ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

Embracing Bigotry

[ Posted Monday, August 27th, 2012 – 17:23 PDT ]

America's oldest pastime is not baseball, or football, or indeed any professional sport. It is not going to the movies, or watching television, or spending time on the internet. It's not communicating with each other via email, telephone, or any other method. America's oldest pastime will be on full display for the next two weeks, because before any of the rest of these things even existed, America has had a love affair with politics that endures and lives on to this day. But politics -- especially as practiced during the national conventions -- is nothing more than intolerance and bigotry writ large. But, unlike the more virulent forms of bigotry, political bigotry is not only celebrated in America but actually downright inevitable -- or at least, it has been since our country began.

The internet has been widely used for less than a quarter-century. Email, perhaps a decade longer than that. The telephone's been around more than a hundred years, movies for roughly the same century, and at some point along the way radio and television were added to the mix. Before the telephone, the miracle invention was the telegraph, which provided the first near-instantaneous news network in the country. Professional sports came into their own in the 1900s as well, with baseball notably reaching back to the late 1800s. But politics has been around since before our country was born. Even more important: without politics, our country never would have been born.

Depending on how you define your terms, politics (and politicking) have been a force in America since either the mid-1760s, since the mid-1770s, or since the Constitution was adapted in the late 1780s. Politicians actually engaging in politics was frowned upon back then, but it took place all the same. For a long time, "electioneering" (as it was then called) was a very dirty word in American politics -- but it certainly wasn't the only dirty word being used politically at the time (see, for instance: Thomas Jefferson, Sally Hemings). It wasn't until Andrew Jackson's time in the 1820s that politics truly burst onto the American scene with all the traditional trappings we now enjoy (national conventions, national organized political parties, full-blown campaigning, election paraphernalia from red-white-and-blue bunting to campaign biographies to campaign songs to dozens of items you could purchase with your candidate's name and face on them). But, since then, this circus has never stopped.

For the next two weeks, we'll see both sides occupy center ring of this circus, as the Republicans and then the Democrats hold their quadrennial bash. While the spotlight is on each party, they will offer up what now amounts to a multi-day infomercial, in an attempt to convince American voters of the righteousness of their way of thinking, and the wrongheadedness of the other side's viewpoints. Part of the fun is the intellectual nature of the crassness of the spin. That sounds contradictory, but when you think about it, there wouldn't be any point to spin if it wasn't meant to convince the voter of your way of looking at things. Sure, spin can be dirty and muddy and all of that, but it is also an attempt to convince people -- by hook or by crook, by sacred truth or by Big Lies -- that you are right and those other fellows are wrong.

The very fact such spin exists showcases how deeply Americans feel about politics. If there were no convincible voters out there, then there simply wouldn't be any point spinning, would there? The amount of people in America who decide which candidate to vote for in the last days before the election would probably shock partisans on both sides. But you have to wonder: if people have so little connection to the person they vote for, why do they bother voting at all? The answer is a deep-seated sense of duty and participation in American politics in millions of people. This goes beyond metaphors like the people who watch the Super Bowl who don't care one whit about the game and are merely watching to be entertained by the commercials. At least the commercials (some of them) do entertain. But voting isn't a passive activity -- it requires action on the part of the voter that is an expenditure of free time and gives little or no immediate reward to someone who isn't deeply vested in one candidate or the other. The conventions exist to catch the passing fancy of these voters, and all the other millions who simply haven't been paying any attention to the election yet because they've been busy living their lives. The spin from both sides will be designed to draw these voters in and convince them to make the effort to vote this year -- for their side.

At heart, political conventions are the last remaining bastion of acceptable free-floating bigotry in America. Now, please note, I am not using this word to denigrate the Republicans or the Democrats specifically, nor am I suggesting either party is guilty of racism, sexism, or any of the other myriad "-isms" that bigotry usually refers to in modern usage. But my dictionary defines the word bigot as: "one intolerably devoted to his own church, party, or opinion" and gives as synonyms: "fanatic, enthusiast, zealot." Note that word "party" in there. Virtually everyone attending the two conventions (excluding the media, one is supposed to assume) will be devoted to their party, and their party's opinions. Appearing on our television screens will indeed be enthusiasts, fanatics, and even the occasional zealot. On both sides, mind you. You can quibble about the "intolerably" part of the definition, but most of the conventioneers strike me as a pretty intolerant bunch, when it comes to giving the other sides' arguments the benefit of the doubt (or even common politeness).

There are other intolerant groups in America, and other gatherings to celebrate such intolerance. Bigotry (as popularly defined) still has its adherents, and groups of racists (or other "-ists") still do take place here. But they aren't covered for three days on prime-time television. They simply don't have the reach or the impact of the American political system. Raw, naked, in-your-face intolerance for others' opinions is actually pretty rare on the airwaves, outside the realm of politics. But that's exactly what will be on display for the next two weeks.

Both sides would, of course, cringe from being slapped with the label of bigotry. "We're tolerant of the other side's opinions -- we just think they're idiots to believe such misguided moose poop," they will tell you, in all sincerity. There ought to be a term for such "tolerance," and it should be closely related to the phrase "crocodile tears." In actual fact, the bigwigs in both parties will sweat bullets throughout the entire convention week, in mortal fear of some party representative exhibiting their party's intolerance in too stark and noticeable a manner. One fire-breathing speech that goes off the rails, and millions of moderate voters in the suburbs might be lost, to put this another way (Pat Buchanan's name usually gets mentioned as "Exhibit A" for this sort of thing). Gauzy, family-oriented videos will be more the order of the day, although the delegates in the audience will doubtlessly be served up at least moderate heapings of red meat in between the schmaltz.

Conventions have many functions, of course. Other than party paper-pushing (proposing platforms which nobody will ever read, for instance), it all boils down to two major goals: convincing the convincibles among the American electorate, and stoking the fires of partisan bigotry among the party's base voters. High-flown words and fuzzy concepts will abound. Which leads to a warning: don't anybody try a drinking game using the word "freedom" or the phrase "I built this" during the Republican convention, or "Medicare voucher" or "middle class" during the Democratic convention, as this will be guaranteed to land you in a hospital before the night is over.

All kidding aside, though, I will be enjoying the next two weeks along with millions of other Americans. I will even be attending the Democratic National Convention as a member of the press, so I will see the party (in both senses of the term) up close and personal. I will be largely cheering for one side and booing the other, even while I attempt to maintain my reality-based perspective on the whole scene for my readers. But worshipping at the altar of reality means seeing things as they are. And it's hard to argue that what will be on display for the next two weeks will be the last acceptable outlet for Americans to get in touch with their inner political bigot. But this bigotry is not based on what color your skin is, what religion you happen to believe, or even what sports team you root for -- it is instead based on the eternal American self-confidence that your political opinion is the right one, and your vision for the future is the only possible answer to America's problems. These feelings run deep, and this streak of righteousness in the American public even pre-dates the country itself. So I don't expect it to fade away any time soon -- certainly not in my lifetime. American political bigotry is here to stay, so we might as well all enjoy the spectacle of intolerance which will be on display for the next two weeks.

 

[Program Note 1 -- Yes, the use of "moose poop" was tossed in there for all of those -- on the left and the right -- who will be sorely missing Sarah Palin's scintillating presence on the stage this year.]

