Where? When?

I don't have the time or inclination to go back over the last month of comments to find these tidbits. Anyone who regularly reads CW.COM and is honest can vouch for the fact that, of late, I have been sticking it to the GOP on a regular basis..

Some highlights. I called Reice Pinichioo.... I said that Rush Limbaugh was a moron for saying Cruz's debacle in Colorado wasn't cheating, it was winning... I took the GOP to task over the whole Colorado debacle.. And tons more..

But, I don't expect any acknowledgement of this..

That is your fantasy. It isn't true. It's something you want to be true. It's the straw man you constantly fight. But it's wrong.

And yet, the facts clearly prove otherwise... :D

Finally, I have, on occasion, stopped following all political news and it's actually very nice. Given the sorts of things you constantly assert,

AND back up with facts... :D

You swim in poison -- you're just so used to it you don't notice the effects.

It's funny you should say that.. Cuz I was thinking the same thing about ya'all.. :D

Michale

Where? When?

The rule is, you have to swear subservience and obedience to the Left Wingery utterly and completely…

That is your fantasy. It isn't true. It's something you want to be true. It's the straw man you constantly fight. But it's wrong.

[157] What is RCP? And what regional and local outlets?

Finally, I have, on occasion, stopped following all political news and it's actually very nice. Given the sorts of things you constantly assert, I'm convinced it would do you a world of good. You swim in poison -- you're just so used to it you don't notice the effects.

But does THAT get me any credit around here??

Of course not... The rule is, you have to swear subservience and obedience to the Left Wingery utterly and completely... OR ELSE.. There is no room for independent outside the box thinkers!!!

I just happen to love to revel in the OR ELSE part.. :D

Michale

My online outlets include Al Jazeera, HuffPoop, Reuters, RCP and some regional and local outlets...

So, you are wrong about things in so many different ways... :D

Michale

You also seem to have appointed yourself some kind of Outrage Monitor -- you find something you think illustrates Leftist Hypocrisy and then scream because we didn't all drop everything to express the outrage you seem to feel.

Yea.. Ya'all just reserve that for when you can express outrage at the Right.

And THAT's my point..

Ya'all have NO problem with dropping everything to express outrage and every little utterance by the Right Wingery or every little faux hysterical claim of racism because some scumbag, who happens to be black, was put down by a white cop or a white hispanic security guard...

But when there is racism from the Left, or corruption from the Left or bigotry from the Left.... All of the sudden ya'all are just too busy to comment... Funny how that ALWAYS is the case, eh?? No qualification required..

Political bigotry at it's finest... :D

You are an excellent candidate for a withdrawel treatment. I wonder how you'd feel about things if you spent a month? (would that be enough) cut off from media -- at least News media. No FOX. No hate radio. No Rightwing online outlets. I'll bet your family would find it a relief if nothing else. But I also think it would do you a world of good.

As long as I gots my CW.COM, I would be in hog heaven.. :D

How would YOU feel if you were cut off from your bastions of hatred and bigotry and intolerance like DailyKos and HuffPoop etc etc etc?? :D

It works both ways... :D

Michale

Not here. You put up so much silliness it would take all day, every day, to deal with your assertions. No one has the time, especially since you just repeat them anyway, no matter how well they've been refuted.

You also seem to have appointed yourself some kind of Outrage Monitor -- you find something you think illustrates Leftist Hypocrisy and then scream because we didn't all drop everything to express the outrage you seem to feel. Lots of times, when legitimate, the outrage HAS been expressed -- though not necessarily here; other times the outrage is bull because it's just another rightwing fake-scandal that you have served up straight from your masters at FOX.

You really just have a deeply embedded outrage habit, fed by your daily intake of propaganda. Can't be good for your health.

You are an excellent candidate for a withdrawel treatment. I wonder how you'd feel about things if you spent a month? (would that be enough) cut off from media -- at least News media. No FOX. No hate radio. No Rightwing online outlets. I'll bet your family would find it a relief if nothing else. But I also think it would do you a world of good.

Oh well, if I were Queen of the World...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mayor-de-blasio-hillary-clinton-ripped-racial-joke-article-1.2596977

And now we will hear the condemnation from the Left Wingery...

{{cchhhiiiirrrrrpppppp}} {{chiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrppppppp}}

:^/

Michale

I thought we covered this..

"Ya'all" referred to Weigantians in general.. I believe I have already exempted you from that before...

If I hadn't, my apologies..

I am on record as stating that oft times, you are the exception that emphasizes the rule in many of my broad brush strokes..

But, I have asked ya'all to qualify your condemnations of Republicans so I should be willing to do no less..

I will endeavor to be more accurate in the future..

Michale

here's what you wrote:

Ya'all are being "unfair" by trying to lump ALL Republicans for the actions of a minority of Republicans..

Hence, your statements meet the "unfair" requirement of your own definition of bigotry...

so, i'm asking you to choose a specific statement i made and establish factually that it was unfair, thereby proving my bigotry. i mean this with no sense of irony, i just want a clarification. i had thought i avoided mislabeling any republican in an unfair way, but i'm open to being proven wrong.

JL

No problemo..

Which statements I mean as to what context??

I made many statements about ya'all's statements so I am going to have ta ask you to be more specific.. :D

Michale

would you care to be more specific about which statements you mean, and provide facts to prove that said statements were unfair?

"If it's truth you're looking for, Professor Tyree's philosophy class is just down the hall."
-Indiana Jones

or

"THEIR TRUTH IS NOT YOUR TRUTH!!!!"
-Oracle Of Yonada

Take your pick... :D

Michale

"In the dictionary under 'redundant' it says 'see redundant' "
-Robin Williams

:D

Michale

probably some of them, but would you care to be more specific about which statements you mean, and provide facts to prove that said statements were unfair? preferably the true kind?

Say what you want about me.. But at least I'm consistent.. :D

yeah?

