Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #61 
Rock - Why do I get the idea that Herman Cain agrees with your preconceived notions and Obama does not?  If Cain has better ideas, in your opinion, than Obama, just say so, and leave race out of it.  Was Bush elected by Christian rich white people?  I perceive a future when an oriental Buddist woman with great ideas for our nation and a solid backbone becomes President, and no one thinks a thing about the color of her skin or her religion or her gender, but they recognize leadership and great ideas when they see them.     
PS - "Imagine" - "I have a dream".  

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #62 

rocklifter - You have nerve.  You didn't weigh in on one of these and you accuse me of running away?  Give me a break.  In any event, is there a question in there?  If you're asking if many black people weighed the fact Obama is black when it came to voting for him, you are absolutely right.  If you are suggesting it's the only reason, and I mean only reason, "anyone" voted for Barack Obama I disagree with you.

Now if you have a question, go ahead.  I didn't use any terms "white guilt", the turnaround I suggested is 16 months of private sector job growth, rise in stock market, and GDP growth.  You may call it what you wish but it's a turnaround since he took office.  Now for you and I to go back and forth over why this man should or should not be President would be a waste of time.  I say make your case and present it to our readers instead.  Have a good one.
rocklifter

Registered:
Posts: 2,921
Reply with quote  #63 
Frank and Dewey. Everyone seems to love to beat a dead horse in regards to what he has or hasn't. 16 months of private sector job growth? Please tell me where? Outer banks of North Carolina where one store hired 8 people?
Rise in the stock market? Where and with whom? After your answer I literally spoke with my Financial Adviser at UBS, his friend at Sun Trust Banks, and another person at Wells Fargo. To say they disagreed with your statement is an an UNDERSTATEMENT. I am sure a certain party can skew numbers for CNN like anyone else. Dewey you also failed to mention my question about the notion of the Tea Party. Considering your liberal leanings are you one of those who have spouted that it is a racist organization much like the KKK?
Frank. Why do we have to leave race out of it. Its thrown in our face every day of our lives here in the South and probably everywhere else. You are such a wonderful guy with Utopian ideals. I really admire this of you. I do....But in reality its an everyday issue. Herman Cain is a Black man who isn't afraid to address issues like this. He also doesn't think a sit down with a beer is going to provide a fix for the problems at hand. Do we need to remember the white cop who was vilified for doing his job? Frank you mention I have a dream? Do we recognize that the person from which this was quoted was of the same moral fiber as say Kennedy and Clinton? The biggest issue I have with this person is he pretended to be a man of god and yet was just the opposite. His father was the great man in that family. A true pillar of the community. Jr. Was not.



__________________
I voted for Trump. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #64 
rocklifter - I've put those links up so many times I can't count em.  Don't have time now but maybe I'll edit this later.  Market is way up since Jan 09 and the sixteen months of private sector job growth is touted in numerous articles and official labor statistics.  So is quarterly GDP growth.

Sorry for missing the Tea Party question but, no, I take them seriously and think it is unwise to ridicule or demean any group of people.  Nothing good politically can come from that.  And I don't call or consider any group or person racist as I'm not a mind reader.  However, there are occasions when people convince me otherwise. 

Hopefully, someday you'll answer some of my posts.  Not that important as I now feel it's almost better to just make my case to our readers, if we have any.  Until later.  
Lovemesomesoftball

Registered:
Posts: 5,786
Reply with quote  #65 


Rock, you said:
Yet if we mention the FACT that Obama was elected by Black voters who had no idea of his agenda other than "Change" we are wrong.
 
Is it a fact that voters of every other race studied all in the presidential election and voted based on this information?

Blacks make up 12% of the population. Less than 9% were registered to vote for the general election in 2008. If every black registered voter cast a ballot for Obama that would be less than 10% of registered voters. What did the other 90% do? Excuse me 91%

You asked:
Why is it so difficult for others to mention race other than those of the black community?