[Program Note 2 -- I will be one tiny cog in the media machine in Charlotte, and knowing that the hordes of other journalists will likely "scoop" me on any important story, I am open to telling the "stories not heard" during the Democrats' convention. Got a group that is protesting and wants some media attention? Contact me. I can't make promises, but I will certainly be interested in what is going on outside the hall as well as inside. So maybe I can help shine a light on things the television cameras are ignoring.]

[Program Note 3 -- Sorry for the number of program notes today, but very early this morning I was interviewed on a national Jamaican radio network with Rob Richie of FairVote.org. I don't have a link to a streaming version of this interview yet, but promise to post it when I get one.]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

119 Comments on “Embracing Bigotry”

  1. [1] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Another terrific article, Chris, and so true. Let the games begin. Again.

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Chris1962 -

    Full credit where it's due, Michale gave me the idea last Friday.

    Here's a non-bigoted comment:

    CBS News just aired the MOST AWESOME interview of Romney I've ever seen, something his campaign should have done a LONG time ago (they did cut one ad, but it was nowhere near as personal).

    CBS led Mitt and Ann Romney to a BE-YOOO-TIFUL 1964 red Rambler American convertable, and the Romneys sat in the car for a photo op.

    You know, if I wasn't so politically bigoted, this would almost have convinced me to vote for the man. Heh. Heh heh. If he had promised to park that baby in front of the White House, he'd be hard to resist, that's all I'm sayin'...

    :-)

    Anyways, I don't have a link yet, but watch CBS News in the next 24 hours and they'll probably re-run the clip. That car is AWESOME, so I heartily encourage everyone to do so.

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Speaking of CBS, I saved this link for you. I was gonna email it, but why not let all the boys enjoy these toys: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/photo-galleries/2012/08/20/mint-vintage-cars-of-miami-beach/#photo-123232 ;D

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    CW,

    since you asked, here's something to look for: see how many "education reform" types are wandering the convention. they're the ones who support charter schools, "turnarounds" (i.e. firing the principal and half the teachers of schools labeled "failing"), corporate standardized testing and experimental teacher evaluation systems.

    this group is heavily funded by wall street, heavily covered by the mainstream media, and highly influential with lawmakers. yet the policies they support tend to be extremely harmful to good public schools. practically nobody within the schools believes that these people's favored reforms are valid, but because of their financial backing by bill gates, eli broad and other wealthy financiers, the opposing view is generally not given a fair shake. case in point (and PLEASE read this):

    http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/08/mission-high-false-low-performing-school

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    How do you suppose the state of the education system in the US will fare under a Romney/Ryan administration?

    That's just one thing to think about if you're planning to stay home on election day or vote for a third party candidate.

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    How do you suppose the state of the education system in the US will fare under a Romney/Ryan administration?

    awful of course, but awful is the only option on the table. things getting worse under romney than obama is not a foregone conclusion. republicans tend to overstep, which results in push-back. perhaps it's ironic, but obama has been more successful than any republican president in getting states to deform and dismantle public education.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Predicting that things will be worse under Republican control is not something I'm just pulling out of my hat. It's a prediction based on past performance when the Republicans were not so emboldened as they seem to be today. So, it'll probably be much worse than even I would predict.

    Sometimes, I think I'd like to see Romney/Ryan in the White House with both houses of Congress safely in the Republican fold. But, then I snap out of it.

    If Romney and Ryan are to be taken at their word and that the deficit and debt that they can't seem to whine enough about (where were they before Obama? ... never mind) will be reduced through tax cuts and spending cuts, then you must know that there won't be any money for the states to do ANYTHING about education except, well, cut it.

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    there won't be any money for the states to do ANYTHING about education except, well, cut it.

    the current practice of incentivising states and districts to make destructive changes depends on funding for competitive grants. in comparison, merely cutting the funds would not necessarily be any worse. it seems almost incomprehensible at times, but real conservatives (not neo-cons like jeb bush, mind you) seem to "get it" about the risks of phony education reform. for whatever reason they seem to understand the risks involved in removing education from local control.

    my question for CW was whether or not he'd run into types like michelle rhee, joel klein, bill gates or eli broad at the convention, and why those folks have so much more influence on education policy than, oh i don't know, actual educators?

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It seems to me that Education Secretary Arne Duncan has had great success in improving the education system in Chicago before becoming part of the Obama administration and some success as well as Secretary.

    Did you know that Vice President Biden's wife is not only an educator - she teaches English at a community college - but she also has just recently earned her PhD in Education. I find it really hard to believe that Obama is in the process of "deforming and dismantling public education" but, I could be convinced, I suppose ...

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 -

    Now this is the sort of thing I'm looking for. I will indeed pay attention to the teachers I meet.

    :-)

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It seems to me that Education Secretary Arne Duncan has had great success in improving the education system in Chicago

    not exactly.

    https://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/29-10

    Renaissance 2010 was (and is) marketed as an opportunity to bring in new partners with creative approaches to education. That's the myth.

    There is a completely different reality on the ground. For affected communities who have longed for change, Renaissance 2010 has been traumatic, largely ineffective, and destabilizing to communities...

    just like george bush and houston's "texas miracle," the supposed success overseen by duncan in chicago was largely smoke and mirrors. the facts on the ground show that on the whole it did more harm than good.

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and some success as well as Secretary.

    that is a myth as well, unless by "success," you mean the aforementioned deformation and dismantling. this one diane ravitch says best:

    http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/mar/07/flunking-arne-duncan/

    Report Card: Arne Duncan
    Fidelity to the Constitution
    F
    Doing what’s right for children
    F
    Doing what’s right for public education
    F
    Respecting the limits of federalism
    F
    Doing what’s right for teachers
    F
    Doing what’s right for education
    F

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Did you know that Vice President Biden's wife is not only an educator - she teaches English at a community college - but she also has just recently earned her PhD in Education. I find it really hard to believe that Obama is in the process of "deforming and dismantling public education" but, I could be convinced, I suppose ...

    biden gave a stump speech recently at the AFT, and he essentially didn't mention any of the administration's signature education policies. he limited his discussion to education spending bills that the republicans successfully blocked.

    http://www.mlive.com/education/index.ssf/2012/07/joe_biden_to_american_federati.html

    my impression is that biden would rather not discuss those issues where he and the president may disagree. i've never heard of biden saying anything like obama did in praise of the mass firings in central falls, rhode island, or the film 'waiting for superman'

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Full credit where it's due, Michale gave me the idea last Friday.

    You can't see it, but I am blushing... :D

    Excellent piece, CW.. I am glad to see Weigantians finally admitting what I have been saying for over 6 years is true...

    But it seems to me that you seem to be saying that Political bigotry is OK...

    Assuming I am accurate in that assessment, I am curious...

    How do you reconcile the "true" liberals of the 60s with the idea that Political bigotry has always been a mainstay of politics in America.

    I don't mean the head-bashing protesters/anarchists/terrorists of the Left in the 60s, but the true liberals, the flower children, the ones who would rather cut off their tongue than say a mean thing about anyone??

    As much as they would grate on my nerves.....

    "I don't trust people who smile all the time. Makes me think they have something to hide."
    -Ronin, STARGATE ATLANTIS

    :D

    ..... I sometimes miss those TRUE liberals...

    The "liberals" of today seem to be as nasty, hurtful and fanatical as they accuse the Right of being....

    Yes, you are right. Political bigotry is alive and well.. But I don't think it should be applauded or approached with an "It Is What It Is" attitude...

    That's what people used to say about racism.. "Oh it is what it is and nothing anyone can do will change things.."

    But we DID change things. We changed things so much that we elected a black man as President!!