Wile E. Coyote: Brilliance. That's all I can say. Sheer, unadulterated brilliance!
~wile e coyote

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

Michale.....
-Tuesday, August 28th, 2012 at 03:55 PDT

Say what you want about me.. But at least I'm consistent.. :D

Michale

The 'superdelegate' votes in the Democratic side might not seem completely democratic, but the process is right out in the open. Everybody knows that there are superdelegates, who they are, etc.

So, your beef is that Republicans hide their primary shenanigans while the Democrats do their shenanigans out in the open...

I would say, THAT doesn't much matter to the Democrat voters who have been disenfranchised, does it??

"We're going to screw you out of your vote, but hay... At least we're being open about it"
-Democrat "leaders"

See my point??

But actually, that wasn't my main point of this response..

My MAIN point is what I have always said about Democrat hypocrisy...

Republicans are greedy and opportunistic but they, by and large, don't make any bones about it.. They don't try to hide it. They say, as they are stabbing the American people in the back, "This is who we are and if ya don't like it, tough cookies!!"

Whereas Democrats will talk the talk, spew all sorts of pious, silver-tongued, holier-than-thou, sweet nothings in your ear as they do a reach-around, take your wallet and THEN stab you in the back...

So, using your reasoning above, Republicans are better (on this particular issue) because they more honest than Democrats. Because the Republicans actions are blatant and out in the open...

Lemme know if you need any help hoisting your Picard.. :D

Michale

The "crime" is IN the legality -- the fact that this kind of tax-evasion and asset-hiding is allowed. The heads of state taking hits so far are taking hits for nondisclosure because they have had conflicts of interests or have said they were against things they appear to have been doing. But the doing of those things isn't criminal. It should be but it isn't.

So what does that say about a person who USES this "legal" means to commit (what should be) crimes??

It goes back to my comment to Listen (I think) a while ago regarding Citizens United and the Pinch Hitter rule.. A comment that went unresponded to so I can only assume that he (she??) acknowledged the logic of my comment..

To whit.. If a person screams and whines and cries about a rule, saying it will end our world as we know it and bring about catastrophic and horrible consequences but then turns around and USES that rule to their political advantage.... Then that person is a turd blossom...

So, if a person uses something that SHOULD be a crime to their financial advantage... Well, what can you say about that person's integrity???

Not a whole helluva lot, eh???

Michale

You just CAN'T admit that a Democrat blatantly, KNOWINGLY and constantly lied...

To know this, you would have to be able to read minds..

Not at all.. I simply read the reports of the briefings that Obama had when his advisers TOLD him that millions of Americans would lose their health care plans under TrainWreckCare...

No mind reading necessary.. The ONLY thing necessary is to be free of ideological enslavement..

That's probably where you are confused. :D

Oh, and I noticed that, since you didn't address my and CW's points about bigotry, you acknowledge the factual nature of the comments. :D

Silence Gives Assent

:D

Michale

And when deciding who it is we want to lead, the distinction is important.

Dead on ballz accurate, Biga.... :D

Michale

It's impossible to logically and rationally debate the issue of Obama's lies with ya'all, if you can't even admit what everyone who is NOT enslaved by Party ideology already knows..

Obama lied..

Knowingly and deliberately lied on several occasions..

Obama was told repeatedly in briefings that the requirements of TrainWreckCare would force insurance companies to cancel MILLIONS of policies that did not measure up to TWC's requirements.

Yet, he continued to lie and claim that, if Americans liked their healthcare plans, they could KEEP their health care plans...

That was a lie and Obama knew it was a lie..

It's that simple..

Michale

What is a shell company? How do you conclude that the companies the Clintons have set up are shell companies?

Have you ever heard of the Panama Papers??

Michale

Sorry, there you go...

:-)

-CW

Filter check please.
Thanks.

A

Paula is absolutely correct.
It is the legality of US tax havens like Delaware that is the problem.
Delaware has "favorable tax treatment" that in effect robs other states of revenue.
They also happen to allow essentially anonymous creation of these tax evading entities and have minimal oversight that allows ill-gotten gains to enter the system, but it is legal tax evasion that is the main problem.

And the reason they can do this is because the system has been rigged by those seeking to evade taxes in order to make it legal. The politicians want us to believe it's just a coincidence that they changed the laws to legalize this, and that it had nothing to do with huge campaign donations or high paying jobs they get once out of office... but does anybody believe that?

Hillary playing this game is problematic because it means she is unlikely to work to fix the problem and is currently benefitting at our expense.

It is a matter of fairness.
We have a progressive income tax system for a reason... it used to be far more progressive, but it is still officially progressive in that people that earn more pay higher rates.

The Delaware (and two other states now) schemes where a corporation is set up for Hillary's book earnings or speech payments (which are so awesome she won't let voters know the contents of) allows her to pay 8 or 12% in taxes on the millions instead of 35% minus deductions.

Yes, it's legal, but the average American can't have their salary funneled through a corporation to avoid taxes, so it isn't equitable... not fair.

Delaware benefits by having more corporations than people in the state, but the states where the people setting up these corporations live i.e. NY in the case of Clinton lose out, as does the federal government.

The net effect is shifting the burden of running our government from the rich to the poor... meaning less revenue for things we need like education and infrastructure, and increased inequality.

Playing this game may be legal, but it's not right.

And when deciding who it is we want to lead, the distinction is important.

(I do agree that the repubs trying to make it look like the Clinton's are trying to hide something is bull... because B and C knew dang well their tax filings would be scrutinized. And repubs fully support this legalized tax evasion so it's pure hypocrisy. But progressive Dems do not.)

Pretty much 99% of Americans should want this problem fixed, not perpetuated.
It is against our interests.

A

PS- the repubs "the rich will just take their money out of the country if they have to pay (a fair share) bit usually follows... but political leaders who disclose their taxes can't do that for obvious reasons... see Panama Papers.
A little patriotism and fairness remains an expectation in most countries.