Some people can engage in discussions about race. Others can not. Some criticize Obama for his policies.....I think Oldscout is a good example. I don't believe he attacks the individual, Obama....he doesn't really attack the President....he disagrees with his policies and makes that argument. Some other on this forum when it comes to individuals who are black, red, blue, purple etc. intertwine stereotypes in their criticism.


You stated:
The only thing he has turned around is dividing this country more and causing an even bigger rift in party lines and geographic areas.

That is your opinion but the numbers show the country has been pretty much split since the 1992 elections. Politicians vote the party line, voters vote for their party.....Republican or Democrat...oh, now there is the "Tea Party".....I said it before in this country when it really important ....limited choices...two party system....Bank of America, Wells Fargo or PNC, HMO or PPO....seriously but there are 31 flavors of ice cream, nearly 50 something non dairy, non fat, non whatever is bad this week snacks, 100s of soda, 1000 of car colors...for the least important stuff....more options

In my not so humble opinion....that sh*t flings from both sides...and when one side gets hit in the mouth they want to cry. Same thing happens when  the other side gets it in the mouth.

Politics is like watching Red Sox and Yankee fans in a bar together after many many many drinks. Neither side can admit their team did something wrong.....but if a call goes the other way...it's always the umpires don't like us, everyone hates us....

You also said:
If this were anytime other than the era of white guilt and PC. There would be protests more so than ever. BTW: Do you dismiss the Tea Party? Its been called a racist organization by many of Obama's devotees.
When did "white guilt" begin?  Was it after the young lady falesly claimed she was attacked by a black man who was upset she campaigned for McCain. I don't know you might be the model of racial harmony but I think it is naive for people to believe racial hatred is something of the past.

Republicans, Democrats, and the Tea Party have individuals from all walks of life. David Duke was a Republican, George Wallace a Democrat. The platform of the party may not be racist but racist have political beliefs also. I am sure at the least there are individuals with racist beliefs in every major party in America.

Rock you and I don't agree on much but what we do agree on is giving each other respect. I hope that continues. I would think politics and history went together......historically since the 1960 election Democrats have received overwhelming support from the black community. Only one president, George H. Bush in 1989 received a higher approval rating among blacks than any Republican since the Eisenhower adminstration.
Your opinion regarding the black vote and Obama is similiar to critics who looked at the Catholic vote and Kennedy. The Bible Belt and George Bush

Not to re-hash history....but you and I have not always been civil to each other. We both have strong personalities and a certain tone comes off in our writing that might rub someone with opposing the views the wrong way or it may be taken the wrong way.

I think you see people as people in such a way...that you believe you are calling a clover a clover (see what I did there   ) In your mind there is nothing malicious, racial, devious about what you are saying.

Now to a black independent who weighed in if he was going to vote for McCain or Obama....your post might be patronizing. It suggest he/she voted for no other reason than Obama's ethnicity.

Another thing....George Bush had one of the lowest approval ratings during his last year in office. No Republican presidential candidate was callign on George to help him with votes. The writing on the the wall suggested a Democrat would win in November 2008. I thought it would be Hillary Clinton...who by the way....had black super delegates supporting her so much that they were going to vote for her despite Obama winning their state primary. ....but enough of that....it looked more like Americans saying they didn't want a certain party in my opinion than less than 9% of the population making the difference in the presidential race.
  
Another thing....Fox News wasn't around in '92 but many stations had more conservative anchors back then.....It is funny to hear people say MSNBC made this politician look bad...FOX  made this politician look bad....Ross Perot did not have a chance with the '92 media. When he entered the race he was a respected businessman..led both Bush and Clinton in the polls at one time...then the stories came out.....when it ended he was a "nut"....that probably was our last chance at an Independent candidate LOL!!!

rocklifter

Registered:
Posts: 2,921
Reply with quote  #66 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovemesomesoftball


Rock, you said:
Yet if we mention the FACT that Obama was elected by Black voters who had no idea of his agenda other than "Change" we are wrong.
 