    We killed institutionalized racism against all minorities..

    Why not see if we can do the same thing with political bigotry???

    I'm just sayin'...

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    but obama has been more successful than any republican president in getting states to deform and dismantle public education.

    Do you know why that is?? :D

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now you people know why I have a bigger problem with the Democratic Party than I do with the Republican Party..

    Republicans are bigoted, but they make no bones about it. They are proud of what they are...

    With Democrats they pay lip service to words like "tolerance" and "diversity" but they are as divisive, as intolerant and as bigoted as the Right is...

    I much prefer an asshole who KNOWS he's an asshole, who doesn't make any excuses for being an asshole...

    As opposed to an asshole who pretends he is all goodness and light and tolerant, but deep down he is just as much an asshole as the first guy...

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    Well, I guess if you think that Obama/Biden have so royally screwed up the education system - in record time, I should say - then I can understand why you wouldn't wabt tt vote for them and would rather see Romney/Ryan elected.

    I sure will be interested in what Chris has to report from his experience at the convention and whether he comes across the same kind of attitude you display here ...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhh The famed 'tolerance' of the Left.. :D

    Samuel L. Jackson asks why GOP 'spared' by tropical storm
    thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/245767-samuel-l-jackson-asks-why-rnc-spared-by-isaac

    Actress Hopes Hurricane Kills 'Every Pro-Life, Xenophobic, Gay-Bashing SOB'…
    weaselzippers.us/2012/08/27/moonbat-actress-ellen-barkin-hopes-hurricane-kills-every-pro-life-xenophobic-gay-bashing-sob-at-the-rnc/

    Yea, ya'all are correct..

    The Left is SOOOOOO much better than the Right... :^/

    {/sarcasm]

    Michale....

  19. [19] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW

    Good article. Conventions sum up all that is wrong in the US political system. They were originally intended for debate, discussion and to set the party platform in co-operation with the people; now they are a media-circus-money-show with no involvement of the people at all.

    And I've said it before many times but brace yourself because this is going to be the most dirty, bigoted, racist Presidential campaign of all time.

    John McCain had the personal integrity to step in and stop it becoming this in 2008; Romney doesn't have one ounce of the integrity McCain has and nowhere near the command over his party - he has already made it clear (welfare cheque adverts, jokes about birthers) that he intends to play-to rather than push-down this racist part of his party.

  20. [20] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Also the new definition of irony = Michale making a plea to rid politics of bigotry ;)

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Romney doesn't have one ounce of the integrity McCain has and nowhere near the command over his party - he has already made it clear (welfare cheque adverts, jokes about birthers) that he intends to play-to rather than push-down this racist part of his party.

    And Democrats would NEVER play the race card, right??

    :^/

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Also the new definition of irony = Michale making a plea to rid politics of bigotry ;)

    Son, I have been making that same plea for over 6 years now, as regulars here can attest to...

    The problem is that ya'all (with few exceptions) are so entrenched in and enslaved by political dogma and ideology, you simply can't see how ya'all are part of the problem, NOT part of the solution.

    Being of no political Party gives me a perspective that is simply IMPOSSIBLE for you to recognize, let alone acquire..

    Michale.....

  23. [23] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    Just being of 'no political party' does not make you objective, neutral or un-bigoted. Your actions and words speak for themselves.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just being of 'no political party' does not make you objective, neutral or un-bigoted.

    Actually, when it comes to politics, that's exactly what it does.. :D

    Your actions and words speak for themselves.

    No. Your INTERPRETATION of my actions and words is what speaks to you...

    But, since you have already admitted that you are not open to ANY logic or reason, since you cannot even CONCEIVE that you might be wrong, you are effectively impaired..

    In other words, your bigotry controls your thought processes...

    Which isn't to say that I don't have any bigotry. I do..

    I hate terrorists. I hate child molesters. And I hate politicians...

    Sue me. :D

    Michale.....

  25. [25] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Actually, when it comes to politics, that's exactly what it does.. :D

    Lol nope. I could join the Republican party tomorrow and be a card carrying member. That does not make me a Republican.

    Like I said actions and words speak louder than name-tags. You WANT to apply the name-tag of unaffiliated independent but nobody on here is buying it. We know you are actually a far-right-Republican-party-anti-Obama-extremist. Instead of approaching a debate logically and rationally, you approach with the view 'whatever Obama did is wrong'. This is your bigoted opinion that you bring to every debate.

  26. [26] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Joshua

    I understand your feelings over Obama on Education and there are legitimate criticisms there for sure. The same in how he has handled big money in general. And yes it is one of the most important issues.

    But I urge you not to become a single issue voter. Think of the bigger picture and the wider issues: healthcare, social welfare, the economy and foreign policy. And think about the potential disaster for education if Romney-Ryan are allowed to unleash their 'privatise everything, let the market roam free' brand of far-right Conservatism...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Instead of approaching a debate logically and rationally, you approach with the view 'whatever Obama did is wrong'.

    Even if it were true (which it's not) how is that any different from ya'all who approach every debate with the idea already set in your mind that Obama/Democrats are right and the GOP is wrong??

    The problem here is you are viewing my actions (actions?? When have you seen any of my actions??) and words from the position of an admitted political fanatic.

    So, of COURSE you are going to conclude that I am a Right Wing fanatic. Just like a person who is a thief will always see people stealing from him, just like a racist will ALWAYS accuse everyone they disagree with as being a racist, a political fanatic will ALWAYS see those who disagree with them as fanatics as well..

    Do you know what the hallmark of a NON-fanatic is??

    The ability to be above one's own prejudices and bigotry and concede the possibility that they could be wrong..

    You have already admitted that you cannot even CONCEIVE that you are wrong..

    Ergo, that makes you the fanatic and me the non-fanatic.

    See how logical that is? :D

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

    NOW you can concede that you may be wrong.. Right?? :D

    Michale.....

    Michale....

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    And think about the potential disaster for education if Romney-Ryan are allowed to unleash their 'privatise everything, let the market roam free' brand of far-right Conservatism...

    Ahhhhhh Fear-Mongering is alive and well and has found a home amongst the hysterical Left... :D

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, I have been saying for quite a few years now about the political bigotry that has permeated Weigantia..

    Of course, we're not keeping score, but it looks like that was something else I was right about, eh?? :D

    Michale.....

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, we're not keeping score, but it looks like that was something else I was right about, eh?? :D

    In the interests of Wegantia amity, I will cease gloating about this. :D

    Michale.....

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oops.. That would be WeIgantia..

    My bust....

  32. [32] 
    michty6 wrote:

    who approach every debate with the idea already set in your mind that Obama/Democrats are right and the GOP is wrong?

    Again I don't and neither do most people on here I have seen. My general approach is Obama/America has done many things wrong over many years. But the GOP solutions are mostly repeating the same mistakes and thus are even more wrong.

    Look at Joshua's legitimate criticism of Obama on education on this page and how people have responded. This is what YOU would get as well if you actually made legitimate criticism instead of repeating made up right-wing rhetoric and lies.

    a political fanatic will ALWAYS see those who disagree with them as fanatics as well

    No I see a political fanatic as someone who holds extremist fanatical views that don't hold up in the face of facts. Like being gay is a lifestyle choice, Obama was not born in America, Obama is lying about his school history etc.

    All of these don't stand the light of facts but because YOU are approaching them with your 'Obama is evil/wrong' bigoted view point they make sense to you.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look at Joshua's legitimate criticism of Obama on education on this page and how people have responded. This is what YOU would get as well if you actually made legitimate criticism instead of repeating made up right-wing rhetoric and lies.

