Republicans Can't Handle The Truth

Message boards : Politics : Republicans Can't Handle The Truth

Author	Message
Guy Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1183 Credit: 3,476,414 RAC: 635	Message 1304525 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 16:11:27 UTC
	The Republican Party was founded to put an end to slavery, it's job is done. Yup.
	ID: 1304525 ·

Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0	Message 1304534 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 16:37:11 UTC - in response to Message 1304465.
	Where do you get your "information" from? Terror, yes, I am now on the correct track. The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change." The "fundamental change" they voted for is to flip from "limited government/individual take care of yourself" to a total government responsibility to ensure equality of outcome. That's hilarious. Not one word of it is true. Seriously, what is the source of the "information" you believe? ____________
	ID: 1304534 ·

Guy Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1183 Credit: 3,476,414 RAC: 635	Message 1304535 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 16:38:05 UTC - in response to Message 1304534. Last modified: 10 Nov 2012, 16:40:23 UTC
	Straight from President Obama's mouth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28Yc-AHtZNs Where do you get your "information" from? Terror, yes, I am now on the correct track. The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change." The "fundamental change" they voted for is to flip from "limited government/individual take care of yourself" to a total government responsibility to ensure equality of outcome. That's hilarious. Not one word of it is true. Seriously, what is the source of the "information" you believe?
	ID: 1304535 ·

Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0	Message 1304539 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 16:51:32 UTC - in response to Message 1304337.
	Pretty soon, we'll all be paying for 'Bamacars. And they can be driven by illegals too, seeing as how some of them have no problem obtaining DL's. States issue drivers licenses, not the federal government. So if you have a problem with the issuance of DL's, your objection is to states' rights. ____________
	ID: 1304539 ·

Guy Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1183 Credit: 3,476,414 RAC: 635	Message 1304543 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 16:58:10 UTC - in response to Message 1304539.
	Pretty soon, we'll all be paying for 'Bamacars. And they can be driven by illegals too, seeing as how some of them have no problem obtaining DL's. States issue drivers licenses, not the federal government. So if you have a problem with the issuance of DL's, your objection is to states' rights. The states are discriminating. It's the federal government's job to step in and do away with this institutional racism. What about the folks who can't afford driver's licenses? Or produce any other form of identification required to get a driver's license? That's blatant discrimination right there in plain site.
	ID: 1304543 ·

Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0	Message 1304546 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 17:07:16 UTC - in response to Message 1304476.
	And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way. They're always saying stuff like that, it just usually goes unnoticed. The only thing unusual is that these cases were widely reported. The reason they were widely reported this time is that the mainstream of the GOP had started muttering about overturning a Supreme Court decision from the 1970s that protected women's reproductive health under the "right to privacy" which is guaranteed, I believe, by the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution, so those comments were directly pertinent to an issue that was currently being debated at the national level. Normally, that court decision (Roe v. Wade) is taken for granted by all but the most radical religious extremists, and avoided like a "third rail" in our national politics. But there are a number of rural Republican representatives who can always be counted on to say idiotic things like that. ____________
	ID: 1304546 ·

Guy Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1183 Credit: 3,476,414 RAC: 635	Message 1304551 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 17:15:12 UTC Last modified: 10 Nov 2012, 17:20:50 UTC
	They're always saying stuff like that can always be counted on to say idiotic things Which is why the republican party is now DEAD. Well, you tell me, what is "fundamental change?" To me, it means we are not far from a constitutional convention. What was my lie? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o
	ID: 1304551 ·

Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0	Message 1304596 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 18:58:52 UTC - in response to Message 1304551. Last modified: 10 Nov 2012, 19:14:11 UTC
	Well, you tell me, what is "fundamental change?" Don't you already have a link to the complete speech in which President Obama used that phrase? If not, why not? Have you not even looked for it? Is it because you're happier to assume he's a socialist than you would be to check the facts and learn that he really isn't? Not even close. He's not even a full-fledged Progressive and barely even leans that direction. Talk about mountains out of molehills. This mashup you posted earlier is moderately cunning as propaganda goes, but it contains no real information. The viewer is intended to infer, as you have, from the one phrase "fundamental change," that both men are talking about exactly the same change and that both are willing to resort to the same tactics. Neither of which is true and no actual evidence supports either inference. But neuro-linguistic programming "can have a powerful effect on the weak-minded." ____________
	ID: 1304596 ·

Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0	Message 1304597 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 19:00:21 UTC - in response to Message 1304551.
	What was my lie? This: The "fundamental change" they voted for is to flip from "limited government/individual take care of yourself" to a total government responsibility to ensure equality of outcome. That is cut from whole cloth, and you know it. ____________
	ID: 1304597 ·

Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0	Message 1304623 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 20:35:29 UTC - in response to Message 1304535. Last modified: 10 Nov 2012, 20:37:19 UTC
	Guy, you are ridiculous and dishonest. Both President Obama and Bill Ayers used the phrase "fundamental change" but neither said anything about "a total government responsibility to ensure equality of outcome." In fact, nobody ever says anything about equality of outcome but you wrong-wing extremists when you're making your straw men arguments about Progressives and progress. And then there's the well known fact that the two men's "acquaintance" with one another is fabricated from once belonging to the same group. ____________
	ID: 1304623 ·

WinterKnight Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6829 Credit: 17,174,982 RAC: 25,128	Message 1304640 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 21:34:11 UTC - in response to Message 1304515. Last modified: 10 Nov 2012, 21:34:25 UTC
	The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change." Did they? The popular vote was almost equal for both sides. The problem you are noting is the indirect way the President is chosen. And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way. Before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye, could you answer the question, when was the last time the majority party in the UK parliament won 50% of the popular vote? [ETA]I'm old enough to remember when the majority party in parliament won a smaller share of the popular vote (1974) than the minority party (like the Republicans did this year), others here may be old enough to remember two occasions where that happened in the UK (it also happened in 1951).[/ETA] I agree that the first past the post system in the UK is also flawed. But in the USA case it looks like a big, almost landslide, win for Obama at 332 - 206 when in fact as a country the population, that voted, is almost equally divided.
	ID: 1304640 ·

Guy Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1183 Credit: 3,476,414 RAC: 635	Message 1304652 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 21:57:45 UTC
	Guy, you are ridiculous and dishonest. Well if I'm that, then you are inferring only modern contemporary liberals are sane and honest. I now fully support modern contemporary liberalism because I realized Tuesday evening I'm in the minority. I don't know why you're all up in my case now, but you won. I will allow a little bit of light ridiculing, but beyond that, I can only assume the worst about you. Please don't do this. American has changed. The republican party is dead. Conservativism is dying. I'm tired of trying to explain where this country came from and how it got here. That's in the past and nobody cares about that any more. I accept what the American people want now. I want to let them have it now. All the evidence shows I'm not being ridiculous and dishonest. The new role of government is to take care of its people. Taking care of the people can only mean one thing: spreading the wealth. There aren't very many ways to spread the wealth. I don't know what you're thinking, but I sure would like to hear about what you think is going to happen now. There will be some die-hard conservatives in the house and senate for the next two years. But the mid-term election will kill off more of them if this is truly what the American people want. My fear is it's too late to go back now.
	ID: 1304652 ·

bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 1704 Credit: 13,317,376 RAC: 6,433	Message 1304671 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 22:42:57 UTC - in response to Message 1304640.
	The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change." Did they? The popular vote was almost equal for both sides. The problem you are noting is the indirect way the President is chosen. And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way. Before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye, could you answer the question, when was the last time the majority party in the UK parliament won 50% of the popular vote? [ETA]I'm old enough to remember when the majority party in parliament won a smaller share of the popular vote (1974) than the minority party (like the Republicans did this year), others here may be old enough to remember two occasions where that happened in the UK (it also happened in 1951).[/ETA] I agree that the first past the post system in the UK is also flawed. But in the USA case it looks like a big, almost landslide, win for Obama at 332 - 206 when in fact as a country the population, that voted, is almost equally divided. Your failure to answer the question is duly noted, it was 1931. Every landslide election in the UK since then has been on less than half the votes cast. Thatcher in 1983, where there were 397 Conservative MPs vs 253 others was on 42.4% of the popular vote, Blair in 2001 had 413 Labour MPs vs 237 others on 40.1% of the popular vote. As I said before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye.... ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
	ID: 1304671 ·

WinterKnight Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6829 Credit: 17,174,982 RAC: 25,128	Message 1304680 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 22:54:34 UTC - in response to Message 1304671.
	The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change." Did they? The popular vote was almost equal for both sides. The problem you are noting is the indirect way the President is chosen. And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way. Before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye, could you answer the question, when was the last time the majority party in the UK parliament won 50% of the popular vote? [ETA]I'm old enough to remember when the majority party in parliament won a smaller share of the popular vote (1974) than the minority party (like the Republicans did this year), others here may be old enough to remember two occasions where that happened in the UK (it also happened in 1951).[/ETA] I agree that the first past the post system in the UK is also flawed. But in the USA case it looks like a big, almost landslide, win for Obama at 332 - 206 when in fact as a country the population, that voted, is almost equally divided. Your failure to answer the question is duly noted, it was 1931. Every landslide election in the UK since then has been on less than half the votes cast. Thatcher in 1983, where there were 397 Conservative MPs vs 253 others was on 42.4% of the popular vote, Blair in 2001 had 413 Labour MPs vs 237 others on 40.1% of the popular vote. As I said before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye.... Booby, you are mixing up figures here, you are quoting UK figures on figures for party against total votes available, where the US figures are figures based on total votes cast. There is a big difference, also in the US the number of votes cast is usually below 70% of the population that could vote, whilst in the UK the figure is usually over 70%. So unless there is has been a big change, and the figures do not support that, then against the total voting population in this election then it will be about a third each for each party and the non-voters.
	ID: 1304680 ·

Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10334 Credit: 5,111,898 RAC: 6,568	Message 1304683 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 22:59:56 UTC - in response to Message 1304680.
	Booby, you are mixing up figures here, you are quoting UK figures on figures for party against total votes available, where the US figures are figures based on total votes cast. There is a big difference, also in the US the number of votes cast is usually below 70% of the population that could vote, whilst in the UK the figure is usually over 70%. So unless there is has been a big change, and the figures do not support that, then against the total voting population in this election then it will be about a third each for each party and the non-voters. WK, you may be on to something here. Each eligible voter who doesn't vote should have their vote automatically cast for "none of these candidates." That might just shake up elections in the USA. Instead of this register every moron BS the parties would only want to register people who will actually vote and then they will have to be sure they don't turn them off with vile attack advertisements. May be on to something WK. ____________
	ID: 1304683 ·

Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 8871 Credit: 1,233,496 RAC: 1,588	Message 1304764 - Posted: 11 Nov 2012, 2:20:38 UTC - in response to Message 1304543.
	Pretty soon, we'll all be paying for 'Bamacars. And they can be driven by illegals too, seeing as how some of them have no problem obtaining DL's. States issue drivers licenses, not the federal government. So if you have a problem with the issuance of DL's, your objection is to states' rights. The states are discriminating. It's the federal government's job to step in and do away with this institutional racism. What about the folks who can't afford driver's licenses? Or produce any other form of identification required to get a driver's license? That's blatant discrimination right there in plain site. I have never sighted an example of a discrimination being cited on this site.
	ID: 1304764 ·

Guy Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1183 Credit: 3,476,414 RAC: 635	Message 1304769 - Posted: 11 Nov 2012, 3:11:52 UTC - in response to Message 1304764.
	Pretty soon, we'll all be paying for 'Bamacars. And they can be driven by illegals too, seeing as how some of them have no problem obtaining DL's. States issue drivers licenses, not the federal government. So if you have a problem with the issuance of DL's, your objection is to states' rights. The states are discriminating. It's the federal government's job to step in and do away with this institutional racism. What about the folks who can't afford driver's licenses? Or produce any other form of identification required to get a driver's license? That's blatant discrimination right there in plain site. I have never sighted an example of a discrimination being cited on this site. There once was a discussion about voter cessation. The answers were expounded by expansion. Some identification, was the fixation, until it was called discrimination.
	ID: 1304769 ·

Guy Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1183 Credit: 3,476,414 RAC: 635	Message 1304771 - Posted: 11 Nov 2012, 3:31:52 UTC
	One for catguy, just banished before I could post it: We used to live in a great nation. But redistribution became our fixation. Hard work was the reward until it became abhorred and a majority claimed someone else's ration. (New rule, all posts from now on must be in the form of a limerick. Nothing about the guy from Nantucket allowed.)
	ID: 1304771 ·

Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 8871 Credit: 1,233,496 RAC: 1,588	Message 1304784 - Posted: 11 Nov 2012, 5:27:35 UTC - in response to Message 1304769.
	Pretty soon, we'll all be paying for 'Bamacars. And they can be driven by illegals too, seeing as how some of them have no problem obtaining DL's. States issue drivers licenses, not the federal government. So if you have a problem with the issuance of DL's, your objection is to states' rights. The states are discriminating. It's the federal government's job to step in and do away with this institutional racism. What about the folks who can't afford driver's licenses? Or produce any other form of identification required to get a driver's license? That's blatant discrimination right there in plain site. I have never sighted an example of a discrimination being cited on this site. There once was a discussion about voter cessation. The answers were expounded by expansion. Some identification, was the fixation, until it was called discrimination. So, now you are Cay-juhn Man? NOW?
	ID: 1304784 ·

Guy Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1183 Credit: 3,476,414 RAC: 635	Message 1304907 - Posted: 11 Nov 2012, 13:39:32 UTC - in response to Message 1304784.
	So, now you are Cay-juhn Man? NOW? He who goes by the name Sarge, continues to remain at-large. I've tried to break through, but he continues to spew and come at me like an electrical charge!
	ID: 1304907 ·

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Republicans Can't Handle The Truth