Continue the leftward slide, or compromise? Whose fault is the present impasse? [Archive] - Debate Policy

Little-Acorn

10-09-2013, 10:11 AM

Leftists (in both parties) have been moving the nation to the left for decades. Spending has exploded, goinjg up and up; deficits have soared, regulations and restrictions have been choking the nation for all that time and have been exploding as fast as the debt.

Some Republicans have finally said, Enough. No more.

It's clearly the only possible response. Continuing the headlong charge into debts impossible to repay, is long, slow (or maybe not so slow) suicide. Continuing the constant barrage of more regulation, more restriction, more government intrusion into everyone's lives, is as unconscionable as it is destructive.

The same leftists are screaming, Yes, yes! More of the same! More of the same! Don't change course! ...and have refused to even talk to the Republicans, much less negotiate or, God help them, compromise. (Yesterday Obama came out with a great one-liner, esentially saying, Sure, I'm willing to negotiate and compromise... AFTER you Republicans completely cave to everything I want!)

Whose fault is the present impasse?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

10-09-2013, 10:23 AM

gabosaurus

10-09-2013, 11:47 AM

Obama and the dems, anybody that says otherwise is about as smart as a box of rocks!!!! --Tyr

Try BOTH SIDES. duh...

http://centralsnark.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/lgst3241.jpg

Little-Acorn

10-09-2013, 11:50 AM

Tyr, little gabby just proved you right.

I think she must be sweet on you..... :poke:

gabosaurus

10-09-2013, 11:51 AM

Tyr, little gabby just proved you right.

I think she must be sweet on you..... :poke:

Anyone who thinks one side has more guilt than the other is dumber than a box of rocks. :poke:

Little-Acorn

10-09-2013, 12:29 PM

Anyone who thinks one side has more guilt than the other is dumber than a box of rocks. :poke:

And, of course, she is desperately NOT responding to the points made in the OP. As usual.

(We've known for a long time that Tyr was right about little gabby :laugh: )

Arbo

10-09-2013, 12:53 PM

Anyone who thinks one side has more guilt than the other is dumber than a box of rocks. :poke:

I don't agree with much you say, but to deny the truth of your above statement is to be so ignorant one should be ashamed of themselves.

DragonStryk72

10-09-2013, 01:03 PM

I don't agree with much you say, but to deny the truth of your above statement is to be so ignorant one should be ashamed of themselves.

Well, yes, both sides are to blame for the current impasse, but here's the thing: The impasse is necessary, in and of itself. It's very difficult to explain to the average person just how convoluted the ACA and our government as a whole has become. I mean, I had a thought the other day of hopping on USA.gov, and seeing what agencies there were that could be condensed and/or reworked, and dear God, shear number of them. And many were completely redundant agencies that did the same thing, like for instance, there are two separate departments for foreign aid, one for others countries in the world, and one for Africa. Is it really necessary to have a single Africa-specific foreign aid department? Or do you think maybe we could just fold that into the larger foreign aid department?

This shutdown is laying bear just how moronic things have gotten in our government all around, and with no politicians able to devote time to spinning the ACA, the people can see now, how truly screwed up things have gotten. Storms are terrible things that destroy, and can wreak havok on whole states, but they are a necessary part of nature, there to correct an imbalance. The political storm of this shutdown needs to rage on, so that people can see exactly where we've been stranded.

Arbo

10-09-2013, 01:13 PM

DragonStryk72

10-09-2013, 02:20 PM

I agree with you in principle. But I believe most citizens are not paying close attention, and are just believing what their biased talking heads tell them. Just as we see a whole thread on 'who to blame'... not enough people are seeing the big picture.

Well yeah, but that's why we need this to happen. Yes, a bunch of horrible things could end up happening, and likely will, but there's not other real way to get the point across now.

Larrymc

10-09-2013, 02:44 PM

Obama and the dems, anybody that says otherwise is about as smart as a box of rocks!!!! --TyrIt falls squarely Obama, the rest of the Dems are just scared pawns.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

10-09-2013, 05:54 PM

It falls squarely Obama, the rest of the Dems are just scared pawns. Exactly my point, until Obama doubled Bush's 8 year debt in less than 4 years this was a none issue. Now we have an accumulated 24 year debt in basically a bit over 11 years!! And the extra trillions belonging to Obama are the damn straw that is about to break the camel's back . The last time I checked Obama was a lousy ffing dem! The shoe fits so those scum get to wear it ...... Why did Obama and Reid make damn sure a budget was never voted in during Obama first 4 years is because under a CR Obama got to spend what he wanted were he alone wanted it to go! A very sweet deal no other president ever enjoyed! Which gave the ffing Dem party tens of millions in kickbacks called re-election campaign contributions. A mafia type operation that insured Obama would get re-elected. -Tyr

Gaffer

10-14-2013, 08:33 PM

The soviet union collapsed because it went broke. This soviet system is on the verge of going broke as well. The only thing lefties do well is destroy what other people build.

fj1200

10-14-2013, 10:33 PM

Whose fault is the present impasse?

Conservatives...

... for running crap candidates.

Drummond

10-15-2013, 03:15 PM

Conservatives...

... for running crap candidates.