    I HAVE legitimate criticisms of Obama..

    You simply can't acknowledge that, due to your enslavement by Left wing ideology...

    ANYONE who disagrees with your ideology is automatically WRONG, regardless of the logic and rational basis for their disagreement..

    And, since you can't even ADMIT that you could be wrong, any discussion is pointless. It's like trying to debate a deaf and dumb person. They do not have the capacity to verbally debate, so any discussion is pointless..

    You do not have the capacity to admit when you are wrong, so any debate is pointless...

    It would be like debating a brick...

    Michale.....

  34. [34] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Great. Once more I will try (only once) - name some policies that Obama passed/endorsed that you disagree with. Last time I challenged you to do this you just backed off to your right-wing rhetoric...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    No I see a political fanatic as someone who holds extremist fanatical views that don't hold up in the face of facts.

    The facts as YOU define them...

    But your idea of "facts" is colored and influenced by your Left wing fanaticism..

    ANYTHING that doesn't support Obama is wrong..

    THAT is your stated position..

    So, you create some facts and ignore other facts that support the pre-determined conclusion....

    THAT is your entire problem..

    You can't see past your own enslavement...

    Michale....

  36. [36] 
    michty6 wrote:

    ANYTHING that doesn't support Obama is wrong..
    THAT is your stated position..

    Lol amazing. Literally 3 posts after I stated 'My general approach is Obama/America has done many things wrong over many years'. Do you even read people's posts on here?

    The challenge to name an Obama policy you disagree with still stands btw. I won't be holding my breath though, I remember you avoiding it like the plague last time I issued it as well... Let's see how many posts you go this time.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Great. Once more I will try (only once) - name some policies that Obama passed/endorsed that you disagree with. Last time I challenged you to do this you just backed off to your right-wing rhetoric...

    You just DON'T get it, do you??

    It doesn't matter what I say. What I show. What I prove.. In YOUR mind, it will still be WRONG...

    Joshua made some fine points that you acknowledged..

    Guess what???

    YOU STILL THINK HE IS WRONG...

    And, if Joshua were to argue HIS points as aggressively and as passionately as I argue mine, guess what??

    You would then be saying the EXACT same things about HIM that you do about ME...

    The problem isn't my facts.. They are extremely valid and very well argued..

    The problem is, you start from the position that Obama is right about everything and that ANYONE who disputes Obama and his policies is wrong... And, even worse, you can't even acknowledge the possibility that you COULD be wrong..

    So, why should I bother going thru all the facts over and over again, when you have already stated you won't ACCEPT any facts???

    You are right. Obama is right.

    Anyone who says different is wrong.

    That is your stated position. A position that you have made clear will NEVER change..

    So, tell me...

    What's the point? Why bother with bringing fact after fact after fact to the discussion?

    You have made it clear that it won't matter a damn to you..

    The textbook definition of a fanatic..

    I'm just sayin'...

    Michale....

  38. [38] 
    michty6 wrote:

    YOU STILL THINK HE IS WRONG...</I.

    Really? Maybe you should TRY READING MY POSTS.

    Count 1.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? Maybe you should TRY READING MY POSTS.

    So, you are now saying that Joshua is right.

    That Obama's education policies ARE abysmal and have done great harm to this country's education system.

    Is THAT what you are saying??

    Michale.....

  40. [40] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Again: read my posts. Try 26.

    Count 2.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you are now saying that Joshua is right.

    That Obama's education policies ARE abysmal and have done great harm to this country's education system.

    Is THAT what you are saying??

    Count 2

    See!? I can do that to..

    Answer the question. Is Joshua right or wrong in his criticisms of Obama's policies.

    YES or NO..

    Jesus H Christ, why is it so damn hard to get a straight answer out of Democrats??? :^/

    Michale.....

  42. [42] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Again: read my posts. Try 26.

    Count 3.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your refusal to answer the question simply proves my point..

    Count to your heart's content... Won't change the FACTS of what I have posted...

    Michale.....

  44. [44] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Ok here is my answer to your question: Joshua, I understand your feelings over Obama on Education and there are legitimate criticisms there for sure. The same in how he has handled big money in general. And yes it is one of the most important issues.

    But I urge you not to become a single issue voter. Think of the bigger picture and the wider issues: healthcare, social welfare, the economy and foreign policy. And think about the potential disaster for education if Romney-Ryan are allowed to unleash their 'privatise everything, let the market roam free' brand of far-right Conservatism...

    Count 4.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ok here is my answer to your question:

    No, that's not an answer. It's a namby pamby wimpy equivocation that doesn't address Joshua's points..

    Basically, you are saying, "Yea I understand your feelings, but Obama is still The Messiah, The One, The Great And Powerful and we all must fall all over ourselves praising Him and His light."

    Now, answer the REAL question...

    Do you agree that Obama's educational policies have been abysmal and that they have done great harm to this country.

    YES or NO

    Count 6,367,422 (and counting)

    Michale.....

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see my point, michty?

    You can't even BRING yourself to directly concede that Obama has fucked things up...

    You equivocate up the wazzoo and are never firm or absolute about ANYTHING except how bad the GOP is...

    I have to wonder if you have ever had an original thought in your life that wasn't filtered thru your Left Wing ideology meter/filter...

    This is what happens when one is enslaved by political dogma and ideology... They become just another lemming. Another useful idiot to be used and discarded...

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Do you agree that Obama's educational policies have been abysmal and that they have done great harm to this country.

    YES or NO

    No I do not agree with YOUR statement. I believe your statement is right-wing hyperbole based on pure rhetoric without analysing anything or presenting any facts (as usual).

    Nor do I agree with your interpretation of my statement.

    Again I don't hold Obama on a pedestal. But I do hold Romney and Ryan in extremely low regard. That makes the debate on most issues, even those where Obama has performed poorly, very easy.

    Again: I can criticise Obama for involving too much money in education. YOU cannot because YOU on the right believe in this and want to elect a guy who will involve even more big money in education.

    Every day I point this out and everyday you just ignore it and call me an Obama-lover.

    THIS is why (yet again) you can't even name 1 Obama policy you disagree with when challenged to do so - ONE POLICY (count 5 on that).

  48. [48] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Count 6

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    No I do not agree with YOUR statement.

    Of course you don't...

    I believe your statement is right-wing hyperbole based on pure rhetoric without analysing anything or presenting any facts (as usual).

    Joshua's facts spell it out quite clearly...

    But, just as I said, you don't ACCEPT any facts that PROVE Obama has fucked up...

    Obama has fucked up...

    You can't even bring yourself to THINK it, let alone write it...

    I can name many policies of Obama's that I disagree with...

    But it would be a LOT faster to name the policies I agree with..

    But it simply wouldn't matter.

    You have proven beyond ANY doubt that, when confronted with FACTS that show that Obama has fucked up, you simply IGNORE them....

    Since you have already admitted that you will never admit that you are wrong, any more discussion is simply pointless...

    Wouldn't you agree??

    So, I'll simply play with my new toy until I get bored.. :D

    Michale.....

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh.... forgot..

    count 12,983,9643,831,325,568,893.31425654201230

    "One million seven hundred seventy one thousand five hundred sixty one. That's assuming one tribble, multiplying with an average litter of ten, producing a new generation every twelve hours over a period of three days."
    -Commander Spock, STAR TREK, The Trouble With Tribbles

    :D

    Michale.....