Is it a fact that voters of every other race studied all in the presidential election and voted based on this information?

Blacks make up 12% of the population. Less than 9% were registered to vote for the general election in 2008. If every black registered voter cast a ballot for Obama that would be less than 10% of registered voters. What did the other 90% do? Excuse me 91%

You asked:
Why is it so difficult for others to mention race other than those of the black community?

Some people can engage in discussions about race. Others can not. Some criticize Obama for his policies.....I think Oldscout is a good example. I don't believe he attacks the individual, Obama....he doesn't really attack the President....he disagrees with his policies and makes that argument. Some other on this forum when it comes to individuals who are black, red, blue, purple etc. intertwine stereotypes in their criticism.


You stated:
The only thing he has turned around is dividing this country more and causing an even bigger rift in party lines and geographic areas.

That is your opinion but the numbers show the country has been pretty much split since the 1992 elections. Politicians vote the party line, voters vote for their party.....Republican or Democrat...oh, now there is the "Tea Party".....I said it before in this country when it really important ....limited choices...two party system....Bank of America, Wells Fargo or PNC, HMO or PPO....seriously but there are 31 flavors of ice cream, nearly 50 something non dairy, non fat, non whatever is bad this week snacks, 100s of soda, 1000 of car colors...for the least important stuff....more options

In my not so humble opinion....that sh*t flings from both sides...and when one side gets hit in the mouth they want to cry. Same thing happens when  the other side gets it in the mouth.

Politics is like watching Red Sox and Yankee fans in a bar together after many many many drinks. Neither side can admit their team did something wrong.....but if a call goes the other way...it's always the umpires don't like us, everyone hates us....

You also said:
If this were anytime other than the era of white guilt and PC. There would be protests more so than ever. BTW: Do you dismiss the Tea Party? Its been called a racist organization by many of Obama's devotees.
When did "white guilt" begin?  Was it after the young lady falesly claimed she was attacked by a black man who was upset she campaigned for McCain. I don't know you might be the model of racial harmony but I think it is naive for people to believe racial hatred is something of the past.

Republicans, Democrats, and the Tea Party have individuals from all walks of life. David Duke was a Republican, George Wallace a Democrat. The platform of the party may not be racist but racist have political beliefs also. I am sure at the least there are individuals with racist beliefs in every major party in America.

Rock you and I don't agree on much but what we do agree on is giving each other respect. I hope that continues. I would think politics and history went together......historically since the 1960 election Democrats have received overwhelming support from the black community. Only one president, George H. Bush in 1989 received a higher approval rating among blacks than any Republican since the Eisenhower adminstration.
Your opinion regarding the black vote and Obama is similiar to critics who looked at the Catholic vote and Kennedy. The Bible Belt and George Bush

Not to re-hash history....but you and I have not always been civil to each other. We both have strong personalities and a certain tone comes off in our writing that might rub someone with opposing the views the wrong way or it may be taken the wrong way.

I think you see people as people in such a way...that you believe you are calling a clover a clover (see what I did there   ) In your mind there is nothing malicious, racial, devious about what you are saying.

Now to a black independent who weighed in if he was going to vote for McCain or Obama....your post might be patronizing. It suggest he/she voted for no other reason than Obama's ethnicity.

Another thing....George Bush had one of the lowest approval ratings during his last year in office. No Republican presidential candidate was callign on George to help him with votes. The writing on the the wall suggested a Democrat would win in November 2008. I thought it would be Hillary Clinton...who by the way....had black super delegates supporting her so much that they were going to vote for her despite Obama winning their state primary. ....but enough of that....it looked more like Americans saying they didn't want a certain party in my opinion than less than 9% of the population making the difference in the presidential race.
  
Another thing....Fox News wasn't around in '92 but many stations had more conservative anchors back then.....It is funny to hear people say MSNBC made this politician look bad...FOX  made this politician look bad....Ross Perot did not have a chance with the '92 media. When he entered the race he was a respected businessman..led both Bush and Clinton in the polls at one time...then the stories came out.....when it ended he was a "nut"....that probably was our last chance at an Independent candidate LOL!!!



