aid...

    But to those who don't drink kool-aid of ANY kind, it's narcissistic up the wazoo....

    Michale.....

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama voters reject 'hope and change' in new documentary

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/27/obama-voters-reject-hope-and-change-in-new-documentary/

    Don't tell me.. Let me guess..

    They are ALL Right Wing fanatics... Even the ones that are Democrats, right!??

    You just don't get it...

    Many MANY on the Left are as disappointed in Obama as I am. As Joshua is....

    You sticking your head in the sand, plugging your ears and saying, "nyaaa nyaaa nyaaaa I'm not listening to you" is not going to change that simple fact..

    Beyond all the "Right Wing Rhetoric", real or imagined, there are millions and millions of Democrats AND Independents/NPAs who are NOT happy with Obama and intend on either staying home or voting Romney...

    No amount of ya'all's hysterical claims of "IT'S ALL RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA!!!" will change that one simple fact...

    Get used to the idea of President Romney...

    Michale.....

  90. [90] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Anyone know a word for "beyond self-parody"?

  91. [91] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Obama voters reject 'hope and change' in new documentary

    a new film by CITIZENS UNITED?

    yikes, i don't think you want to go THERE.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unclosed attributes!

    The BANE of my existence! :D

    Michale......

  93. [93] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    Of course, you do.. It's OBAMA, after all. ANY photo of Obama is a cool photo to you. You are drunk on the Obama kool-aid...
    But to those who don't drink kool-aid of ANY kind, it's narcissistic up the wazoo....

    Just read some of the comments at that ignorant dumb-ass Obama Armstrong site that you posted. I think you'd get along with them really well:
    Note the Islam symbolism with moon and star
    Obama was 8 years old and attending a muzloid school in Indonesia when Apollo 11 went to the moon
    Remember, he's the guy who shut down the manned space program to turn MASA into ah outreach to Muslims program.

    But no - I'm wrong and it definitely isn't a right-wing-nut-job article lol. Open your eyes man!

    Many MANY on the Left are as disappointed in Obama as I am. As Joshua is....
    You sticking your head in the sand, plugging your ears and saying, "nyaaa nyaaa nyaaaa I'm not listening to you" is not going to change that simple fact.. Beyond all the "Right Wing Rhetoric", real or imagined...

    I know I can't believe how many times I've said this - we on the left have LEGITIMATE reasons to criticise him, since he's governed from the centre-right. People like you on the far right don't, so you just make stuff up and put forward the most extreme poorest Republican candidates ever seen...

  94. [94] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Thought this was a good article explaining why Republicans have gone uber-extreme in 2012: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/2012-or-never-for-gops-white-base.html

  95. [95] 
    michty6 wrote:
  96. [96] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [8] -

    Oh, PUH-LEEZE. Please do a search on your own commentary here on this site, on what "the Left" thinks. One guy, out on the fringe, says something provacative, and you smear the entire left side of the spectrum with his or her comments. So, I have to ask, how does it feel to have that done against your side? Pretty unfair, right? Well, you might keep that in mind whenever you slam "the Left" for one person's comments, here.

    Here are two measures of the hypocrisy of the GOP as far as Akin is concerned: how many Republicans have called for Akin to step down from either (1) his committee assignments in the House, or (2) his House seat altogether? My answer, so far, is "none" -- proving without a shadow of a doubt, this is all political posturing from the Right. If the guy was that bad, or said something that horrendous, they'd be trying to drum him out of the party. They're NOT. That PROVES their hypocrisy. End of story.

    As for your comments on uncommitted voters, seen a poll of women recently? The GOP ain't doing so well, pal.

    Actually, your comments on bigotry got me thinking. See Monday's column. I had to look it up in the dictionary, but was surprised at what I found.

    Here's another quick test for you: if the news organization who "outed" the SEAL who wrote the book were anyone other than Fox News, what would you be saying about them now? I haven't noticed you denouncing Fox News due to their leak...