What happened in Colorado is right out in the open. Everybody's known how Colorado runs its affairs.

Both quotes come from the same segment on Limbaugh's show.

This is what f'n fries me about clowns like Limbaugh.

The 'superdelegate' votes in the Democratic side might not seem completely democratic, but the process is right out in the open. Everybody knows that there are superdelegates, who they are, etc.

In Colorado, the process is far more complex and less transparent, but because it suits him, he terms it 'right out in the open'.

I deeply detest this man for his bullying, intellectual dishonesty and all round lying and distorting.

Just had to get that off my chest.

From the transcript of the Limbaugh show that Michale [120] posted (thanks, btw, and see, I do read your links).

Limbaugh is running fast and loose with the truth here on the Republican side. It isn't 'rigged' on the Democratic side, but let's let that one go.

On the Republican side I've just listened to one of the lawyers for the Republicans talk for 40 minutes about the rules, processes, etc. for a convention and I can tell you this, if it isn't currently being rigged, the potential to rig the outcome is most definitely there.

If you want more information than you ever thought you would need, only to realize you are only scratching the surface of the byzantine process that is a Republican (or Democratic for that matter) convention, listen to the 'NPR Politics' podcast from April 11 at 1pm titled "Can Candidates Pay Delegates?" (Spoiler Alert: Not in $$$ but just about any other way.)

What is a shell company? How do you conclude that the companies the Clintons have set up are shell companies?

Sounds like some nimrod on AM radio or with rudimentaryWordPress skills is mixing up Delaware corporations with 'shell' companies because Hillary and Bill are involved.

Why would Bill and Hillary want to set up a company? Well why not? If they are running a speaking-for-hire business they would absolutely need a legal entity, and every start-up I've ever worked for in the U.S. has been based in Delaware.

These are the innuendoes that are continually thrown at Hillary - no substance, nothing out of the ordinary, but a little bit of 'Alex Jones' mentality and then comes those marvelous phrases "no smoke without fire", and "if they have nothing to hide", forcing Hillary to address the issue, which opens up more "Hillary today tried to explain ...", etc.

The problem is, this trick is getting old, and more and more people are seeing thru it. Plus, it is a double edged sword that I fully expect to be used against "The Donald" regarding his tax returns, etc.

Which time are you quoting? I remember recently having a few rounds over the utter dishonesty surrounding the fake Planned Parenthood video and related ginned-up Repub smear campaign. That time? Give me a link so I can go back and look.

The law, as it was intentionally written, did NOT cause any person to lose the insurance plan that they were previously enrolled in. This was a stipulation that the insurance providers demanded! This was a massive selling point to get the insurance providers on board, which is probably why Obama touted it 36 times in different speeches. So to say that Obama knew that people were going to lose their plans and chose to lie about it instead of explaining that the ACA wasn't the cause of their losing their plan makes absolutely NO SENSE! Please explain why if Obama knew people were going to have their plans dropped, Obama must have thought lying in this case was more beneficial than telling the truth and explaining how it wasn't the ACA that caused them to lose their plans.

Allow me to offer up your own statement as a response to this (77):

To know this, you would have to be able to read minds..

So, there was absolutely NO down side to Obama's big fat lie X 36....

No, this very conversation we are having is the downside of Obama not saying specifically that the ACA, as it was written, would not force the insurance providers to change or drop any plan that people were already enrolled in. It doesn't mean that they cannot choose to do that themselves, but the ACA does not require them to. The fact that his not saying it in that manner has caused people to think that he intentionally misled them on the matter is the down side! The ACA didn't require insurance companies to change plans that they already had people enrolled in. That is a fact. One of the big demands insurance providers had for agreeing to this was that it would not force them to change pre-existing plans that they had people enrolled in. The government bent over backwards to meet this demand. How was Obama to know that the insurance providers would then choose to do themselves what they did not want the government to do and drop plans they were already using in order to replace less financially productive plans for new ones that made them more money? This is why I do not believe Obama was intentionally lying regarding this issue: there was absolutely no benefit for lying! Had he told the American people the the truth in the manner which I stated above, lying has absolutely no benefit.

In his world a Democrat can never err, they can only lie.

Actually that is not true..

But in YOUR world, a Republican can never err, they can only lie..

You are on record as STATING this unequivocally. "Republicans are liars" I believe were your exact words....

-- and it doesn't matter that Obama came out, explained, etc.

Bush came out and "explained" too.. That doesn't stop you from STILL saying the "Bush Lied!!! I believe were your exact words....

Or maybe that's a compendium of how his remarks were explained at the time.

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

You just CAN'T admit that a Democrat blatantly, KNOWINGLY and constantly lied...

Michale

[119]: The "Obama lied about keeping your insurance" is one of the biggies Michale brings up all the time. He uses it to claim "Democrats lie too!" -- and it doesn't matter that Obama came out, explained, etc. In his world a Democrat can never err, they can only lie.

As I recall at the time, and I concede I may not be completely accurate here, the statement was in the context of trying to clarify for Americans that if the ACA passed, they could still keep the insurance they were getting through their employer. The idea was that ACA was not going to affect most people who were already insured through their jobs. What he didn't say at the time -- and apparently the Michale's of the world cannot put this together for themselves -- was that ALL INSURANCE POLICIES WERE CHANGING ALL THE TIME ANYWAY, ALREADY. People's plans changed periodically. Coverages changed, shifted, etc. Doctors came and went from within plans. Premiums went up and/or deductibles changed, etc. Companies left Blue Cross and went somewhere else. He wasn't claiming nothing would ever change. He was saying things would continue for insured people much as it already had been.

Or maybe that's a compendium of how his remarks were explained at the time.

And, I am constrained to point out that Obama could shoot someone on 5th Avenue in the middle of rush hour and it would not affect his standing amongst supporters one iota...