May I congratulate you on an excellent post. Lots of invisibility, where text otherwise belonged !

Will we see its like again, FJ ... ?

I'm not surprised that you blame the Conservatives, though. It must follow, in your worldview, that the 'crap candidates' are such for not being Leftie enough for your tastes ?

You could try blaming the Liberals. However, you've already ducked that opportunity. Quite a 'surprise', that ... :rolleyes:

DragonStryk72

10-15-2013, 03:33 PM

May I congratulate you on an excellent post. Lots of invisibility, where text otherwise belonged !

Will we see its like again, FJ ... ?

I'm not surprised that you blame the Conservatives, though. It must follow, in your worldview, that the 'crap candidates' are such for not being Leftie enough for your tastes ?

You could try blaming the Liberals. However, you've already ducked that opportunity. Quite a 'surprise', that ... :rolleyes:

Wait... did you just call someone who has been vocal on every thread about how entitlements need to be scaled back, if not ended entirely, a liberal? What part of the liberal agenda is that, btw?

Yeah, the Republicans are running crap candidates, who do not call the Dems on their shit like they need to. That's not an indictment, that's saying that we need better candidates than the ones at present, who can stop getting pulled into campaigning to the Liberals' strengths.

Calling someone a Liberal for wanting better out of Republicans is just not helpful.

fj1200

10-15-2013, 03:43 PM

May I congratulate you on an excellent post. Lots of invisibility, where text otherwise belonged !

Will we see its like again, FJ ... ?

I'm not surprised that you blame the Conservatives, though. It must follow, in your worldview, that the 'crap candidates' are such for not being Leftie enough for your tastes ?

You could try blaming the Liberals. However, you've already ducked that opportunity. Quite a 'surprise', that ... :rolleyes:

:laugh: I guess it's true that the Brits have no humor. Further evidenced by what the local PBS station refers to as "Britcoms."

However, if you had any sense of not running to your leftie crutch so fast you might note that in the past I have blamed some "crap" Tea-Party candidates who tossed away winning campaigns by making stupid comments about gays and/or abortion. I can think of four off-hand over the past few years in Delaware?, Colorado, Indiana, and Arkansas. The Senate might be in Republican hands now if it weren't for those candidates.

Besides, everyone else here is "blaming the liberals" so the contrarian in me notes that there is some failure on the part of conservatives in running poor candidates in some cases and not doing the necessary leg work of educating the populace on conservative ideas and the superiority thereof.

Arbo

10-15-2013, 05:47 PM

Calling someone a Liberal for wanting better out of Republicans is just not helpful.

I can think of better words for it. ;)

who tossed away winning campaigns by making stupid comments about gays and/or abortion. I can think of four off-hand over the past few years in Delaware?, Colorado, Indiana, and Arkansas. The Senate might be in Republican hands now if it weren't for those candidates.

100% correct. The 'old school' republicans are total crap when it comes to running campaigns, and of course as you mentioned, far too often shoot of their mouths and turn off loads of people. I have seen many politicians with potential, but as soon as I hear them rail on about new laws against abortion, marriage amendments and putting 'god' back into the country, I tune out and will NEVER vote for them. Why they don't seem to comprehend we have far more serious issues to address in terms of our economy, jobs, immigration and the like, and just stick to that is mind boggling. It's like they want to self destruct.

Of course those that believe in those issues will say those issues are important and that the politicians need to speak to it. What they don't seem to get is that if people keep speaking to it and not getting elected, clearly the majority of voters disagree or don't want to hear it.

Larrymc

10-15-2013, 06:30 PM

I can think of better words for it. ;)

100% correct. The 'old school' republicans are total crap when it comes to running campaigns, and of course as you mentioned, far too often shoot of their mouths and turn off loads of people. I have seen many politicians with potential, but as soon as I hear them rail on about new laws against abortion, marriage amendments and putting 'god' back into the country, I tune out and will NEVER vote for them. Why they don't seem to comprehend we have far more serious issues to address in terms of our economy, jobs, immigration and the like, and just stick to that is mind boggling. It's like they want to self destruct.

Of course those that believe in those issues will say those issues are important and that the politicians need to speak to it. What they don't seem to get is that if people keep speaking to it and not getting elected, clearly the majority of voters disagree or don't want to hear it.I think the point your missing is those are defining issues if a Republican don't make clear where they stand on them, their going nowhere in the Party, What the Republicans need IMO is what were seeing in some of the younger and Tea Party ones, without them there never would have been a Shut Down, they would have caved to Obama done. Its time to retire the slugs

Arbo

10-15-2013, 06:35 PM

I think the point your missing is those are defining issues

If those are the defining issues, the GOP is dead to ever controlling all of government.