    As for Obama labeling himself not divisive, well, that's what politicians do to get elected. See George W. Bush ("compassionate conservatism") for comparison. Not much of that "undivisiveness" ever happened under Bush, did it?

    [10] -

    "B. It caters to a voting group that Obama already (pretty much) has locked up...."

    You mean "women"? That's a pretty big group for the GOP to give up on, isn't it?

    Heh.

    [13] -

    "President-Elect Romney"

    Oh, you crack me up. If that were so, our Holiday Drive would be a banner year, that's my guess.

    [16] -

    Oh, that game is too easy to play: "Americans really don't like Romney. Period."

    Heh.

    [19] -

    OK, this is getting annoying. "Cheery" = full of good cheer. "Cherry" = a fruit grown most notably in upper Michigan. Also has sexual referents.

    It's "cherry picking" or even "cherry-picking"... but only one "E", if you please....

    nypoet22 [21] -

    BWAR-Har-har! I'd love to know if this were true...

    Michale [24] -

    I have been booted from several, if that counts..

    Why does that not surprise me? Heh.

    [26] -

    Bwah hah hah! And the answer to that is: "You wish!" We'll see who's right come November....

    [27] -

    Michale, Michale, it's in the freakin' party platform, for Pete's sake... here's the language:

    "THE SANCTITY AND DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFE

    Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children."

    That would be a Constitutional Amendment -- which would trump any state or federal law. You'll notice there are no exceptions. And any state or federal law which provided such exceptions would be ruled unconsitutional, should this amendment pass. Rape victims, incest victims, life-of-the-mother excpetions -- none would apply. That is the text. Deal with it.

    [29] -

    Oh, I see you have dealt with it... after a fashion....

    [33] -

    That's a bunch of happy horseshit. Would you give the same "pass" to a Democratic Party platfrom document? I think the answer to that would be "no" -- you'd instead spend time ranting and raving about what the "Left" was plotting for the future of America. That's bias, my friend, right there.

    I mean, seriously, listen to yourself: "While it is part of the Party platform, is is NOT representative of the Republican Party as a whole." I'm going to be reminding you of those words, for a long time to come, when you attribute some nutjob to "Lefties in general, and the Democratic Party in particular!" So be warned, those words are going to come back to haunt you.

    OK, I will answer the rest of these later. I was up at 4:00 AM for that Jamaican interview, so I'm going to bed now... I'll pick up where I left off tomorrow, promise...

    -CW

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    a new film by CITIZENS UNITED?

    yikes, i don't think you want to go THERE.

    Why not??

    The Left just loves THEIR SuperPACs..

    What makes the Left's SuperPACs all goodness and light and the Right's SuperPACs the epitome of all that is evil??

    Michty,

    People like you on the far right don't,

    Let me ask you something, Mich...

    Does a person from the "Far Right" believe that gays should be allowed to marry??

    Does a person from the "Far Right" believe that a woman should be able to choose an abortion?

    These are just a couple of the many MANY beliefs I have that prove, beyond ANY doubt, that I am not what you are trying to label me..

    You, on the other hand, haven't shown ANYTHING that would allow me to think that you are not just another drunk Obama-bot...

    You say you have criticized Obama?? I see no evidence of that. The only time ya'all (with one exception) are critical of Obama is when he is not tough enough against the Right... THAT's yer only criticism of Obama. That he doesn't stick it to the Right good enough or often enough..

    Slam the Right all you want. Hell, more often than not, I'll join you in it..

    But you simply cannot deny that they will win the election this Nov. Because, as you yourself have stated, this election is going to be all about the economy. And all the polls that ya'all seem to cherrish (:D) so much ALL say the same thing.

    Americans don't trust Obama and the Democrats on the economy..

    That is ONE fact that you simply cannot spin away..

    So, have your fun. Call me all sorts of names..

    Like the old saying goes, "He who laughs in November, laughs best.."