So, there was absolutely NO down side to Obama's big fat lie X 36....

As your own position proves....

Michale

I can only go by what you said..

"Are the Democrats and Republican ethically and morally the same? No."

Even IF you qualify your claim with Republicans "in Congress" I can find more than a handful who are NOT guilty of what you accuse "Republicans" of....

Personally, I think you are too intelligent to not have recognized that, and have chosen to play the semantics game instead of just acknowledging that my points were valid.

Who said your points weren't valid?? You listed a BUNCH of good points that *ARE* perfectly valid..

SOME Republicans are crooks and scum and greedy and frakin' morons..

I am not arguing that..

I am simply pointing out that, by trying to paint ALL Republicans, or even ALL Republicans in Congress with that brush, you are making a bigoted statement..

I could easily replicate your good points with EQUALLY good points about how bad Democrats are... But I am honest enough with myself and with ya'all to concede that not ALL Democrats are scumbag traitors to this country... Only SOME are...

made no sense for him to intentionally lie about this, as it would only come back to haunt him and possibly give the Republicans the public outcry that they would need to recall the ACA.

It makes PERFECT sense for Obama to intentionally lie about it. Because his advisers told him that if he DIDN'T lie about it, if the American people KNEW that millions of them would lose their health insurance plans, TrainWreckCare would have crashed and burned and likely NEVER to be talked about again for ANOTHER couple decades... This is well documented...

So it would make PERFECT sense for Obama to lie because it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission...

Michale

It's winning BY cheating, ya frakin' moron!!!

Michale

NYPoet22, while I realize that the comment was Politifact's Lie of the Year, I still will accept Obama's apology and statement as being what occurred. It made no sense for him to intentionally lie about this, as it would only come back to haunt him and possibly give the Republicans the public outcry that they would need to recall the ACA. The President's apology was not back pedaling, it was an admission of being wrong. If I was played for a fool for believing it, so be it. I just don't see the President making such a bold-face lie when if he wanted to deceive the American people, he could have reworded it so it would be " somewhat True". I never read a single article prior to the ACA passing that pointed out that while the ACA wouldn't force insurance providers to change their already existing plans, that doesn't mean they can't do it themselves.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with their nonprofit Clinton Foundation, have established at least five shell companies in Delaware, according to tax filings highlighted on Monday.

Those companies include two for the couple's personal finances and three for the foundation, according to the documents, which were first reported by the Washington Free Beacon.

Why would the Clintons need shell companies???

They sound like greedy and corrupt 1%'ers...

And yes... I am bigoted against greedy and corrupt 1%'ers.... :D

Michale

But they don't, so they don't..

You know what I mean! :D

Michale

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.
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/08/27/embracing-bigotry/

No body seemed to want to make back then, the points you are making now..

Maybe because the person making the point back then has a '-D' after their name??? :D

Michale

I have amply proven beyond ANY doubt that I hold no allegiance to the Right..

That's just an incessant attempt to convince yourself that my comments have no meaning because they come from a, in your mind, Republican..

Simply another form of political bigotry.. :D

Michale

Joe has been beaten up by 12 different gay people..

Substantive enough for you??? :D

Or do you propose to pass judgement on what's substantive for another person?? :D

Michale

I am not sure what your relevance is to my algebra as we are referring to speech and not legal statutes???

What "nuance" are you referring to???

Michale

And if General Election polls had any meaning now, you would have a point..

But they don't, so they don't..

Find me a poll that takes into account Hillary's indictment for her crimes..

THEN you might have a valid peg to hang yer hat on...

Michale

Ya'all are being "unfair" by trying to lump ALL Republicans for the actions of a minority of Republicans..

Hence, your statements meet the "unfair" requirement of your own definition of bigotry...

Unless you qualify your statements they are, BY DEFINITION, bigotry...

Per your own definition..

Michale

where your comprehension of bigotry and racism are concerned, there appears to be ONLY halfway, presumably because accepting the FULL definition would require you to re-evaluate your opinions.

JL

did something about gay people being gay do substantive harm? or is joe's conclusion unfair and therefore bigoted?

I hate terrorists. I can give you tens of thousands of reasons why I hate terrorists.. ALL of them valid.. ALL of them fair....
But that doesn't change the fact that my hating terrorists is BIGOTRY...

terrorists commit terrorist acts, which carry the intentional harm to others as part of their identity. if they didn't, they wouldn't be terrorists. your judgment of them is therefore fair, and by definition NOT bigoted.

I'm not saying all bigotry is necessarily evil; it IS necessarily unfair. calling some individual an idiot for being a republican is bigoted because it's unfair. calling the republican (or democratic) ideology harmful is not bigoted if it is a fair and factually justified point of view.

you're trying to say anything subjective is irrelevant to whether or not bigotry exists, and that's simply not the case. in order to be a bigot, you must by definition be unfair, and that's why your equation didn't add up, doesn't add up and will continue not to add up, no matter how many ways you try to explain it.

JL

Source:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/two-trump-s-kids-missed-ny-registration-deadline-can-t-n553991?cid=sm_fb

Michale: apparently I have to spell out for you EVERY TIME (as I have done periodically over the years) my disdain for Republicans is directed towards the actions of the power-holders in the party, followed by the behaviors of the those rank and file members who embrace violence, bullying, a host of bigotries and, most importantly to me, intellectual and actual dishonesty.

As Light noted up thread, in the case of President Obama, the republicans at the top deliberately and openly chose to implement a policy of pure obstruction against him, with the intent of destroying his presidency regardless of the collateral damage to the country as a whole, and individual citizens. This, after years of other forms of skullduggery.