Kathianne

10-15-2013, 07:20 PM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165392/perceived-need-third-party-reaches-new-high.aspx

October 11, 2013
In U.S., Perceived Need for Third Party Reaches New High Twenty-six percent believe Democratic and Republican parties do adequate job by Jeffrey M. Jones

This article is part of an ongoing series (http://www.gallup.com/tag/US+Government+Shutdown.aspx) analyzing how the government shutdown and the debate over raising the debt ceiling are affecting Americans' views of government, government leaders, political parties, the economy, and the country in general.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Amid the government shutdown, 60% of Americans say the Democratic and Republicans parties do such a poor job of representing the American people that a third major party is needed. That is the highest Gallup has measured in the 10-year history of this question. A new low of 26% believe the two major parties adequately represent Americans.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/itxconuee0g1qe8ruicc0a.png
The results are consistent with Gallup's finding of more negative opinions (http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx) of both parties since the shutdown began, including a new low favorable rating for the Republican Party, and Americans' widespread dissatisfaction with the way the nation is being governed (http://www.gallup.com/poll/165371/americans-satisfaction-gov-drops-new-low.aspx).

The prior highs in perceived need for a third party came in August 2010 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/143051/Americans-Renew-Call-Third-Party.aspx), shortly before that year's midterm elections, when Americans were dissatisfied with government and the Tea Party movement was emerging as a political force; and in 2007, when the newly elected Democratic congressional majority was clashing with then-President George W. Bush.

A majority of Americans have typically favored a third party in response to this question. Notably, support has dropped below the majority level in the last two presidential election years in which Gallup asked the question, 2012 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157427/americans-split-need-third-party.aspx) and 2008 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110764/Public-Divided-Need-Third-Party.aspx). Support for a third party was lowest in 2003, the first year Gallup asked the question. That year, 40% thought the U.S. needed a third party, while 56% believed the Republicans and Democrats were doing an adequate job.

Republicans, Democrats Equally Likely to See Need for Third Party

Republicans (52%) and Democrats (49%) are similar in their perceptions that a third party is needed. In fact, this marks the first time that a majority of either party's supporters have said a third party is needed.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/r3cbdw6lluow8wrnbc4k8q.png

As would be expected, a majority of independents -- those who profess no initial allegiance to either party -- have always said the U.S. needs a third party. Seventy-one percent currently hold that view, which has been exceeded twice before, in 2007 and 2010.

Implications

Given the inability of the Republican and Democratic parties to agree on the most basic of government functions -- passing an annual budget to pay for federal programs -- it is perhaps not surprising that the percentage of Americans who believe a third party is needed has never been higher.

However, the desire for a third party is not sufficient to ensure there will be one. Structural factors in the U.S. election system and the parties' own abilities to adapt to changing public preferences have helped the Republican and Democratic parties to remain the dominant parties in U.S. government for more than 150 years. Third parties that have emerged to challenge their dominance have not been able to sustain any degree of electoral success.

Personally I feel government is way beyond under control. NSA, IRS, Homeland Security, all are running out of control. Obamacare is a new way for them to collect data they couldn't glean from emails, phones, texts, and computer uses.

My feelings about where government should be align most with 'libertarian' or 'tea party' except for the tools they run. Yes, the candidates are the issue. I'm not racist, I'm not hating on the poor or helpless. I'm not a social Darwinist. I just think that government, especially on federal level is way out of control.

fj1200

10-15-2013, 10:07 PM

100% correct.

I'm not sure whether to applause like a sycophantic moron or call you a bastard for snipping my post... I'm so confused...

I think the point your missing is those are defining issues if a Republican don't make clear where they stand on them, their going nowhere in the Party, What the Republicans need IMO is what were seeing in some of the younger and Tea Party ones, without them there never would have been a Shut Down, they would have caved to Obama done. Its time to retire the slugs

There's a difference between saying I'm pro-life and witches blathering on about self-aborting ducks. I can sell pro-life but not candidates who are sending material straight to SNL. I'm not sure whether the shut down is even going to be helpful, probably better to let ACA exist and crash in a flaming heap than have it compete for news time with the shut down.

Kathianne

10-15-2013, 10:19 PM

I'm not sure whether to applause like a sycophantic moron or call you a bastard for snipping my post... I'm so confused...

There's a difference between saying I'm pro-life and witches blathering on about self-aborting ducks. I can sell pro-life but not candidates who are sending material straight to SNL. I'm not sure whether the shut down is even going to be helpful, probably better to let ACA exist and crash in a flaming heap than have it compete for news time with the shut down.

Which was the point of the York article. That so few on the very far right, or perhaps better expressed as the low information right get, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

I'm conservative, pretty much a rightest libertarian, but I know when to call and when to fold.

Drummond

10-15-2013, 10:22 PM

Wait... did you just call someone who has been vocal on every thread about how entitlements need to be scaled back, if not ended entirely, a liberal? What part of the liberal agenda is that, btw?

Yeah, the Republicans are running crap candidates, who do not call the Dems on their shit like they need to. That's not an indictment, that's saying that we need better candidates than the ones at present, who can stop getting pulled into campaigning to the Liberals' strengths.

Calling someone a Liberal for wanting better out of Republicans is just not helpful.

My wording fell just short of doing so, in actual fact. I referred instead to candidates not being Leftie enough for FJ's 'tastes'.

Mind you, I've seen plenty of evidence in the past of agreement with Leftie issues. As I've pointed out repeatedly to that individual, if he's NOT a Leftie, he's welcome to prove it by posting pro-Conservative posts, rather than express thoughts that the Left could applaud.

I look forward to seeing some of those ... preferably in my lifetime ....

fj1200

10-15-2013, 10:26 PM

My wording fell just short of doing so, in actual fact. I referred instead to candidates not being Leftie enough for FJ's 'tastes'.