  51. [51] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Joshua's facts spell it out quite clearly...
    But, just as I said, you don't ACCEPT any facts that PROVE Obama has fucked up...

    I don't disagree agree with Joshua (AGAIN: READ MY DAM POSTS). But I certainly don't agree with you. You interpret Joshua's statements as 'Obama's educational policies have been abysmal and that they have done great harm to this country.' I suggest you read them again. And consider that something as complex as education isn't a yes/no question. Although in your bigoted mind it is (no to whatever Obama says since he is evil!).

    I can name many policies of Obama's that I disagree with...

    But........ you don't. Again. When challenged once more. Count 7.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh.... forgot..

    count 12,983,9643,831,325,568,893.31425654201230

    Isn't that what our current National Debt is at, thanx to Obama and the Democrats??? :D

    Michale......

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    But........ you don't. Again.

    Since you have already admitted that you will never admit that you are wrong, any more discussion is simply pointless...

    I can do this all day.. And I promise you that I can outlast you.. :D

    "And you can't take me by force! I'll stalemate you for eternity if I have to!"
    -Quinn, STAR TREK: VOYAGER, Deathwish

    :D

    Michale.....

  54. [54] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Isn't that what our current National Debt is at, thanx to Obama and the Democrats??? :D</I.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#Causes_of_recent_changes_in_debt

    Count 10. I originally didn't actually think you couldn't name 1 Obama policy you disagreed with but now (the 2nd time I have asked you to name one and you keep avoiding it) I am seriously doubting this...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bumper...

    I was kinda hoping for a......

    "The HELL you will!!"

    .... response...

    Ah well, I guess we all can't be Trek aficionados

    :D

    Count 10. I originally didn't actually think you couldn't name 1 Obama policy you disagreed with but now (the 2nd time I have asked you to name one and you keep avoiding it) I am seriously doubting this...

    Yer right, Michty.. I can't name ONE Obama policy I don't like.

    Not a one..

    I LOVE THEM ALL!!!

    Yes Michty... Yer absolutely right. :D

    There, there now... Rest your weary head...

    Michale......

  56. [56] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Well it makes sense. I'm glad you've finally recognised that your hatred of Obama has nothing to do with his policies.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm glad you've finally recognised that your hatred of Obama has nothing to do with his policies.

    Ohmygods, is THAT what you were trying to prove!??

    Jesus, I could have saved you all that time and effort in making an ass of yourself..

    I have already conceded, way way back and numerous times SINCE that my hatred of Obama is PERSONAL, not political...

    Sure, there are many policies of Obama's I disagree with. Just as there are many policies of Bush and Reagan and Clinton I disagree with.. But I still like and respect the men... Well, Clinton has some additional baggage, but that's another discussion.... There are even policies of Obama's that I agree with...

    My hatred (too strong a word, but it will suffice) for Obama has *always* been personal...

    I thought you knew that...

    I thought EVERYONE here knew that...

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    And if you say it's because he is black, I will surely slap you silly... :D

    Michale.....

  59. [59] 
    michty6 wrote:

    My hatred (too strong a word, but it will suffice) for Obama has *always* been personal...

    And back we go to square one. This is why I said you have a bigoted view of Obama. You will hate him regardless of what he does.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why I said you have a bigoted view of Obama.

    No, I have a very rational and very logical hatred of Obama that has absolutely NOTHING to do with bigotry, political or otherwise..

    Unlike your hatred of Romney and everything Republican...

    You will hate him regardless of what he does.

    Once again, you are in error. I can rise above my hatred and be completely objective about things..

    I have acknowledged the good things Obama has done.

    Doesn't mean I don't hate him any less, but I *DO* give credit where credit is due...

    I CAN be objective... Unlike others, I might add...

    But, enough about me... :D

    Michale.....

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, enough about me... :D

    Did you know that science shows that pot smoking lowers IQs permanently?? :D

    Since ya'all are "science uber alles"....

    "Hay... Uber-tracker... Over hear.."
    -Manny The Mammouth, ICE AGE

    .... I thought ya'all might find this science fascinating... :D

    Michale.....

  62. [62] 
    LewDan wrote:

    On another site I had a brief discussion with someone who criticized what he termed a "value judgment" because it rejected what he considered the proper "process." My point to him was that "process" is the means to an end while "value-judgement" is the end process seeks to attain.

    The whole point of this months long circus is for people to make value-judgements and indicate them with their votes. Votes cast are "yes" and "no" there is no "maybe." But while the entire exercise is a process designed to produce value judgements based on political bias, political bigotry is counterproductive. We do not govern through unanimous consent, we govern through consensus.

    When we express our political bias at the polls we should understand that not everyone will agree. That not everyone's interests coincide. Compromise, accommodation and even capitulation will occasionally be required in order to reach consensus. The more people with strong political biases the stronger our democracy and country. The more people with political bigotry the weaker our democracy and country. The difference between bias and bigotry being "intolerance."

    Too many of us, right and left, expect too much, are too willing to childishly hurt others and themselves in "protest" of not getting their way enough. Our increasing political bigotry goes hand-in-hand with our increasing acceptance of greed and selfishness. Because, as with so many of the ills plaguing our country, our general amorality, particularly with regard to greed and selfishness are at the heart of most of our current problems; just as they're at the heart of our rampant political bigotry.

    But since we seem to be a nation that loves oversimplifying let me also say intolerance to a party is political bigotry, intolerance to a political position may be political bigotry, but it also may not. The general application of intelligence involves gaining knowledge which narrows possibilities until single outcomes become so virtually certain that our being wise enough to be intolerant of alternative possibilities dramatically improves our chances of success. So intolerance and bigotry are sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. The hard part, as always, is determining when they are and when they aren't. In general though, and at the risk of oversimplifying myself, the broader-based the intolerance the more likely it is the bigotry is inappropriate.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    But since we seem to be a nation that loves oversimplifying let me also say intolerance to a party is political bigotry, intolerance to a political position may be political bigotry, but it also may not.

    Well said....

    I couldn't have said it better myself...

    Although I did try, as that is the same point I was making with the all-important '-D' or '-R' that follows people's names..

    I know, I know.. Ya'all vehemently deny that the '-D'/'-R' has ANYTHING to do with ya'all's stated positions..

    And yet, as michty points out, actions and words speak louder.. (see, michty, you did get SOMETHING right!! :D)

    Michale.....

  64. [64] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Nice post LD, I fully agree.

    Michale

    Unlike your hatred of Romney and everything Republican...

    I don't personally hate Romney. I hate his politics and policies and view of the world. If he changed any of these, my view of him would change. I am also willing to accept some of his views may be correct, even if his motives are not. I would also accept that he has taken positions just now to the extreme far right that he doesn't actually believe in just to appease his party and increase his chances of election. This makes me question his character and integrity even more.

    In response to my saying 'You will hate him regardless of what he does' you said "I have acknowledged the good things Obama has done. Doesn't mean I don't hate him any less..." - you pretty much proved my point! This is bigotry - blind hatred that you are unable to change because it is so engrained in you.

    Did you know that science shows that pot smoking lowers IQs permanently?? :D

    Saw this too. I believe it was in children though, which is a key point. I don't think anyone is advocating children take any drugs or even consume alcohol either.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is bigotry - blind hatred that you are unable to change because it is so engrained in you.

    If someone had wronged you, betrayed your trust... Would you hate him any less if he helped little old ladies across the street???