Your incessant attempts to bring everything down to "everybody does it" is seen, by me, as a way of dodging responsibility for your allegiance to the right. You claim to be impartial but consistently use the language of rightwing propaganda to make your accusations against Dems/Liberals/Progressives, and you use their language to attempt to divert us away from the actions of Repub leaders/luminaries. Then people bring up specifics about Republican actions/policies and you circle back, either trying diversionary tactics or re-stating your belief that "everybody does it" -- in this case, "everyone's a bigot".

My favorite Republicans are those people I know personally and have read about who are and have been recognizing their party started down a bad path some years ago and the results have been dire. Their dilemma, of course, is "what to do?" Do they leave the party or try to change it or do nothing? They've been fed a diet of Dem-hate for so many years it's hard for many to join us, but some do. If you haven't, you should visit balloon-juice.com -- an entertaining blog by a republican-turned-democrat.

But now, with the Trump phenomenon, many more Republicans are realizing the depths of the party's descent and they are appalled. Yes, yes, some people love Trump and you can post all the links you can find about those people but it serves only to make you feel justified in your embrace of him. If you were, in actuality, the impartial person you claim to be you would be equally appalled.

Most painful, of course, is to read your words -- filled with rightwing propaganda -- and see that you don't see it. You don't understand what is plain to everyone else here that you are a perfect conduit for this propaganda without realizing it. Probably it's best that you don't realize it because if you ever do it's gonna hurt. None of us like to be fooled or manipulated. None of us want to discover we have been.

And the world of greys is harder to navigate than the world of black and white. But the arguments are more interesting. Plenty of problems over here but at least we start with the idea that people can think, rather than assuming they are here to be used. We start with the premise that people have inherent value. Yes, we fail at things but the best of us notice the failures and try something else. Your brains are wasted over there. But your heart still lives there and your loyalty (no matter how you deny it) is over there.

Sigh.

Trump: 26% / 69% / -43% (favorable / unfavorable / difference)
Cruz: 26% / 59% / -33%
Hillary: 40% / 55% / -15%
Bernie: 48% / 39% / +9%
Obama: 53% / 44% / +9%

Donald is going to win the nomination and get absolutely creamed in November. Not that Cruz is much better.

Source (page 11):
http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/March-2016-AP-GfK-Poll-FINAL_Obama.pdf

y=I HATE {x}!!!!!

x=black people y=bigoted statement

x=white people y=bigoted statement

x=catholics y=bigoted statement

x=gay people y=bigoted statement

x=terrorists y=bigoted statement

x=Ferengi y=bigoted statement

x=Republicans y=bigoted statement

x=Democrats y=bigoted statement

Are you seeing the pattern???

No matter WHAT group of people you insert for {x}, {y} will always....ALWAYS... be a bigoted statement

Algebra 101

Class dismissed

Michale

Ok.. ok... ok....

Let's say that Joe Redneck, going out on a limb here, that he hates gay people.. But then let's say that Joe can demonstrate a dozen things that gay people have done that made them deserving of Joe's feelings. calls on the part of others that he is bigoted against gay people cease to be valid because his opinions are fairly and factually arrived at, and therefore not bigoted....

I know what you are trying to do Joshua and I thank you for that... You sincerely are trying to find common ground and are really REALLY aggravated with me that I won't meet you half way on this..

But there IS no halfway...

I hate terrorists. I can give you tens of thousands of reasons why I hate terrorists.. ALL of them valid.. ALL of them fair....

But that doesn't change the fact that my hating terrorists is BIGOTRY...

It's just that it's ACCEPTABLE bigotry...

But it being acceptable doesn't make it any less bigotry...

THAT's the point I have been trying to make...

I am not denigrating ya'all for being bigots...

I am denigrating ya'all because you refuse to accept that label that is fairly applied...

I can't make it any clearer than that...

But will likely spend the rest of my day off trying.. :D heh

Michale

It's as true today as it was in August of 2012, when CW wrote it.. I would say it's even *MORE* true today. Back then there wasn't much of the blatant HATRED and VIOLENCE that we see today... Or, to be more accurate, we were witnessing only the beginning of the hatred and violence...

Democrats are rushing the stage to try and ATTACK a GOP candidate!!

And THAT's not violent and hate-filled bigotry!!!????

ON WHAT PLANET!!????

Ya'all can pooh-pooh it all you want. Ya'all can hide behind your self-delusions that ya'all are free from bigotry..

Ya'all are entitled to your own delusions, but you are not entitled to your own facts..

And the FACT is, by ANY stretch of ANY definition you can find, it's bigotry...

"These are the facts of the case. And they are {indisputable}"

Michale

get me now?

JL

unfairly is completely relevant - in fact, it's vital - because if someone has a valid, factually accurate justification for their feelings, then those feelings don't qualify as bigoted.

JL

Then ya'all need to quit SAYING that Democrats are better than Republicans...

Throw in qualifiers like "by and large, Democrats are better than Republicans.." or "For the most part, Democrats are better than Republicans"...

Those are still bigoted statements but at least ya'all are qualifying...

But, by and large (see how easy it is.. :D), Weigantians CAN'T qualify their hatred because that would actually humanize and legitimize Republicans...

Read some of the full-on, venom-spewing, god-damning, hate-filled rants against Republicans from some Weigantians..

And THEN try and tell me that is not full-frontal, blatantly-nekkid bigotry...

There are varying degrees of bigotry here in Weigantia.. To deny that is to deny reality..

But to claim that it is NOT bigotry???

Well, that's just a weak justification to justifiy the unjustifiable...

A lame attempt to somehow excuse the inexcusable...

We're all bigots. We all rail against various groups of people for various, real and imagined, transgressions...

To deny this is to deny one's own humanity... If one has no bigotries, then one is an android...

Michale

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.

Does Paula or Light or anyone of a dozen other Weigantians strongly ('unfairly' is not really relevant because it's so subjective..) dislike Republicans..

YES...

a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group

Does Paula or Light or anyone of a dozen other Weigantians hate Republicans and refuse to accept Republicans??