Mind you, I've seen plenty of evidence in the past of agreement with Leftie issues. As I've pointed out repeatedly to that individual, if he's NOT a Leftie, he's welcome to prove it by posting pro-Conservative posts, rather than express thoughts that the Left could applaud.

I look forward to seeing some of those ... preferably in my lifetime ....

:laugh: Take off the blinders man. You're so far down the rabbit hole you think the far end is the closest way out.

Drummond

10-15-2013, 10:37 PM

:laugh: I guess it's true that the Brits have no humor. Further evidenced by what the local PBS station refers to as "Britcoms."

.. this, referring to the nation that brought you Monty Python and BlackAdder, amongst others ? For shame .... :facepalm99:

However, if you had any sense of not running to your leftie crutch so fast you might note that in the past I have blamed some "crap" Tea-Party candidates who tossed away winning campaigns by making stupid comments about gays and/or abortion. I can think of four off-hand over the past few years in Delaware?, Colorado, Indiana, and Arkansas. The Senate might be in Republican hands now if it weren't for those candidates.

OK, 'fine'. Now list for me all those posts you've made which have shown ANY support for ANY Tea Party candidates, for ANY reason .. because I can't recall ever seeing any from you. Can you do that ? Or, will that be another of my challenges that you'll duck ?

There are Lefties around who specialise in trying to convince others that they are NOT Lefties, to maximise their chances of getting their views accepted. Views that always 'just so happen' to find cause to attack Conservative figures ....

Besides, everyone else here is "blaming the liberals" so the contrarian in me notes that there is some failure on the part of conservatives in running poor candidates in some cases and not doing the necessary leg work of educating the populace on conservative ideas and the superiority thereof.

... QED ?

Perhaps you seek to imply that, if there's an insistence on 'running poor candidates', that true Conservatives can't rely on getting proper representation, so maybe Conservative supporters should feel disillusioned enough to just not bother to support Conservatives at all in future ? Eh ?

And if THAT thinking became prevalent, are you saying that Obama's Party would NOT gain from it ?? Fact is that Lefties have a lot to gain from trying to break Conservative morale.

FJ, I'm not actually saying that your point has no merit at all. Me ... I'd hoped to see a more Conservative figure than Romney win through to challenge Obama at the last election (I quite liked Michele Bachmann ..). However, you post as you do ... which tells me the truth about your true sympathies.

Drummond

10-15-2013, 10:44 PM

:laugh: Take off the blinders man. You're so far down the rabbit hole you think the far end is the closest way out.

Indeed ?

I 'look forward', no doubt in a future thread, to more posts from you arguing how 'human' terrorists are, and presumably also how their 'human rights' should count for something .. positions reminiscent of that arch-'Conservative' figure, Jimmy Carter .... :laugh::laugh:

Oh, and if you could see your way clear to STOPPING all your argumentative posts aimed at the more Right wing of us on this forum, you might just start coming across as being more convincing.

But somehow I can't see that happening, FJ. Now, 'I wonder why' .. ?

Arbo

10-15-2013, 10:47 PM

I'm not sure whether to applause like a sycophantic moron or call you a bastard for snipping my post... I'm so confused...

There is already far too much of the former, so go with the latter. ;)

if he's NOT a Leftie, he's welcome to prove it by posting pro-Conservative posts, rather than express thoughts that the Left could applaud.

It's a good thing there are only two sides eh? Nobody could possibly stand outside of the box of the left or the box of the right, nope, not possible.

fj1200

10-15-2013, 10:49 PM

.. this, referring to the nation that brought you Monty Python and BlackAdder, amongst others ? For shame .... :facepalm99:

Proof that even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally. But for now the Brits pollute my Friday nights with their "comedy."

OK, 'fine'. Now list for me all those posts you've made which have shown ANY support for ANY Tea Party candidates, for ANY reason .. because I can't recall ever seeing any from you. Can you do that ? Or, will that be another of my challenges that you'll duck ?

There are Lefties around who specialise in trying to convince others that they are NOT Lefties, to maximise their chances of getting their views accepted. Views that always 'just so happen' to find cause to attack Conservative figures ....

Hmm, let's see... should I waste a second of my time presenting evidence that you won't take the time to notice or should you just own up to your failure to point out all those "leftie" positions that I've been advocating for oh so long here. And I'm the one ducking. :laugh: British humor, you do provide me comedy so I could possibly change my position on that.

You're so confused by all those "specialists" that are out there on the interwebs trying to lure "conservatives" such as yourself that you start seeing them everywhere. It's quite sad actually.

... QED ?

FJ, I'm not actually saying that your point has no merit at all. Me ... I'd hoped to see a more Conservative figure than Romney win through to challenge Obama at the last election (I quite liked Michele Bachmann ..). However, you post as you do ... which tells me the truth about your true sympathies.

You have an active imagination. The only thing I can do is shake my head and wait.

fj1200

10-15-2013, 10:54 PM

Indeed ?

I 'look forward', no doubt in a future thread, to more posts from you arguing how 'human' terrorists are, and presumably also how their 'human rights' should count for something .. positions reminiscent of that arch-'Conservative' figure, Jimmy Carter .... :laugh::laugh:

Oh, and if you could see your way clear to STOPPING all your argumentative posts aimed at the more Right wing of us on this forum, you might just start coming across as being more convincing.