    Saw this too. I believe it was in children though, which is a key point. I don't think anyone is advocating children take any drugs or even consume alcohol either.

    It was in teen years.. Which DOES include adult-hood...

    But I am glad to see you embrace the science.. :D

    Michale.....

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    you are unable to change because it is so engrained in you.

    Who said I am unable to change??

    If Obama started being the president he CLAIMED he would be, then my opinion would change accordingly..

    Until that happens, everything will remain the same..

    Michale.....

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seeing Republicans and Democrats go at it is like that episode of TOS Trek, LET THAT BE YOUR LAST BATTLEFIELD...

    Two guys going at it for thousands and thousands of years..

    And why??

    Because one guy is black on the Left side and white on the Right side and the other is white on the Left side and Black on the other..

    It's like, "REALLY!!! *THAT* is ya'all's problem!!!!????"

    That's how I feel about Republicans and Democrats...

    It's all so frakin' pointless...

    Michale.....

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chinese media slams Romney as convention begins
    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/28/chinese_media_slams_romney_as_convention_begins

    The BEST reason to date, to vote Romney..

    Michale.....

  69. [69] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yes his lack of foreign diplomacy is the best reason to vote for him lol.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/joebiden_hooters.preview.jpg

    hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

    Gods I love Floridians!!! :D

    Michale.....

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes his lack of foreign diplomacy is the best reason to vote for him lol.

    Well, let's take stock.

    Castro loves Obama. Chavez loves Obama. Russia already has their hooks in Obama. China wants Obama..

    Seems to me we can judge Obama by his supporters..

    Every tinpot dictator in the world wants Obama to win...

    That's a pretty good reason to make sure Obama loses....

    At least, for Americans.... All the other countries that want to see America fail??

    They can go pound salt... :D

    Michale.....

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes his lack of foreign diplomacy is the best reason to vote for him lol.

    Of course, if, by 'foreign diplomacy' you mean Obama is better at kissing ass, kow-towing and bowing to ever tin-plated dictator with delusions of god-hood then yes...

    Obama is MUCH better at foreign diplomacy..

    Of course, if you are talking about actually doing stuff that is in the best interests of America...

    Well, to be perfectly frank, Obama sucks...

    Tell me.. How is Syria doing these days??

    Egypt?? Following Iran's example because Obama was too chicken shit to actually LEAD.. Only a Democrat would think that "LEAD FROM BEHIND" is a GOOD thing!!

    Libya?? Our "seat at the table" is non-existent...

    About the ONLY good thing that I can give Obama credit for is the covert operations against Iran...

    But then he had to ruin that by bragging about it to his MSM to help his floundering campaign...

    So, yea.. If China hates Romney, then THAT is a VERY good reason to vote for Romney...

    Michale.....

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of the sudden, you don't like the facts....

    Why is that?? :D

    Michale.....

  74. [74] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol wow that is some powerful right-wing-nut-job rhetoric you just unleashed (and then called facts). My favourite was 'bowing to ever tin-plated dictator with delusions of god-hood'. Good job.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    My favourite was 'bowing to ever tin-plated dictator with delusions of god-hood'.

    Oh gods...

    REALLY!!???

    Deliver me from people who don't know Trek... :^/

    Michale...

  76. [76] 
    michty6 wrote:

    So, yea.. If China hates Romney, then THAT is a VERY good reason to vote for Romney...

    That's true. It's been a while since everyone hated America (2008 in fact). What America needs is to elect someone who will ruin the last 4 years of foreign diplomacy repair as instantly as he can piss off their biggest ally. Vote Romney!

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's true. It's been a while since everyone hated America (2008 in fact). What America needs is to elect someone who will ruin the last 4 years of foreign diplomacy repair as instantly as he can piss off their biggest ally. Vote Romney!

    Well, I see you have abandoned your "facts" charade..

    Good for you... :D

    Everyone hated and feared the United States prior to 2008..

    Now, everyone hates and LAUGHS at the United States...

    Way ta go, Obama!!!!

    Michale.....

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Oh, I just remembered. There is one Earth man who doesn't remind me of a Regulan bloodworm. That's Kirk. A Regulan bloodworm is soft and shapeless, but Kirk isn't soft. Kirk may be a swaggering, overbearing, tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood, but he's not soft."
    -Korax, STAR TREK, The Trouble With Tribbles

    I will edumacate you yet, michty!! :D

    Michale.....

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    All this back and forth is really a lot of fun..

    Really, I mean that. Anytime I can indulge in a Trek quote or 5, buddy I am there!! :D

    But, here are the facts...

    FACT #1
    Obama would be running on his record if he could.

    FACT #2
    Obama CAN'T run on his record because he knows it is abysmal.

    FACT #3
    The numero uno issue in the upcoming election is the economy.

    FACT #4
    Every poll that has ever been taken in the last 6 months clearly show that the majority of Americans prefer Romney over Obama to handle the economy..

    "These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Given these *FACTS* (that you claim to cherish but never accept when they go against Obama) it's clear who our next President will be...

    Now, I'll grant you. A lot could happen in 70-odd days...

    Aliens from Neptune could land and declare Earth their domain...

    A nuclear strike by terrorists could devastate Tampa and Obama would declare martial law and postpone the election...

    A 10.8 earthquake could strike Washington DC and send it sliding into the Atlantic Ocean...

    But....

    Barring any of that or similar events of earth-shattering magnitude, the coming election is a foregone conclusion..

    By any logical or rational litmus test that mean ANYTHING to voters, this election will go to Romney...

    Remember, you heard it here first... :D

    But I truly hope we can continue our fascinating discussions up until Romney is elected..

    They really are a lot of fun... :D

    Michale.....

  80. [80] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol Michale here you go on about Obama's record again when you're unable to name one policy of his that you disagree with - and you've openly admitted you don't even care about his record your bigotry is so strong!

    And you need to look at the polls outside of your own little world to see that Romney is coming from behind in this election... Obviously you don't grasp how awful a candidate and how extreme his party is, but the (potential) voters certainly do (thankfully).

  81. [81] 
    statusquoteme wrote:

    What an article, read it a second time and it hit again. I have been looking forward to your dispatches from the convention since you noted you are going the other month and this simply makes the enticement that much more. Gorging on the Republican National Convention today and boy, it's not disappointing, aside from the Paulites giving up too easily so far-though they did give Priebus and that poor lady a stun. Seems they set it up to have her there to keep them silenced through empathy, then they unleash Boehner to the delegation to try and soften it as well. G.E. Smith making them R/republicans dance is a nice touch, good band.

  82. [82] 
    statusquoteme wrote:

    Michty6 [54] Informative link, they'll never acknowledge the fact that President Obama decided to put the monetary expense of the wars on record as a major contributing factor in the debt numbers.

  83. [83] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    CW [10],

    CW,

    thank you for hearing my suggestion. if by any chance you should run into secretary duncan or one of his staffers, here's something to think about when phrasing questions: his pattern throughout the past three and a half years has been to tell critics what they want to hear. but to many educators, his words and his actions appear to be in direct conflict with each other.

    http://zhaolearning.com/2010/09/03/master-of-myth-what-arne-duncan-says-and-does/

    the thing i'd most like to know is whether he's being intentionally duplicitous, or whether there's a big bubble and he just doesn't realize how untrustworthy he comes off to many of the rank and file. here are a few of his statements and what i interpret them to mean:

    "They [teacher ambassador fellows] have held over 200 meetings with their colleagues across the country to help shape a proposed $5 billion competitive program" = a lot of talking, then more of the same, expensive, ineffective, harmful corporate policy.