You sure we weren't separated at birth? I think that is why we speak so much in PM because I can throw things or thoughts out to you and you give me a honest and well thought out response. I always look forward to our exchanges my mind.
Thank you for your thoughts...

__________________
I voted for Trump. 
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #67 
Rock - Well said.  Truly, I was freed personally from any form of bigotry one day in Newark, New Jersey when I was pitching for a primarily black team, and I really disliked this one black guy and realized that it had nothing to do with his skin.  He was just a miserable sunofabatch.  I then lost my Cadillac "white guilt"  (black people are good and misunderstood) attitude and began to see people as people, good and bad of every kind, and I commend you for your take on MLK and his Daddy (if that is your take), although I see MLK as doing a tremendous amount of good for the black and brown people, and risking a lot (lost his life) by doing so in the South.  One of my former students came back from college and told me that he wanted to move to another campus because he said, "There are aspects of black culture that I just can't stand".  I think that's just fine because he didn't  say "Black or brown people"; he said "black culture" (sub culture?).  There is a huge difference there.  Yes, race is an everyday topic of conversation in the USA, but it doesn't have to begin with generalized prejudicial perspectives.  
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #68 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
A couple of days ago, I responded to two more political comments, regarding spending and our impending doom, with questions of my own that were once again ignored. 

Once again, in another thread, I was pressed by two members to give my opinion and I did.  In return, I asked them each for an opinion and maybe they went out for coffee.  Go figure. 

Let me ask our new misc member, DJPort the same questions.  Should Medicare and Social Security be kept as Federal programs?  Secondly, LMSS provided a long article from some unemployed individuals.  What would you do with those out of work longer than 99 weeks when benefits expire?  Actually, anyone can respond.
slideby7

Registered:
Posts: 818
Reply with quote  #69 
Mr. Dewey, no need for sarcasm.  Some of us have other things to do.  The answer is yes,m but they need to be revamped.  Please don't ask how, I'm not in the mood for the back and forth on that one.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #70 

slideby - Let me a bit more specific about what I'm getting at.  If a Conservative finds the mandatory Medicare insurance program to be a good Federal program, then I'd like to discuss why a similar mandatory contribution health insurance program for folks under 65 is so despised.  I can't see the difference in philosophy.  If a Conservative finds Medicare and Social Security to be unwise Federal social programs worthy of elimination, I'd like to investigate how they see this Country without them.  I'd like to discuss numerous scenarios I can think of where otherwise responsible folks could find themselves in dire straights later in life, without these programs.  Can't do any of this without knowing the positions of particular Conservatives.  I don't find these to be gotcha questions but rather interesting topics worthy of discussion.

If a Conservative thought these two social programs were necessary but should be handled at the State level, I again have many questions I'd like to discuss such as how do we handle folks who work and/or live in numerous different States during their lifetime?  What do we do with needy citizens in States who choose not to exercise such social programs?  Again, without knowing a position, there can be no discussion.
 
As for unemployment benefits, I'll tell you what one Conservative has told me to date.  This person thought unemployed people should exhaust their assets and then apply for welfare once they qualify.  He wasn't sure just what the precise term for receiving benefits should be.  It was a fair and well thought out answer worthy of consideration.  Maybe you feel similar.  Maybe you don't.  I don't see why opinions are so hard to draw out. 
 
If you remember, I had many more subjects such as what do we do with folks who refuse to buy insurance and get seriously ill or injured?  Should the Federal Government set national standards with regards to educating our children?  Should the Feds require inoculations?  Should the Feds be involved in safety standards?  Energy standards?  So many interesting subjects that should show the differences of left and right thinking and yet few seem willing to take them on.  I do find the lack of those willing to take a position hard to understand, not to mention the surprising suggestion of others that members should purposely avoid them altogether.  Maybe you or somebody can clear it up for me.     
DaddyO

Registered:
Posts: 1,016
Reply with quote  #71 
Should the Federal Government set national standards with regards to educating our children?