But somehow I can't see that happening, FJ. Now, 'I wonder why' .. ?

Jimmy Carter or Hitler and Goebbels. I'm no fan of Jimmy's politics but I'll see fit to avoid the whole untermensch stance.

And FWIW, I'm not aiming my posts at the more "right wing," I'm aiming at those who can't argue there way out of a paper bag because they don't know what actual small-government conservatism is.

BTW, you don't need to wonder why; you display weak-minded logic and have disgusting positions. But I'll give you this, no one is compensating more than you. :)

Drummond

10-15-2013, 11:07 PM

It's a good thing there are only two sides eh? Nobody could possibly stand outside of the box of the left or the box of the right, nope, not possible.

... just so long as one particular side keeps getting lots of criticism, the prime beneficiaries of any success being one other side ..

Any prizes for guessing what side (within the context of FJ's offerings) that would be .. ?

fj1200

10-15-2013, 11:16 PM

... just so long as one particular side keeps getting lots of criticism, the prime beneficiaries of any success being one other side ..

Any prizes for guessing what side (within the context of FJ's offerings) that would be .. ?

Oh man, if you're the benchmark for conservative thought... we're screwed.

and hmm, it looks like I get to stand with Reagan on torture.

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures againsttorture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

Drummond

10-15-2013, 11:18 PM

Proof that even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally. But for now the Brits pollute my Friday nights with their "comedy."

Ah, how you must be 'suffering' .. apparently very willingly so ... :laugh::laugh:

Hmm, let's see... should I waste a second of my time presenting evidence that you won't take the time to notice or should you just own up to your failure to point out all those "leftie" positions that I've been advocating for oh so long here. And I'm the one ducking. :laugh: British humor, you do provide me comedy so I could possibly change my position on that.

... All of which points to your DUCKING ANOTHER OF MY CHALLENGES. What a surprise ... :laugh:

You're so confused by all those "specialists" that are out there on the interwebs trying to lure "conservatives" such as yourself that you start seeing them everywhere. It's quite sad actually.

Ah, a put-down. Better to deride, if you have no hope whatever of disproving the truth in my posts ... eh ?

You have an active imagination. The only thing I can do is shake my head and wait.

I agree. As a LEFTIE, following a covert agenda, this is your most consistent option.

But then again .... if you were for real, you could at least some of the time post pieces which were wholly pro-Conservative, devoid of snide put-downs .. instead of just 'happening' to offer criticism, instead. Or .. you could post something that was fully and unequivocally supportive of a Conservative here, with NO qualification of that support evident.

Try it sometime.

Or .. won't you ?

Arbo

10-15-2013, 11:18 PM

Drummond

10-15-2013, 11:21 PM

The WOOOSH you hear is not an airplane passing by. :laugh:

This is the best you can do ?

fj1200

10-15-2013, 11:22 PM

What??? Could this be (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100099683/we-covered-up-our-involvement-in-torture-now-we-must-expose-it/)???

Margaret Thatcher, then in the last few weeks of her magnificent premiership, carefully considered this request. She consulted her conscience and pondered what was the right thing to do. Within a very short space of time, a clear and magisterial instruction was issued from Downing Street and dispatched around Whitehall: Mrs Thatcher wanted it known that the British state was not, in any circumstances, to make use of intelligence that might have come from victims of torture.

fj1200

10-15-2013, 11:29 PM

Ah, how you must be 'suffering' .. apparently very willingly so ... :laugh::laugh:

They pollute one channel. I have a remote to change the channel. Has that technology not made it to you yet?

... All of which points to your DUCKING ANOTHER OF MY CHALLENGES. What a surprise ... :laugh:

Yeah, I'm ducking your imagination. Good one. So, the listing of my leftie positions will be forthcoming?

Ah, a put-down. Better to deride, if you have no hope whatever of disproving the truth in my posts ... eh ?

Not a put-down. A medical diagnosis of your delusional behaviors. Don't worry, my associates degree in recognizing the mentally unstable on internet forums comes from an accredited institution.

I agree. As a LEFTIE, following a covert agenda, this is your most consistent option.

But then again .... if you were for real, you could at least some of the time post pieces which were wholly pro-Conservative, devoid of snide put-downs .. instead of just 'happening' to offer criticism, instead. Or .. you could post something that was fully and unequivocally supportive of a Conservative here, with NO qualification of that support evident.

Try it sometime.

Or .. won't you ?

You must have an inability to read because I spend plenty of time arguing the "wholly pro-conservative." But yeah, go with that covert agenda thing, it makes you look even more ridiculous.

Drummond

10-15-2013, 11:40 PM

Jimmy Carter or Hitler and Goebbels. I'm no fan of Jimmy's politics but I'll see fit to avoid the whole untermensch stance.

Translation: you're no fan of Jimmy Carter's politics, you'll just advocate a cornerstone of it at every opportunity ... :laugh:

As for the Hitler and Goebbels reference - also the 'untermensch' one .. that's just you proving my point. An attempt to demonise my position through something unconnected with it. Jews never proved any subhumanity, so the whole 'untermensch' thing was racism with a Holocaustal aim in mind. However, terrorists prove their subhumanity on a daily basis ... which YOU, and LEFTIES, refuse to recognise under any circumstances.