    "schools of education did not adequately prepare [teachers]" = the same policy imposed on college too.

    "engaged parents are essential to creating the right conditions" = more parent triggers to close public schools and open non-union charters

    "Teachers embrace accountability, but say the current generation of tests is stifling teacher creativity" = more tests, bigger tests, more expensive tests, higher-stakes tests.

    "student growth" = more test scores

    "the impact of teachers on student learning." = attributing student test scores to teachers.

    if his words really meant what they said, the policy would be wonderful. but it seems like every apparently pro-teacher statement is corporate-speak for the exact opposite.

    ~joshua

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    mitchy,

    Lol Michale here you go on about Obama's record

    If Obama's record is so good, why is he running AWAY from it??

    And you need to look at the polls outside of your own little world to see that Romney is coming from behind in this election...

    This is why it's impossible to discuss things with you..

    You simply make stuff up that has absolutely NO basis in reality.

    Show me a poll that has Obama beating Romney over the economy..

    Just ONE reliable and mainstream poll.

    You can't because it doesn't exist..

    Michale.....

  85. [85] 
    michty6 wrote:

    statusquoteme

    Michty6 [54] Informative link, they'll never acknowledge the fact that President Obama decided to put the monetary expense of the wars on record as a major contributing factor in the debt numbers.

    Yeh almost $3 trillion (before interest) in increased defence spending... Which Romney has said he wants to expand - not cut. Fiscal Conservatives are only fiscal with the things they don't like.

    Michale
    If Obama's record is so good, why is he running AWAY from it??

    He isn't. He stood ground when Romney made it about the economy. Romney realised this wasn't working so went to plan B: Ryan VP, welfare lies and Medicare lies... Did you not find it funny how Mr Economy isn't talking about the economy anymore?

    And you need to look at the polls outside of your own little world to see that Romney is coming from behind in this election...
    This is why it's impossible to discuss things with you..
    You simply make stuff up that has absolutely NO basis in reality.

    What on earth are you talking about? Do you look at polls? I don't think Romney has been ahead of Obama at any point in any poll in 2012. Just more denial of reality from you...

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    What on earth are you talking about? Do you look at polls? I don't think Romney has been ahead of Obama at any point in any poll in 2012. Just more denial of reality from you...

    Then you shouldn't have ANY trouble finding me a relevant poll that says the majority of Americans trust Obama to fix the economy rather than Romney.

    ANY relevant poll...

    Put up or shut up...

    Michale.....

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Obama's record is so good, why isn't he stomping Romney into the ground??

    If Obama's record is as good as YOU claim it is, he should be leaving Romney in the dust..

    Yet, the polls show the election is neck and neck..

    If Romney is so awful and Obama is so good, why is it a close race???

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    Then you shouldn't have ANY trouble finding me a relevant poll that says the majority of Americans trust Obama to fix the economy rather than Romney.

    Lol I said 'Romney is coming from behind in the polls' and you spin this to be about what polls say about the economy? I don't know why I bother, it's like debating a child, but if it will shut you up:
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/gallup-poll-obama-more-trusted-than-romney-on-economy-20120420

    If Obama's record is so good, why isn't he stomping Romney into the ground??
    If Obama's record is as good as YOU claim it is, he should be leaving Romney in the dust..

    Again: look at the polls. Romney is coming from behind. The race is close just now, as it was in the summer 4 years ago. But Romney has never been anywhere near close to the White House in anyway yet. Even McCain took a substantial lead in the polls against Obama, Romney hasn't even accomplished this yet. By the RCP average he has NEVER had a lead in 2012. NEVER. The closest he has got is to within 0.2% back in MAY.

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol I said 'Romney is coming from behind in the polls' and you spin this to be about what polls say about the economy? I don't know why I bother, it's like debating a child, but if it will shut you up:

    Nice try...

    The discussion has ALWAYS been about the economy. You yourself have stated that this is the number one issue.. So, nice attempt at a dodge, but you lose...

    And you lose again with a 4 month old poll..

    I said RELEVANT poll...

    The fact that you have to reach so far back simply proves that, in the here and now, you got nuttin' :D

    I'll ask again. If Obama is so good as you claim and Romney is so bad as you claim, WHY is it a close election??

    You can't answer....

    Michale.....

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll ask again. If Obama is so good as you claim and Romney is so bad as you claim, WHY is it a close election??

    Since I know the words will likely burn your tongue, allow me to answer for you..

    The elections is very close because A>Romney is not as bad as you claim and 2> Obama is not as good as you claim...

    Michale.....

  91. [91] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    The discussion has ALWAYS been about the economy.

    Lolol you need to re-read the article you are commenting on. The discussion has always been about bigotry and, in particular, my view of your Obama hatred (and blindness to reality) as bigotry.

    I could show you more polls if you like but I feel I am wasting my time.

    And if you think this election is 'close' then you must think a 35-43% chance of Romney winning is 'close' then you are correct the election is 'close'.

    My definition of close would be that this number would be closer to 50%. And things like the average lead switching places constantly in the national polls (Romney hasn't held a lead in 2012), Romney being ahead of Obama in the key battleground states (again - no average lead) or Romney gaining ground (not losing ground) in every key voting demographic. Look at CW's own analysis to see how far behind Romney still is.

    But I follow studies and statistics, not blind bigoted analysis, so my views are a little different than yours...

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I follow studies and statistics, not blind bigoted analysis, so my views are a little different than yours...

    Actually, you are only interested in the studies and statistics that confirm your own bigoted analysis..

    The UoC Study has accurately picked the winning president in every election since Reagan AND has a whopping 89.6% SUCCESS rate in accurately predicting the Electoral College results.

    Of course, you IGNORE that study because it doesn't confirm your blindly bigoted devotion to Obama and the Democrats..

    So go peddle your crap somewhere else..

    This here is a REALITY based forum..

    And it's clear you have not even the SLIGHTEST acquaintance with reality...

    Yer clown is going to lose....

    That's all their is to it...

    Michale.....

  93. [93] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol ok go to any betting shop. See what odds you will get on Romney. If you are 89% certain he is going to win you should bet almost all your money on him because the bookmakers have him at 40-43% to win so you are getting a MASSIVE edge on them!

    PS. Please link this UoC study I'd love to read their reasoning...

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yer clown is going to lose....

    That's all their is to it...

    But hay.....

    Why don't you and I pop over to Intrade and put our money where our mouths are?? :D

    How confident ARE you that your clown as opposed to my clown will win????

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm????? :D

    Michale.....

  95. [95] 
    michty6 wrote:
  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    PS. Please link this UoC study I'd love to read their reasoning...

    There's an old saying amongst us old USENET'ers...

    DYOFR

    :D

    Michale.....

  97. [97] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Why don't you and I pop over to Intrade and put our money where our mouths are?? :D

    According to you, Romney is 89% certain to win (please post the link for this too) so you should be gambling your HOUSE at Intrade with their 43% odds (a MASSIVE 46% edge for you - must be because you're right and they're wrong huh?)

    57% is still a decent edge for me as I'd say there is 60-70% chance of Obama being elected from most objective analysis that I follow. But I'm not an idiot and I'd trust those odds to probably be much closer to reality so my 'edge' probably isn't there and I certainly wouldn't bet a lot of a money on an edge that could be only 3%...