YES....

Ergo, by YOUR definition, that's bigotry....

Don't take my word for it.. Read CW's commentary EMBRACING BIGOTRY....

It's all right there in black and white...

Well, light beige and black.. With cute little flowery squiggly background.. :D

Michale

Which has nothing to do with anything..

CHOICE is not a parameter of bigotry...

but is often just a social framework in which you are raised. you can choose for yourself how to interpret a religious doctrine.

So, for some redneck bodunk from BumFuq, Kentucky, it's perfectly acceptable for him to hate gay people because that was "just a social framework in which you are raised"

Right???

if liz or i say "democrats are better than republicans," that does NOT mean that we think every single democrat is better in every way than every single republican.

It does if you don't clarify...

Just as if I say "black people are better than white people"... Unless I clarify that, it's a bigoted statement..

Ya'all can tap dance all you want.. Sit around and try to clarify what the definition of "IS" is..

But when ya'all say that "Republicans are liars" or "Republicans are terrorists" or "Republicans are arsonists" ya'all are making a completely bigoted and unfounded statement...

Michale

Claiming all Republicans are bad and evil is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than claiming that all black people or all oriental people or all green people are bad and evil...

how about claiming all members of the klan or hamas are bad and evil?

simple definition of bigot from merriam-webster:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

being a member of a racial or ethnic group is a native trait, you're born that way. being a member of a religion can be a choice, but is often just a social framework in which you are raised. you can choose for yourself how to interpret a religious doctrine.

to judge somebody based on their skin color or religion makes someone a bigot because it has nothing to do with the target's own choice of personal behavior. being a member of a political group is a personal choice. it is not necessarily bigoted to evaluate the quality of someone's choices based on the factual outcomes of those choices.

if liz or i say "democrats are better than republicans," that does NOT mean that we think every single democrat is better in every way than every single republican. in fact, i have met many republicans who i can confidently evaluate as better human beings and more positive contributors to society than many democrats.

that said, it is not bigotry to make an evaluative judgment of two groups and compare the impact of their actions as a unit. it would only become bigotry if we were to suggest that some random individual was a good or bad person a priori, without getting to know anything about them.

I notice that you did not bother to try to discredit what I had listed as the reasons why I believe the Republicans are far worse, probably because you recognize the truth in my statements.

And if I list all the things that black people have done to "prove" my point that all black people are bad and you refuse to discredit my list, does that mean you recognize the "truth" in my statements??

We can play this game all day and all night and, when all is said and done, we will be left with the ONLY logical and rational conclusion possible..

Claiming all Republicans are bad and evil is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than claiming that all black people or all oriental people or all green people are bad and evil..

They are ALL completely and unequivocally bigoted claims...

It's THAT simple...

Michale

Republican Policy?? BAD

Again, let me re-iterate... Again... :D

What ya'all are doing is not bad, per se...

I would readily discount ANYTHING that Al Qaeda, ISIS or DailyKos would tell me..

The source for ANY information or policy *IS* relevant...

So, if ya'all automatically distrust ANYTHING coming from Republicans, I can understand it. These days, I even empathize....

There is no dishonor in that whatsoever..

The dishonor comes from refusing to admit it..

Michale

The Obama Administration has been pushing lenders to give home loans to people with shaky credit with little or no downpayment..

When Bush did that, ya'all excoriated him for it. It was "bad policy"...

But now that it's Obama who is doing the EXACT same thing... All of the sudden it's "good policy"....

Domestic Surveillance...

Under Bush, it was "bad policy"...

Under Obama, it's "good policy"...

Drone Strikes....

Under Bush, the wanton deaths of hundreds of innocents as collateral damage??? BAD policy...

Under Obama, the wanton deaths of THOUSANDS of innocents as collateral damage??? GOOD policy...

Illegal Immigration...

Bush touts his deportations of illegal immigrants to show he's securing the border... Bad policy...

Obama touts his deportations of illegal immigrants to show he's securing the border... Good policy....

I could go on and on and on (and probably will :D) about how ya'all, by and large, use just the '-D/-R' after a person's name to determine whether or not it's good or bad policy...

Democrat Policy?? Good

Republican Policy?? BAD

Michale

Obama pushed the JCPOA, despite the fact that it grossly favors Iran, because he said, among other things, it would be a way to bring Iran into the international community whereas they could bring Iran to heel on OTHER issues like Ballistic Missile development and Iran's support of terrorism...

IRAN SAYS MISSILE PROGRAM IS NOT NEGOTIABLE
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN_US?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-10-08-16-46

BAD policy....

Iran is not only pushing ahead with their missile programs, NOW they have BILLIONS of dollars with which to accelerate the programs...

BAD policy that ya'all claim is GOOD policy...

Michale

Obama's policy of welcoming Syrian refugees into the United States when it's been well documented that dozens of terrorists had been infiltrated into the refugees heading into Europe..

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would know that welcoming Syrian refugees into this country under those circumstances is ludicrous and suicidal..

But, because the guy doing it has a '-D' after his name, it's "good policy"....

Michale

Let me give you another example of the bias..

Ya'all have incessantly ridiculed Cruz for his comments regarding "carpet bombing" the Middle East..

U.S. deploys B-52 bombers to Middle East for the first time in 25 years
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/9/us-deploys-b-52-bombers-middle-east-first-time-25-/

Obama deploys the Carpet Bombers to the Middle East for the first time in a quarter century..

The response from the Left Wingery??

{{chhiiirrrrrppppppp}} {{chirrrrrrrrppppppppppp}}

Is this "good policy"??

Of course it is. It comes from the guy and the administration with a '-D' after their names.. Therefore it's "good policy"...

You see my point??

Michale

There is EVERYTHING subjective about the analysis...

but you cannot dismiss the differences between Republican and Democrat policy that led to those impacts and consequences.

Exactly..