    It's an old saying I just made up. :D

    Michale.....

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    we on the left have LEGITIMATE reasons to criticise him,

    .... IN YOUR OPINION...

    You see, THAT is your entire problem..

    You are so enslaved by political dogma and ideology, you simply CANNOT see beyond your own beliefs..

    There is a very VERY thin line between a religious fanatic and a political fanatic..

    ONE thing they have in common is the unassailable belief that THEY are god's chosen one and that anyone who has a differing should be cast into the fiery pits of hell for eternal damnation..

    Now, who here amongst us has that attitude about people with differing political views??

    Hmmmmmm Everyone but me... :D

    Well, one or two others...

    Until you can concede that you could possibly be wrong, the label of FANATIC is squarely and securely affixed to your head...

    I am going to love to see ya'all come 7 Nov... :D

    Michale.....

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    a new film by CITIZENS UNITED?

    yikes, i don't think you want to go THERE.

    Did you read it??

    NO Righties mentioned, NO conservatives interviewed..

    It's all statements and interviews from DEMOCRATS and Independents/NPAs...

    Michale.....

  100. [100] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The Left just loves THEIR SuperPACs..

    Nonsense. Perhaps you'd care to look at what the President thought of Super-Pacs? Clue: he was against them from day 1. Only in February this year (very late in the game) did he succumb.

    Fwiw Republicans used to be against them too before they went nut-job-crazy-extreme-right. McCain actually passed the legislation that was challenged by Citizen's United. But shhhhhhh let's forget that Republicans used to have sensible Conservative policies. The individual mandate is evil now and money in politics is great! Don't mention the past and history, keep telling people that's what we've always believe in (this process is called 'Romneyism').

    Does a person from the "Far Right" believe that gays should be allowed to marry??
    Does a person from the "Far Right" believe that a woman should be able to choose an abortion?
    These are just a couple of the many MANY beliefs I have that prove, beyond ANY doubt, that I am not what you are trying to label me..

    You don't believe gays should be allowed to marry! You believe that rewarding them equal rights for their 'lifestyle choice' isn't right. This is far right nonsense 101.

    You, on the other hand, haven't shown ANYTHING that would allow me to think that you are not just another drunk Obama-bot...
    You say you have criticized Obama?? I see no evidence of that.

    I'm about done discussing with you again. You're a far-right robot who repeats the same rhetoric over and over and over again hoping they will stick. I think on almost every single thread now I've criticised Obama. AND almost every time I have pointed out that I have legitimate reasons to criticise him - you on the right don't, so you make them up. Let's see in this thread try reading posts 76, 78, 93 (not that many in this thread since it started off being about abortion) without your far right robot bias...

    we on the left have LEGITIMATE reasons to criticise him,
    .... IN YOUR OPINION...

    Well yes of course. But this is from observing you on here every day spouting made up crap about Obama. There was 1 thread where I was goading you into naming ONE policy of Obama's you disagreed with and you couldn't, avoiding it over and over again. Instead you prefer to buy into right-wing-nonsense-rhetoric like 'he's a socialist' 'he is un-American' etc which any rational and logical person can see are complete rhetorical crap with no factual relevance.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm about done discussing with you again. You're a far-right robot who repeats the same rhetoric over and over and over again hoping they will stick.

    Key word being "AGAIN"...

    All you have is name-calling.. You can't address the message, so you attack the messenger...

    Classic tactic of those who know they are wrong.. :D

    Michale.....

  102. [102] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Nope when the message is the same repeated nonsense over and over and over again (with not a shred of evidence to back it up) I get sick of bothering to reply in a rational and tolerant manner.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, if I may be allowed.... I would like to go off politics for a moment and get some real sincere advice from fellow Weigantians...

    And, since FTPs are usually FFAs anyways.....

    Oh well, here goes...

    I have recently come into some money. I have always wanted to install a completely independent, yet Grid-Tied Solar power system for my house.