No.  It is clear that the Department of Education has been an abysmal failure and as a result should be abolished.  Let the states handle it.     

Should the Feds require inoculations?

No.  The States can handle this.  If the Feds are so inclined, they can block-grant money to the states to aid in things like this, but they don't need to be directly involved. 

Should the Feds be involved in safety standards?

No.  Again, the states can handle this.  Similar to the above answer. 

Energy standards?

Hell no.  The Department of Energy was established by Congress to deal with what were felt to be urgent national problems of dwindling supplies of coal, oil, and natural gas and the increasing dependence of the U.S. economy on foreign sources of fuel, particularly petroleum.  How's THAT worked out for us?  We can save quite a bit of money by eliminating this debacle as well.

Bottom line is this:  Federal level of anything should be heavily scrutinized, especially anything not specifically spelled out by the Constitution.  The temptation to determine 'winners' and 'losers' based on who knows who and who does what for who are too great.   

__________________
Scratch a reactionary leftist, find the fascist writhing underneath.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #72 
Daddy O - Wow !  So well said !  "Those powers not specifically given to the federal government shall be retained by the states".  Now, how does that stack up against an increasingly small world, nationally and internationally?  Is there need to be pragmatic on a federal level?  Such actions as the "Patriot Act" would make one believe so.  Is "States Rights" a dead issue?  I think not, but it certainly is a debatable one, especially  when lined up side by side with such issues as Civil Rights.  "National" education?  "National" highways and byways?  "National" economy?  National Taxes and distribution?  etc.?  
Excellent point of discussion in 2011.  Are our nation's initial documents outmoded considering the differences geographically  and demographically and technologically between 1776 and 2011?  

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
DaddyO

Registered:
Posts: 1,016
Reply with quote  #73 
Thanks, Frank!

The Patriot Act was framed around National Defense - at least I would like to think so.  If there are elements of that Act that are not focused on National Defense, they should be removed. 

I had to think about the interstate highway system, and the result I would argue is to block-grant the money to the states and let them keep up with repairs, etc.  Also - no strings attached to that money.   

I would certainly argue that our nation's initial documents are not outmoded, and I'll take that in a couple of different directions. 

First off, the Founders realized that the Consititution and Bill of Rights were not 'all-encompassing', so they created a mechanism for us to change it - the Amendment process. 

Secondly, I would argue that it's truly difficult to answer that question.  We have Federal Departments, a Congress that has handed over its authority to nameless, faceless bureaucrats so that the members of Congress could avoid 'hard choices' and therefore assure themselves of longer tenures, and 'czars' who skipped around the Congressional approval that has heretofore been needed.  I can't imagine the Founders ever imagined the sheer growth of the Federal Government to its present level.  I would suggest we need to actually try those documents as they were written to answer that question.  

__________________
Scratch a reactionary leftist, find the fascist writhing underneath.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #74 

DaddyO - I think you missed the bigger points, (Medicare and SS), I alluded to but I'll simply ask you this based on the answers you did provide.  If a State does not require students to attend school, makes inoculation of children optional, provides no inspection of food preparation, or fails to provide medical services for the indigent, should the Federal Government still keep its nose out of their business?  Is that what you're saying?  Once we transfer most services to the State level, I doubt there will be much grant money.   

DaddyO

Registered:
Posts: 1,016
Reply with quote  #75 
If a State does not require students to attend school, makes inoculation of children optional, provides no inspection of food preparation, or fails to provide medical services for the indigent, should the Federal Government still keep its nose out of their business?