The problem here is that ya'all ignore the bad impacts and consequences of Obama and the Democrat policies..

Take Libya for example..

At the time and thereafter, ya'all were going on and on about how good a policy Leading From Behind (AKA The Coward Of The Country) policy was..

Oh, it was grand!! Oh, it was awesome!!

Ya'all ignored the consequences..

And now, Obama admits that he fraked up on Libya.. He had no plan for the aftermath..

And NOW Libya is a cesspool of violence and misery..

Ya'all IGNORED the "impacts and consequences" of bad policy..

And WHY??

Because it was DEMCORAT policy.. And, simply by virtue of it being Democrat policy, it was good...

Your "analysis" is subjective because it STARTS with the premise that it's "good policy" and goes on from there...

If one were to step outside the box of ideological slavery and look objectively at the policies, they would discover what I know to be true..

Democrats and Republicans. Some good policy, some bad policy...

There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats..

They both use the same methods to achieve the same goals..

Ya'all are inside the bubble so ya'all can't see it..

Michale

Lighten up Michale ;)

"Lighten up, Francis!"
-Sgt. Hulka, STRIPES

:D

Michale

Michale, I have noticed that you use everyone's loose use of language to make your point but that just makes your point very, very lame.

I simply hold ya'all to the same standards that ya'all hold me to..

What's wrong with that???

Michale

And this is exactly why I hate politicians..

Michale

A person is lying if their intent is to deceive with what they say. Obama was just wrong.

Bullshit... Obama was told repeatedly in private briefings that millions of Americans would lose their health plans under TrainWreckCare.

36 times, Obama blatantly and knowingly lied...

Yes, what you said was in deed a bigoted statement. But that in no way means that my statement was bigoted.

It's EXACTLY the same statement. I just changed the groups of people...

Saying all Republicans are bad is no different than saying all black people are bad...

They are both blatantly bigoted statements...

Let me re-iterate that I am not saying that your bigotry is a bad thing.. We ALL have our bigotries...

I hate terrorists, child-molesters and politicians.. That's a bigoted statement..

But the difference between ya'all and me is that I CONCEDE the bigotry..

Ya'all refuse to do the same.

That's the difference that makes all the difference..

Michale

(75) ask... More yep!

i disagree with you about obama's "keep your health care" quote - it was given lie of the year by politifact in 2013, and i'm inclined to agree with them.

i do agree with you about the difference between bigotry and judgment based on evidence. saying democrats are better than republicans is like saying republicans are better than communists, or communists are better than nazis - it's a comparative evaluation of a group of people's real-life actions and statements, taken as a whole. however, if i were to say that a specific republican is not as good as a specific democrat, without knowing anything else about either individual, that would be bigotry. do i understand you correctly?

JL

To know this, you would have to be able to read minds..

No, I would only have to take them at their word! They stated in interviews that the better a piece of legislation would be viewed by Americans, the harder they had to fight to prevent it from passing! They opposed the Zagruder Bill to renew money allotted to cover the medical expenses of rescue workers who became ill after cleaning up the 9/11 site, which was probably the first indication as to the fact that things had changed in how things worked in Congress. This and countless other examples are how I know that they voted against our nation's best interests!

President Barack If-You-Like-Your-Health-Plan-You-Can-Keep-Your-Health-Plan Obama proved he was a liar all by himself...

A person is lying if their intent is to deceive with what they say. Obama was just wrong. The ACA was specifically designed in a way that made sure that insurance providers would not HAVE to rework already existing plans. Unfortunately, Obama failed to realize that nothing prevented them from choosing to restructure existing plans in order to increase their profits. One way to tell the difference between someone lying and someone being wrong; their willingness to admit that they were wrong. Obama was very direct about this matter. He screwed up. While what he said he had believed was the truth, it was not. He apologized for that. Now, maybe you've never been wrong before (pause for hysterical laughter), but when you are wrong and want to make amends, what more is a person to do?

Are the black people and white people ethically and morally the same? No. I am not claiming the white people are perfect, but black people have proven that they are not ethically or morally the same as white people...they are far worse.
Now, you tell me...

Yes, what you said was in deed a bigoted statement. But that in no way means that my statement was bigoted. You changing the subject matter without providing any supporting evidence to validate your claim makes your statement bigoted. I notice that you did not bother to try to discredit what I had listed as the reasons why I believe the Republicans are far worse, probably because you recognize the truth in my statements. I can show that all of the Republicans in Congress have done the things that caused me to arrive at my conclusion regarding them. A statement is not bigoted when it is factual.

Ya know all I have to say to disprove your opinion??

Lighten up Michale ;)

Michale

No. The Republicans in Congress decided to make Obama out to be a liar for claiming he would be known as the "bi-partisan President" during his inaugural address.

Republicans didn't have to "make" Obama a liar...

President Barack If-You-Like-Your-Health-Plan-You-Can-Keep-Your-Health-Plan Obama proved he was a liar all by himself...

The Republicans intentionally voted against legislation that they felt would be good for this country if it became law.

To know this, you would have to be able to read minds..

Are the Democrats and Republican ethically and morally the same? No. I am not claiming the Democrats are perfect, but the Republicans have proven that they are not ethically or morally the same as Democrats...they are far worse.

Let me adjust your statement that says the EXACT same thing, just using different groups...

Are the black people and white people ethically and morally the same? No. I am not claiming the white people are perfect, but black people have proven that they are not ethically or morally the same as white people...they are far worse.

Now, you tell me...

Is that a bigoted statement???

Of course it is....

I rest my case...

Michale

No. The Republicans in Congress decided to make Obama out to be a liar for claiming he would be known as the "bi-partisan President" during his inaugural address.

Republicans didn't have to "make" Obama a liar...

President Barack If-You-Like-Your-Health-Plan-You-Can-Keep-Your-Health-Plan Obama proved he was a liar all by himself...