.. it, ahem, just 'must be a coincidence' ....

And FWIW, I'm not aiming my posts at the more "right wing,"

... Riiiight ... and you are known for comparable 'post-aimings' against the more Left wing of DP contributors here, as well ??

Here's yet another of my challenges to duck, FJ. Show us a list of criticising posts, or characteristic put-down pieces, you've addressed against the more Left wing of people here.

I won't hold my breath ....

I'm aiming at those who can't argue there way out of a paper bag because they don't know what actual small-government conservatism is.

... always, these snide put-downs. You just can't help yourself, can you ?

BTW, you don't need to wonder why; you display weak-minded logic and have disgusting positions. But I'll give you this, no one is compensating more than you. :)

I, as a Conservative thinker, have, er'm, 'disgusting positions' ??

Isn't this overkill, FJ, and this from someone supposedly WITHOUT anti-Conservative biases ?

You may genuinely not like my 'positions', FJ, but you do so from a position of inbuilt bias.

You make this increasingly transparent the more you post.

What I do, very simply, is to recognise reality. It may not be pleasant reality, but it IS reality, nonetheless. But you, like other Lefties wedded to an agenda they cannot stray from, absolutely refuse to recognise evidence unfriendly to your worldview that's staring you in the face.

Drummond

10-15-2013, 11:52 PM

They pollute one channel. I have a remote to change the channel. Has that technology not made it to you yet?

.. which, apparently, you DON'T USE ?

Yeah, I'm ducking your imagination. Good one. So, the listing of my leftie positions will be forthcoming?

Cop out.

Not a put-down. A medical diagnosis of your delusional behaviors. Don't worry, my associates degree in recognizing the mentally unstable on internet forums comes from an accredited institution.

More of your 'unbiased' overkill. Tell us, if you feel competent to reach a so-called 'medical diagnosis', of the medical qualifications you have which make you competent to issue them ?

So tell us. Have you ever attempted any adverse prognosis of more Left-wing positions expressed on this forum, expressed with comparable forthrightness, or are these reserved solely for the Right-wingers here ?

As I say -- you become more transparent with every post, my son ...

You must have an inability to read because I spend plenty of time arguing the "wholly pro-conservative." But yeah, go with that covert agenda thing, it makes you look even more ridiculous.

Fine. Let's see you illustrate your case. Let's see evidence showing us that you're really on the side of Conservatives here, which, if you've argued the 'wholly pro-Conservative', you logically 'MUST BE' ....

Cue for some more ducking .. ?

fj1200

10-15-2013, 11:56 PM

Translation: you're no fan of Jimmy Carter's politics, you'll just advocate a cornerstone of it at every opportunity ... :laugh:

As for the Hitler and Goebbels reference - also the 'untermensch' one .. that's just you proving my point. An attempt to demonise my position through something unconnected with it. Jews never proved any subhumanity, so the whole 'untermensch' thing was racism with a Holocaustal aim in mind. However, terrorists prove their subhumanity on a daily basis ... which YOU, and LEFTIES, refuse to recognise under any circumstances.

.. it, ahem, just 'must be a coincidence' ....

You'll just advocate a cornerstone of the third reich. OK, I guess that works for you. But I can't believe that you are so blinded as to think that there are no conservatives that are against torture. I guess in your imagination it's true. As far as the cornerstone of Jimmy, he's a liberal who advocates greater State powers over the individual whereby you advocate greater State powers over the individual... Hmm, two peas in a pod you two.

... Riiiight ... and you are known for comparable 'post-aimings' against the more Left wing of DP contributors here, as well ??

Here's yet another of my challenges to duck, FJ. Show us a list of criticising posts, or characteristic put-down pieces, you've addressed against the more Left wing of people here.

I won't hold my breath ....

I don't duck, I refuse. Your ignorance is not my fault. If you can find an actual example, somewhere outside of your imagination that is, I'll be happy to explain your error but until then...

... always, these snide put-downs. You just can't help yourself, can you ?

No put-down there. It's truth. You are unable to have a conversation without constant deflection to any other issue and insistence on making your failings my fault.

I, as a Conservative thinker, have, er'm, 'disgusting positions' ??

Isn't this overkill, FJ, and this from someone supposedly WITHOUT anti-Conservative biases ?

You may genuinely not like my 'positions', FJ, but you do so from a position of inbuilt bias.

You make this increasingly transparent the more you post.

What I do, very simply, is to recognise reality. It may not be pleasant reality, but it IS reality, nonetheless. But you, like other Lefties wedded to an agenda they cannot stray from, absolutely refuse to recognise evidence unfriendly to your worldview that's staring you in the face.

See, that's your imagination going crazy again. You are NO conservative thinker, hell, your not even conservative in my book. My bias of insult is based on your complete and utter ignorance and disgusting positions.

I'm not even sure what my supposed agenda is... why don't you explain it all for us. I'm dying to find out what it is.

fj1200

10-16-2013, 12:03 AM

.. which, apparently, you DON'T USE ?