Yes.  I do find the assumption that without Uncle Sugar's constant intervention the states will be like orphaned children to be a mix of humorous and disgusting.  Do you think for one second that citizens of said state will put up with no inspection of food preparation or medical services to the indigent?  Please.  There are many wonderful aspects to state-level decision-making.  Each state can decide for themselves the levels to which they want to provide based on their willingness to pay for what they provide.  Competition for those services will increase, driving costs down.  Citizens are closer to those individuals who actually make the decisions, increasing accountability.  This (to me) seems more desirable than someone working in the Beltway making decisions for people he'll never see in his lifetime.  Also, if a citizen of a state finds the levels of those services either insufficient or overly dicatorial, they can move to a state more their liking.  When the Feds control it and you don't like it, what are your options? 

Once we transfer most services to the State level, I doubt there will be much grant money.

Oh.  Let's eliminate several of these departments and see how much we're not spending as a result of their elimination.  My guess is that we can take half of the money we're spending on these departments, block-grant it to the states and take the other half and apply it to the debt.  The states would end up with more money and more control, and the debt would go down.  Is there a problem here? 

__________________
Scratch a reactionary leftist, find the fascist writhing underneath.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #76 
Daddy O - I remember well the reluctance of state educational institutions to accept federal monies because inevitability with the money comes federal control.  Can't have it both ways.  In New Jersey currently there is a huge battle going on between the governor and the educational establishment.  In Florida, many education jobs (especially teachers) have been cut by the conservative, businessman new governor, and there are personal and political repercussions.                                                                               

After the state government of New Jersey made the mistake of urging retirement to state employees (including yours truly as a veteran of a war) with medical and pharmaceutical benefits to the employee and his family, and then pharmaceutical costs were raised 400% in one year after many had retired (a penny wise and pound foolish move on the part of state government), the state coffers were emptied and state taxes rose, as did municipal taxes to provide for the cost of local education (grass roots economic theory).  Local taxes soared, and you know what happens when government reaches into people's pockets.  So it goes. 

 A friend just told me that in the beautiful upper class community where I was in education at the end of my career, one of the nice houses in town is now paying $80,000 per year in municipal taxes, and that people are no longer moving into that community.  That's what the governor inherited (sound familiar?).  Now everyone agrees that something must be done at the state level, just as long as nothing comes out of their pocketbook.  The governor acted, was initially applauded until too many oxen were gored, and now the citizenry is up in arms about taxation.  What  a great social studies lesson!!!   

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
DaddyO

Registered:
Posts: 1,016
Reply with quote  #77 
Frank - I would like to think that the block grants without a Department of Education would get us a LOT closer to 'no-strings attached' than the current system.

I'm assuming you're talking about Christie in New Jersey.  For the stories to be truly similar, he would have inherited a mess (the familiar part), driven up the state debt by over 50%, enacted a state-wide program that was truly unpopular with the citizenry and THEN complained that there was not enough state revenue.

I believe there is a word for that - chutzpah

__________________
Scratch a reactionary leftist, find the fascist writhing underneath.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #78 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
A couple of days ago, I responded to two more political comments, regarding spending and our impending doom, with questions of my own that were once again ignored.  I wanted to voice some displeasure about this but then we went into an entirely new direction, music.  Much more pleasant than politics for sure.  Didn't want to sour the mood but, since I'm leaving town, I'm going to take a moment and speak my peace now.  If we're leaving politics behind, we can disregard my concerns altogether. 

It's been a little over two and half years since someone introduced politics into this forum and one has to wonder if we've served any purpose whatsoever.  I do think the attacks against this Administration, (they have subsided a bit lately), have been successfully countered, on most occasions, by our left leaning members and I'm certain few Independents have been "won over" by these numerous Conservative threads.  That said, it would be very hard to argue that these have been constructive political discussions.
 