    My house is perfectly situated for such a system. I have a perfect East-West exposure that is ideally suited for PhV cells covering both sides of my roof. Being in Central (North) Florida, the sunny days outnumber the non-sunny days by a wide margin...

    So, all in all, I think my home is an ideal candidate for a complete solar powered system..

    I have done a LOT of research, but I am always a sucker for real-world, real people experiences..

    So, I am asking.

    Does anyone have any experience, expertise or thoughts on solar powered systems in general and maybe specific companies to call, companies to avoid, etc etc..

    I am a sponge and I want to soak up knowledge..

    "Anyone??? Anyone??? Beuhler???"
    -Teacher, FERRIS BEUHLER'S DAY OFF

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does anyone have any experience, expertise or thoughts on solar powered systems in general and maybe specific companies to call, companies to avoid, etc etc..

    For the record, I am thinking of costs somewhere between $20K and $30K...

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    statusquoteme wrote:

    Michale [47]Socially, I am very liberal and agree with most democrat principles, w/ some variations.
    So you are pro-choice, pro homosexual adoption and marriage, pro drug legalization? Though the last one is more of a libertarian stance than a Democratic one, but that's because few could be elected nationally with such a stance. What, specifically, do you agree with?
    You listed what you were on the very right with as When it comes to issues of National Security, LEO, Military, Self Defense, etc etc etc
    On these, yes, we probably do disagree a lot, National Security could go back to Democratic social principles i.e. privacy invasion as bad-but that is a Republican (Tea Party, infused) concern now, for some, as well. A murky area for sure. The military should be downsized, but then there would howls of the loss of jobs rather than the true and lamentable waste of money that is given to the military machinery. When we are fed with such fallacy that the defense of our country would slip to nil if funds were cut, there is no way to advance on such a topic (let alone the fact of what those government driven jobs mean for the various representatives of districts throughout the nation.) What does LEO mean? I went searching for the term, but failed in finding an explanation.For some reason my posted comments do not reflect the preview of my comment when it comes to using HTML BR, the italics at least work, it may be my Firefox and the add-ons I am using, I will post with Chrome next to find out.

  106. [106] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    pro-choice, pro homosexual adoption and marriage, pro drug legalization? Though the last one is more of a libertarian stance than a Democratic one

    actually, they're all libertarian stances.

    Did you read it??
    NO Righties mentioned, NO conservatives interviewed..
    It's all statements and interviews from DEMOCRATS and Independents/NPAs...

    yes, i read the article. i don't care which party supports the PAC, nor which party the interviewees were members of. what matters to me is that Citizens United is the catalyst responsible for the end of mccain-feingold and the strengthened hegemony of money in politics. Citizens United is the poster child for a trend that is harmful to every american, no matter what letter comes after their name.

  107. [107] 
    statusquoteme wrote:

    nypoet22
    True, they are all supported by libertarians, I was only highlighting that pro-legalization is more outwardly supported by libertarians than Democratic politicians. I was trying to think of what could be considered democrat/ic social positions, those were the three that came to mind first. And for a test to see if Chrome works where my Firefox doesn't.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Status,

    So you are pro-choice, pro homosexual adoption and marriage, pro drug legalization?

    Yes, yes and no...

    I am a former cop (is there truly such a thing?) so drug legalization is a bridge too far for me..

    On these, yes, we probably do disagree a lot, National Security could go back to Democratic social principles i.e. privacy invasion as bad-

    Let's be accurate here...

    Privacy invasion is only bad when it's a REPUBLICAN president who is doing it.

    As we have clearly seen, when it's a DEM president that's doing it, the Left is perfectly fine with having everyone's privacy invaded...

    Can you say TSA??

    What does LEO mean?

    Law Enforcement Officer. Fancy way of saying "Cop" :D

    Joshua,

    Citizens United is the poster child for a trend that is harmful to every american, no matter what letter comes after their name.

    Well, that makes TWO of us who feel that way. :D

    Michale....

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]