:confused: Umm, I use it to flip to that channel and then use it to flip past the channel and then ultimately just turn the TV off because Friday night is pretty weak to begin with. Hawaii 5-0 in particular is just awful.

Cop out.

So again, you can't point to any of my actual position. That imagination of yours... whew.

More of your 'unbiased' overkill. Tell us, if you feel competent to reach a so-called 'medical diagnosis', of the medical qualifications you have which make you competent to issue them ?

So tell us. Have you ever attempted any adverse prognosis of more Left-wing positions expressed on this forum, expressed with comparable forthrightness, or are these reserved solely for the Right-wingers here ?

As I say -- you become more transparent with every post, my son ...

Yes, I am competent to make the call, my associates degree is money well spent. And you may be right about becoming more transparent; I can no longer feign any hint of respect for you and your positions. I call out ignorant left-wingers too so you also have that in common.

Fine. Let's see you illustrate your case. Let's see evidence showing us that you're really on the side of Conservatives here.

Cue for some more ducking .. ?

Try reading any thread. I don't know how to prove your imagination wrong other than 11,000+ posts.

Drummond

10-16-2013, 12:12 AM

What??? Could this be (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100099683/we-covered-up-our-involvement-in-torture-now-we-must-expose-it/)???

Most interesting.

A couple of points to make ...

1. Mrs Thatcher's decision came - according to the article you cite - out of a consideration for her understanding of international law. Her 'doing the right thing' had that element within it.

2. Mrs Thatcher reached her decision within a context far removed from the level of terrorism we've seen since those days. Blair operated within a more modern context than did Mrs Thatcher. The evidence for what was evidently deserved and appropriate was a lot clearer to see, AFTER the atrocities of 9/11 and 7/7, to say nothing of the terrorist battles waged against Coalition forces since.

But ... never mind, FJ. You, as the (at times ?) an arguer of the 'wholly Conservative', will -but of course ? - be motivated to take time out to attack pro-Conservative thinkers ... because 'it's the Conservative thing to do' ?

Or, is that more in line with that of a Leftie with an agenda ?

fj1200

10-16-2013, 12:21 AM

Most interesting.

A couple of points to make ...

1. Mrs Thatcher's decision came - according to the article you cite - out of a consideration for her understanding of international law. Her 'doing the right thing' had that element within it.

2. Mrs Thatcher reached her decision within a context far removed from the level of terrorism we've seen since those days. Blair operated within a more modern context than did Mrs Thatcher. The evidence for what was evidently deserved and appropriate was a lot clearer to see, AFTER the atrocities of 9/11 and 7/7, to say nothing of the terrorist battles waged against Coalition forces since.

But ... never mind, FJ. You, as the (at times ?) an arguer of the 'wholly Conservative', will -but of course ? - be motivated to take time out to attack pro-Conservative thinkers ... because 'it's the Conservative thing to do' ?

Or, is that more in line with that of a Leftie with an agenda ?

So you get to be the arbiter of her thoughts? That's mighty convenient. But now you get to decide that Mags would have "evolved" her thinking like we should "evolve" our Constitution. That's also mighty convenient.

I'm sorry, you've gone to mumbling that last bit. Who am I taking the time to attack? Which pro-conservative thinkers? I applaud Thatcher and her decision. You, however have gone down that agenda road again. :rolleyes: Please tell me my agenda, I'm dying to use it on those who don't have quite the imagination that you do. :laugh:

Drummond

10-16-2013, 12:25 AM

:confused: Umm, I use it to flip to that channel and then use it to flip past the channel and then ultimately just turn the TV off because Friday night is pretty weak to begin with. Hawaii 5-0 in particular is just awful.

Try for some consistency in your statements, FJ. That way, you see, they become more believable. You said, previously ..

But for now the Brits pollute my Friday nights with their "comedy."
If you flip to 'that channel', you do so out of choice. And if you find your other choices 'awful', then you share your dislike of British comedy with most other material transmitted on that day.

So why single out British comedy ? The 'pollution' of which you speak is far wider than just that aspect.

So again, you can't point to any of my actual position. That imagination of yours... whew.

Tiresome. I needn't even comment.

Yes, I am competent to make the call, my associates degree is money well spent.

Why doesn't your 'associates degree' description convince me ?

Besides, what level of competency is evident from someone content to reach a diagnosis just from a blog page ??

And you may be right about becoming more transparent; I can no longer feign any hint of respect for you and your positions.

I'm not aware that you ever tried. Yes, your bias has been THAT transparent.

I call out ignorant left-wingers too so you also have that in common.

Proof ?

... no .. ?

Try reading any thread. I don't know how to prove your imagination wrong other than 11,000+ posts.

That's quite a tally. But ... is it too small for you to list some examples ?

Let's see .......

fj1200

10-16-2013, 12:34 AM

Try for some consistency in your statements, FJ. That way, you see, they become more believable. You said, previously ..

If you flip to 'that channel', you do so out of choice. And if you find your other choices 'awful', then you share your dislike of British comedy with most other material transmitted on that day.

So why single out British comedy ? The 'pollution' of which you speak is far wider than just that aspect.

Lose another argument so you go down this road. :rolleyes:

Tiresome. I needn't even comment.