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Conservative perspective: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/hugh-segal/republican-convention_b_1837007.html

    A *CANADIAN* conservative's perspective.

    You DO realize that this is an AMERICAN election right??

    So, let's see what an AMERICAN Democrat says:

    Why Obama May Lose
    Increasing taxes on the wealthy is barely a Band-Aid on the exponential growth of Medicare, social security and defense spending. If President Obama wants to defeat Mitt Romney and lead America back to prosperity, then it's his responsibility to stop the negative ads (he's behaving like a Republican) and deal with the country's most pressing issue -- economic reform.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-taub/why-obama-may-lose_b_1770312.html

    See, I can do it too!! :D

    Michale.....

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh grrrrrrrrrrr :^/

    Michale.....

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://twitchy.com/2012/08/29/sick-wikipedia-entry-calls-mia-love-dirty-worthless-whore-and-house-nigger/

    Yea, the Left is ALL about diversity, isn't it...

    Wonder why no one from the Left is defending Ms Love???

    Actually, no... I don't wonder at all. I know why..

    And it's sad.. Just plain sad....

    Michale.....

  101. [101] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Why does anyone who does anything bad all of a sudden become 'the left' in your mind?

    The difference between the left and right (in America) is that on the left there are extremists with extreme views but they don't involve them in politics or have policies making their extreme views a constitutional amendment... Or invite the person with extreme views to be a speaker at the convention.

  102. [102] 
    michty6 wrote:

    PS. How much you betting at In-trade with your 46% edge? Ten thousand dollars ;)?

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, something just occurred to me..

    We haven't heard anything from Team Obama about Romney's tax returns..

    Every since Romney tied release of the tax returns to release of the school records, Obama has shut up about it..

    Geeeee.. I wonder why!! :D

    Michale.....

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    PS. How much you betting at In-trade with your 46% edge? Ten thousand dollars ;)?

    I was actually thinking 20K...

    Do you want to match that??? Are you THAT sure that Obama will win??

    Because that's how sure I am Obama will lose...

    Pee or get off the pot... :D

    Michale.....

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why does anyone who does anything bad all of a sudden become 'the left' in your mind?

    When it is done towards a conservative???

    Oh gee... Let me think... WHY would I *EVER* think that!???

    Michale.....

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://twitchy.com/2012/08/28/mia-love-gives-star-making-speech-at-rnc-left-sees-gop-token/

    HOW could I possibly think that the LEFT would be mean to Ms Love..

    What was I thinking!!????

    Michale.....

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do ya'all think that some moron making a "legitimate rape" comment is indicative of the entire Right??

    Hmmmmmmmmm?????

    Michale.....

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    is that on the left there are extremists with extreme views but they don't involve them in politics

    Spoken like a true Left Wing bigot... :D

    "Well, it's good to finally have you out of the closet."
    -SecState Arthur Curry, THE FINAL OPTION

    :D

    Michale....

  109. [109] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Every since Romney tied release of the tax returns to release of the school records, Obama has shut up about it..

    What on earth are you blabbering about now? Every day I see stuff about the tax returns. The reason it has quietened is Romney realised that he couldn't talk about the economy anymore, so started lying about social welfare/Medicare as Plan B.

    Why do ya'all think that some moron making a "legitimate rape" comment is indicative of the entire Right??
    Hmmmmmmmmm?????

    You mean the constitutional ban on rape in all cases that Republicans just voted into their platform? Yeh that's them KIND OF taking their extreme nut-job views into politics lol.

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean the constitutional ban on rape in all cases that Republicans just voted into their platform? Yeh that's them KIND OF taking their extreme nut-job views into politics lol.

    Yet, YOU posted that it is NOT the position of the majority of the conservatives..

    So, to sum up..

    If it helps your argument that the entire Republican Party believes that rape could be "legitimate" then THAT is what you'll say..

    If it helps your argument that the majority of the republican Party DOESN'T believe that rape can be "legitimate" then THAT is what you'll say...

    Yet, you have shown absolutely NO PROOF, NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE that indicates that ANYONE, outside of this one Akin moron, believes rape can be "legitimate".....

    In other words, you are simply bigoted against the Right and will say anything to support your bigotry, facts and logic be damned...

    Michale.....

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since we are all expressing and wallowing in our bigotry, let me say that I am bigoted too..

    I am bigoted against ALL politicians as they are self-serving liars who only care about themselves and rarely about anyone else...

    Of course, within that subset, I know that a special place in hell is reserved for Democrats due to their blatant and perverse hypocrisy...

    Like has been said. I hate Republicans.. And I really REALLY hate Democrats... :D

    Michale......

  112. [112] 
    michty6 wrote:

    If it helps your argument that the entire Republican Party believes that rape could be "legitimate" then THAT is what you'll say..

    If it helps your argument that the majority of the republican Party DOESN'T believe that rape can be "legitimate" then THAT is what you'll say...

    Lol nope. Do you even read my posts?

    My point was there are left and right wing extremists in America - you LOVE to post left wing extremists and tag them as 'left'.

    But the difference is that on the right, your extremists have invaded politics a lot more - to the extent that they even get their extremist positions (which require constitutional amendments) accepted at their parties convention.

    Once you see leftist intolerance and extreme views being ratified at the Democrats convention THEN you can start to go crazy about how it's 'both sides'. Good luck with that.

  113. [113] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    What you love to do is respond to a story like an elected official making comments about legitimate rape, by saying something like 'I met a guy on the street and he said he was left wing then punched me in the face when I said I hate Obama - the left are just as intolerant!' and you seem to think that this has absolutely any relevance to the fact that the right wing extreme positions are coming from elected officials and candidates WITHIN the Republican party.

    You can't tarnish Obama with anything some nut-job on the street said. When his own party members start to make extremist radical crazy comments, then you can start to tarnish the Democrats with these (like the Democrats do with the many nut-job Republicans).

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    My point was there are left and right wing extremists in America - you LOVE to post left wing extremists and tag them as 'left'.

    No, your point was that the Left extremists are not involved in politics, which is utterly ludicrous and totally baseless...

    You can't tarnish Obama with anything some nut-job on the street said.

    Yet YA'ALL try and tarnish the entire RIGHT with something a nut-job says...

    You admit your own bigotry and then call it sunshine and air-freshener.

    There is simply no sense to debating you. You simply make stuff up, you have absolutely NO FACTS to back up ANYTHING you say and yet you STILL think you are fair and rational...

    Your statements are NOTHING but political bigotry... Pure and simple.

    Why don't we just put any discussion on hold until AFTER 6 Nov..

    THEN we will all know who was right and who was wrong...

    Michale......

  115. [115] 
    michty6 wrote:

    There is simply no sense to debating you.

    Well I definitely agree 100% with you on something!

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Common ground.. :D

    A wonderful thing...

    "Detente.. It's a wonderful thing.."
    -Maureen Robinson, LOST IN SPACE

    Michale......

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just in case you missed it Michty, #98 has been released.. :D

    By the by, you in for $20,000??? Are you THAT sure that Obama is going to win the election?? :D

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't know what would be a better use of my time - reading this thread or watching the Republican convention ... ?

    NEITHER ONE!!! THAT'S WHAT!

    Ahem.

    Okay, carry on ... :)

  119. [119] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Michale #33,
    any discussion is pointless. It's like trying to debate a deaf and dumb person. They do not have the capacity to verbally debate, so any discussion is pointless..
    Please educate yourself:
    http://www.nchearingloss.org/dumb.htm

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