Yesterday, a member suggested I be personally water-boarded for my political comments.  I know, it was PGP, what do you expect?  Previously, he suggested I should stop posting because I was boring him to death.  Then the other day, another member actually questioned other members for engaging me in discussion.  He pretty much implied, "Don't fall for Dewey's trap.  He's trying to bring you into a discussion and make you look bad".  Now I ask, what kind of response is this?  Rallying the troops to avoid the debate rather than to participate.  Prior to that, yet another member asked me why I felt a need to intervene in a discussion rather than just letting others respond to the questions posed?  How is my intervention going to interfere with the response of others?  Couple these odd approaches with the anonymous member/s that sometimes use multiple handles to make their Conservative beliefs appear to be in the majority and/or to carry more weight, and one must conclude this has never been a debate forum as much as it has been a bash Obama forum.
 
I often go to great lengths to make the case that few things would have been any different today, regardless which Democrat was heading the executive branch, and it is simply ignored.  The chant from the Right goes on as usual, "President Obama is spending us out of control and our Country is doomed."  Doomed?  What an over the top, unsubstantiated, and shallow comment to be sure.  Unfortunately, ask for specific examples of either and the back and forth ceases. 
 
I've made it my mantra to say revenue is our primary problem and used numerous charts to support my case.  I went into great detail to point out that spending levels today are on target, based on decades of historical information, and then I used the same historical information to easily illustrate that revenue levels are way down from where they should be.  What was the response?  I'm simply accused of twisted logic with no attempt by my opponent to provide a "revenue or spending" case to the contrary.  Nope, it is simply what they say it is. 
 
Yes, I have a bit of a political side to me and an exchange of ideas can be constructive.  Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the goal here.   It's disappointing to make a long thought out post only to have other members rally their cohorts not to answer.  I just don't get it.  I'm also disappointed with the many Conservative friends I've made here that so easily ignore my questions, comments, posts, or whatever.  Are we here to debate or not?  I'd think in a debate forum one would cherish the opportunity to accept the challenge of questions by your opponent.  Here, it's quite the contrary.  They're encouraged to avoid them.  Additionally, I'm surprised so few are willing to cite specific examples to support their accusations, or simply ignore calls to substantiate their claims of doom or bankruptcy.   
 
It's always been disappointing that our audience seems so quiet and/or so small, particularly since they are our primary focus.  Now you could probably call them nonexistent.  I suspect one could attribute it to the quality of the discussions here.  It would be hard to argue with anyone who believes these threads are, for the most part, a total waste of time.  There's little doubt in my mind that the Conservative side simply wants us left leaning members, like me, to stop raining on the their parade and quit putting them on the defensive.  It would sure make their agenda easier, not unlike a talk radio host saying whatever if he/she wishes without the presentation of an alternative view.  
 
Well I'm off for a few days of vacation and I'll take some time to reflect on how worthy the time I spend here actually is.  Until then, feel free to do the same and/or, if you wish, you can continue down the road with "we're doomed, our Commander in Chief is destroying our Country, we are going broke, etc., etc., etc.", without any interference from me.  At least for a few days.  Have a good weekend.   


The good old soapbox days

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #79 
Thanks for posting KIR.

With Dewey gone, my interest in this forum has waned.  Why?

Dewey, like most liberals, is a congenital liar and it's almost a full-time job to counter those lies so the "50,000 readers" will be exposed to the truth rather than liberal lies.
Dewey, like most liberals, was wrong on almost every assertion he made.  It's important to point out those errors so the "50,000 readers" will understand the facts rather than rely on emotional rants.

Dewey has fled because the baselessness of his arguments were no longer easily hidden.  He knows his positions were based on fallacious arguments and he doesn't have the character and/or courage to stand in here and continue to fight the fight.

Dewey lost every argument and he didn't have the 'nads to face the music.  Without a foil, the forum is less interesting for me.  No offense to all of you, with whom I mostly agree on most issues.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #80 

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #81 
Sharyl is great
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #82 
I'll play along for you pabar, and see if we can get you interested.

Since most folks left here have gone full out "can't criticize trump", and will make stuff up to spin what a genius he is, when people with eyeballs and a brain the size of a snail can see he's stumbling around in the dark, I'll play foil, and point out when he's being an idiot. 

It gives everyone here a target.  I know I'm not as good as dewey, but some of the others here are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
Thanks for posting KIR.