Because you can't. Own your failure.

Why doesn't your 'associates degree' description convince me ?

Besides, what level of competency is evident from someone content to reach a diagnosis just from a blog page ??

Clearly you don't understand humor. Not surprising, your British.

I'm not aware that you ever tried. Yes, your bias has been THAT transparent.

Bummer dude, you're bringing me down. :laugh:

Proof ?

... no .. ?

Apart from you? I've pointed you to left-wingers of the past in other threads but you refuse to look so you can continue to avoid your failure.

That's quite a tally. But ... is it too small for you to list some examples ?

Let's see .......

Nope, too large to bother looking for what you ignore. So what's next on my agenda? I've already shown you to be a "conservative" who doesn't understand the word.

Drummond

10-16-2013, 12:41 AM

So you get to be the arbiter of her thoughts? That's mighty convenient. But now you get to decide that Mags would have "evolved" her thinking like we should "evolve" our Constitution. That's also mighty convenient.

Conservatives tend to think in a particular way. At least ... they have certain thought-processes in common.

Do you know for a fact that Mrs Thatcher WOULDN'T have evolved her thinking ? If you profess that she definitely wouldn't have .. that, too, is 'mighty convenient' ...

Conservatives are realists. It may be your Leftie thinking which is persuading you to think that non-realism would continue indefinitely.

I'm sorry, you've gone to mumbling that last bit. Who am I taking the time to attack? Which pro-conservative thinkers? I applaud Thatcher and her decision. You, however have gone down that agenda road again. :rolleyes: Please tell me my agenda, I'm dying to use it on those who don't have quite the imagination that you do. :laugh:

You 'applaud Thatcher' (you can't even bring yourself to refer to her respectfully, can you ? Try 'Mrs Thatcher' or 'Lady Thatcher' in future ..) because she is quoted as voicing a decision which you can use for your own purposes. Purely that.

As for your agenda, I suggest you use your memory, not least to recall the direction of your biases.

A re-read of this very thread, and recalling your great enthusiasm for attacking Conservatives here, may help jog that memory.

jafar00

10-16-2013, 12:44 AM

Why does the US have such a stupid policy anyway?

The closest thing we have here is a double dissolution election which could happen to us next year as our new PM tries to remove carbon pricing from our environmental policy.

Why don't you guys just do as we do? Just have another election instead of playing with economic fire. If the US defaults on it's debt, it will have worldwide ramifications and it is highly irresponsible.

Drummond

10-16-2013, 12:47 AM

Lose another argument so you go down this road. :rolleyes:

Because you can't. Own your failure.

Clearly you don't understand humor. Not surprising, your British.

Bummer dude, you're bringing me down. :laugh:

Apart from you? I've pointed you to left-wingers of the past in other threads but you refuse to look so you can continue to avoid your failure.

Nope, too large to bother looking for what you ignore. So what's next on my agenda? I've already shown you to be a "conservative" who doesn't understand the word.

This is just a list of cop-outs and put-downs.

But that last one is incredibly feeble. THOUSANDS of examples - according to you - to choose from, yet it's 'too large to bother looking for' .. ??

That isn't even logical .....

Arbo

10-16-2013, 08:09 AM

This is the best you can do ?

No need to put in any heavy lifting, FJ is wiping the floor with you.

fj1200

10-16-2013, 09:16 AM

Conservatives tend to think in a particular way. At least ... they have certain thought-processes in common.

Do you know for a fact that Mrs Thatcher WOULDN'T have evolved her thinking ? If you profess that she definitely wouldn't have .. that, too, is 'mighty convenient' ...

Conservatives are realists. It may be your Leftie thinking which is persuading you to think that non-realism would continue indefinitely.

How would you know how conservatives think? Here are a couple of folks who agree with me:

Ronald Reagan
Maggie Thatcher

I am told that there were two principal reasons Margaret Thatcher was so strongly opposed to torture. The first was simply pragmatic: she understood that information extracted from terrified victims under duress could never be relied on or trusted.
But more importantly, she instinctively knew that complicity with torture was an affront to everything that Britain stands for – above all, our respect for tolerance, decency and the rule of law.
and I'll give you Jimmy Carter.

Here is a couple of folks who agree with you:
Hitler, Goebbels, various middle eastern dictators...

You might want to go ahead and change your title right now. ;) FWIW I'm pretty sure that Mags wouldn't have suggested that terrorists are subhuman and that torture is justifiable as a "justice" tool. I admire her strength of character.

You 'applaud Thatcher' (you can't even bring yourself to refer to her respectfully, can you ? Try 'Mrs Thatcher' or 'Lady Thatcher' in future ..) because she is quoted as voicing a decision which you can use for your own purposes. Purely that.

As for your agenda, I suggest you use your memory, not least to recall the direction of your biases.

A re-read of this very thread, and recalling your great enthusiasm for attacking Conservatives here, may help jog that memory.

Of course I applaud her, she doesn't take the easy way out that you do. You're just a bit miffed because your "Jimmy Carter" ploy backfired on you in a flaming fireball of epic proportions err, a most disagreeable way.

So am I to understand that this is yet another accusation you make against me that you will fail to back up? You can't put my agenda to words that you have to make me do your work for you?