The Republicans intentionally voted against legislation that they felt would be good for this country if it became law.

To know this, you would have to be able to read minds..

Are the Democrats and Republican ethically and morally the same? No. I am not claiming the Democrats are perfect, but the Republicans have proven that they are not ethically or morally the same as Democrats...they are far worse.

Let me adjust your statement that says the EXACT same thing, just using different groups...

Are the black people and white people ethically and morally the same? No. I am not claiming the white people are perfect, but black people have proven that they are not ethically or morally the same as white people...they are far worse.

Now, you tell me...

Is that a bigoted statement???

Of course it is....

I rest my case...

Michale

So, you would agree that morally and ethically Democrats and Republicans are the same??

No. The Republicans in Congress decided to make Obama out to be a liar for claiming he would be known as the "bi-partisan President" during his inaugural address. To accomplish this, the Republicans agreed that they would not vote for any legislation that Obama supported or that would be viewed positively by Americans. The Republicans intentionally voted against legislation that they felt would be good for this country if it became law. They no longer were concerned with what would be best for their constituents; they did not vote against legislation based on differing or conflicting political philosophies, but simply because Obama supported it. They boasted about this in 2012 when they believed that they had caused Obama to lose his re-election bid, and they wanted to get the credit for giving Romney the White House. They even bragged that the better a piece of legislation would be viewed as "helping Americans", the harder they had to fight to block it from passing! The Republicans gave interviews admitting all of this, taking such pride in their becoming the " Party of NO!" That the media let this slide after Obama was re-elected and their plan failed still blows my mind.

We have seen the Republicans choose to have opposing views with Obama on every issue, even if they had to flip/flop long held positions in order to do so. That way, their supporters will never hear them agreeing with Obama's actions. (The exception being the TransPacific trade agreement). Gov. Chris Christie was called a traitor simply for thanking Obama for his quick response to the disaster caused by Hurricane Sandy.

Democrats have never refused to work with Republicans on legislation simply to obstruct anything that would be viewed as "good for the country" from being passed. Democrats have never spent seven years voting against the best interests of their constituents, of voting against the best interests of this nation. Before 2008, I had always considered myself a Republican. I would have voted for McCain had he not flip/flopped from being a moderate Republican and turned into an ultra-conservative Immediately after winning the nomination. What I have witnessed in the actions of the GOP since Obama took office has disgusted me! Going to court to be able to lie in their political ads without the fear of being held legally culpable for what their lies cause to occur...and winning! Romney's campaign manager told reporters that they would not allow fact-checkers to dictate to them how they would run their campaign!

Are the Democrats and Republican ethically and morally the same? No. I am not claiming the Democrats are perfect, but the Republicans have proven that they are not ethically or morally the same as Democrats...they are far worse.

Good and bad policies each have consequences that are easily documented and analyzed for their impacts, negative and positive.

There is nothing subjective about such an analysis. You may choose to ignore these consequences, as you do, but you cannot dismiss the differences between Republican and Democrat policy that led to those impacts and consequences. They are what they are - good or bad and easily distinguishable.

I am beginning to understand why it is impossible to discuss policies and their impacts with you ... nothing is different, everything is the same, cause and effect mean nothing and the difference between good and bad is without distinction.

How so?

Because "good" or "bad" is subjective and totally in the eye of the beholder...

Michale

That's an opinion I would disagree with.... :D

How so?

;)

Yes...

:D

Michale

was this before or after reading [50]?

;)

JL

Rigged race means Hillary takes more delegates in Bernie’s Wyoming win
http://nypost.com/2016/04/09/bernie-sanders-wins-democratic-caucuses-in-wyoming/

But Democrats have absolutely NO moral foundation to point fingers...

Michale

And bigotry rears it's head again...

Ya know all I have to say to disprove your opinion??

ALBANY, NEW YORK

:D

Michale

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/04/09/you-don-rent-criminals-are-you-racist/PoPt0m36oQA3Nh7YOngA4L/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline&s_campaign=

It's crap like this coming from the Obama Administration that makes a Donald Trump presidency all but assured...

Not really, it is just to try to help some of our politicians who are being discriminated against, and since most of those with a criminal record are Republicans, it is a rare case of the Democratic executive helping out the embattled Republican legislative branch ;)

Legislative branch convictions since 2009:

Dennis Hastert (R-IL) Speaker of the United States House of Representatives pleaded guilty in court for paying $3.5 million to quash allegations of sexual misconduct with a student when he was a high school teacher and coach decades ago.

Michael Grimm (R-NY) pleaded guilty of felony tax evasion. This was the fourth count in a 20-count indictment brought against him for improper use of campaign funds. The guilty plea had a maximum sentence of three years; he was sentenced to three months in prison. (2015)

Trey Radel (R-FL) was convicted of possession of cocaine in November 2013. As a first-time offender, he was sentenced to one year probation and fined $250. Radel announced he would take a leave of absence, but did not resign. Later, under pressure from a number of Republican leaders, he announced through a spokesperson that he would resign. (2013)

Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was found guilty on 17 of 32 counts against him June 12, 2013, including wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators. (2013)

Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) pleaded guilty February 20, 2013, to one count of wire and mail fraud in connection with his misuse of $750,000 in campaign funds. Jackson was sentenced to two and one-half years' imprisonment. (2013)

Laura Richardson (D-CA) was found guilty on seven counts of violating US House rules by improperly using her staff to campaign for her, destroying the evidence and tampering with witness testimony. The House Ethics Committee ordered Richardson to pay a fine of $10,000. (2012)

Not forgetting General Patraeus (A-SS) ...

Brings tears to my eyes ;)

That's an opinion I would disagree with.... :D

Michale

However, when you stack up the bad policies and good policies and their resultant detriment to the nation and its people, then there is no doubt in my mind that Republican ideology today and the policies it inspires are far more detrimental. And, that defines the difference between the two parties.