With Dewey gone, my interest in this forum has waned.  Why?

Dewey, like most liberals, is a congenital liar and it's almost a full-time job to counter those lies so the "50,000 readers" will be exposed to the truth rather than liberal lies.
Dewey, like most liberals, was wrong on almost every assertion he made.  It's important to point out those errors so the "50,000 readers" will understand the facts rather than rely on emotional rants.

Dewey has fled because the baselessness of his arguments were no longer easily hidden.  He knows his positions were based on fallacious arguments and he doesn't have the character and/or courage to stand in here and continue to fight the fight.

Dewey lost every argument and he didn't have the 'nads to face the music.  Without a foil, the forum is less interesting for me.  No offense to all of you, with whom I mostly agree on most issues.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #83 
Mike - sadly, you've gone fully in the other direction.  I agree with EG.  I never once criticized Obama for golfing or taking vacations.  (I did, however, criticize how much money was spent on Michelle's vacations)  Being POTUS is hard.  Golf all you want but get sh1t done.  Trump, through very unconventional means, is getting stuff done.  I think if he communicated differently, you would change your opinion.  

But your posts make me think that maybe Trump has done something to you personally.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #84 
Did he end TPP day 1?
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 4,699
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
Mike - sadly, you've gone fully in the other direction.  I agree with EG.  I never once criticized Obama for golfing or taking vacations.  (I did, however, criticize how much money was spent on Michelle's vacations)  Being POTUS is hard.  Golf all you want but get sh1t done.  Trump, through very unconventional means, is getting stuff done.  I think if he communicated differently, you would change your opinion.  

But your posts make me think that maybe Trump has done something to you personally.


Yes indeed. And mike says "Since most folks left here have gone full out "can't criticize trump"......so mike, give me the roster of posters who you put in that group. Must be a long list, I'm not seeing it. mike does seem to have a personal problem with trump to be this emotional and inaccurate.

__________________
"Oh yeah and the 8 agency heaDS THAT SPLIT THE uRANIUM oNE MONEY WITH THE cLINTONS. yOU ARE A NEVER ENDING SOURCE OF WISHFUL THINKING. wISHING THINGS HAPPEN THE WAY YOU NEED THEM TO TO BACK UP YOUR RIDICULOUS CONCLUSIONS."
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #86 
Criticize trump all you want but have some meat with those potatoes
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #87 
He hasn't done crap.  He signed one VA law, and appointed a SCOTUS judge.  Granted, the SCOTUS was big, but I am not sure yet it outweighs everything else.

He has done something to me personally: 
- he has made conservatives forget who they are and what they stand for;
- he has filled the GOP with Dems and wannabes
- he has transformed the GOP into Dem-lite, thereby taking the country further left, from where we will never return
- he has furthered Obama's political-opponents-as-enemies narrative, which is destructive
- he has character assassinated actual conservatives, and gotten the GOP on board with it
- he has turned formerly respectable leaders into lying aholes to cover his every move

He has destroyed the GOP, and made them stand for nothing.  Party over country rules.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
Mike - sadly, you've gone fully in the other direction.  I agree with EG.  I never once criticized Obama for golfing or taking vacations.  (I did, however, criticize how much money was spent on Michelle's vacations)  Being POTUS is hard.  Golf all you want but get sh1t done.  Trump, through very unconventional means, is getting stuff done.  I think if he communicated differently, you would change your opinion.  

But your posts make me think that maybe Trump has done something to you personally.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #88 
mike a lot of what you blame trump for was actually done by the GOP to itself, self-inflicted wounds.  Trump was just occupying the vacuum
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #89 
Pretty funny


Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyGrayce


I'm not seeing it.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #90 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
mike a lot of what you blame trump for was actually done by the GOP to itself, self-inflicted wounds.  Trump was just occupying the vacuum


this may well be true.  in fact, probably is true.

some of us were pretty PO'd about it back then too, if I recall
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.