Schoolyard Taunting

[hugo]

Ike had the right foreign policy approach. You don't fight wars with your own soldiers you stage coups. Cheaper, and the perfect strategy for the Middle East today. Ike knew firsthand the costs of war.

 

Our entangling alliance with Israel only does us harm.

[ImWithStupid]

Ike had the right foreign policy approach. You don't fight wars with your own soldiers you stage coups. Cheaper, and the perfect strategy for the Middle East today. Ike knew firsthand the costs of war.

 

 

Reagan did a good job with that in Afghanistan in the 80's. Too bad we didn't follow up after the Russians left.

[RoyalOrleans]

Everything.

 

A post worthy of a socialist. You reply with an argument that I never made. I never said "end occupation here" "stop all oil import now" et.al. Just another cheap socialist tactic of diverting attention, changing the subject, and shifting blame. Your argument is constant in the socialist's repertoire.

 

Conversing with you is exhaustive. Not because I believe you to be 100% spot-on accurate and I just want to pick a fight, but because your narrow-mind can not grasp concepts outside your little world.

 

I mean, Jesus Christ, how long did it take you to grasp that a classic liberal wasn't Ted Kennedy? A year or two?

 

-

-

-

 

And now we're all obliged to read that 75% conservative vs. a 100% socialist. Just go on and let it out.

[RoyalOrleans]

I never said anything about tea parties being republican or democrat. True tea party movement isn't either.

 

"democrat versions of the tea parties"!!! :lol:

 

Epic fail.

 

Tea Party Crashers

[timesjoke]

I was mostly talking about the possitions of Ron Paul, there is no middle ground, no gray area, no part measures, he wants the complete elimination of all troops from bases in other Countries.

 

My point about trade and oil is from how things will unravel "AFTER" Ron Paul withdraws American involvement in the world and turns isolationist. Most of the peace in the middle east is because of America, remember what happened to oil when Iraq invaded Kuait before America stepped in? That was a tiny speck and was ended relatively fast without must turmoil in the region because America was strong enough to contain it. If America refuses to contain things like that you can gurantee things will get out of hand.

 

 

Anyway,

 

You're an idiot if you believe that there are good guys and bad guys, black and white... it's all shades of gray.

 

Why is it your capable of seeing shades of gray in one way but your only capable of seeing a perfect pure conservative for voting purposes?

 

I am capable of understanding that I can't always get everything I want and I will accept a 75% conservative that gives me most of what I want in a President than the 100% liberal that will tear down most of the things I hold dear.

[timesjoke]

BS false answer.

 

So why did he promise to finish closing off the border? Have you seen that done with this new president? You only see what you want to see, sure McCain is a little softer on this because it is so much a part of life in his home state but if even he is willing to secure the border, than that shows he is moving tword what the people want, you most certainly cannot expect a liberal to close the leaks in the border, they want the votes, why do you think linerals do not want people to show identification to vote?

 

 

 

 

You are very learned in the art of misunderstanding things and then taking them into circular arguments of ignorance.

 

Sure, no insults, lol.

 

I do require someone to be clear on their statements, you many times are not. Now your just trying to justify why you refused to help the the most conservative canidate win and by your direct action to not vote, you actually helped the radical liberal get elected.

A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

 

Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

Women, we might as well be dogs baying the moon as petitioners without the right to vote! ~ Susan B. Anthony

 

 

 

 

Yea. John McCain needs to worry about keeping his Senate job to pay the bills. He's a sellout just like you.

 

Like me Joe? I didn't help Obama get elected, you did by refusing to vote for the most conservative canadate, did you not say the tea parties for you was about getting the most conservative into office? Well McCain was the most conservative at that time and you refused to help him.

 

 

 

 

Cop out answer and a dodge. It was quite obvious that you only had two choices. You fail.

 

I also see you show more ignorance of politics. You are implying that Democrat = communist. You fail again. You probably think that means Republican = Fascist.

 

No, you attrempted to create a false/false answer specifically designed to give you the answer you wanted using a false premise that any vote for someone who is not 100% conservative is just as bad as voting for the two guys you mentioned.

 

Being as you went outside of reality for choices in an American election I would be voting in I did the same thing and while the Democrats are not completely communist, their idealogy is the closes to these two rulers and would be better accepted by the Democrats than the Republicans. No republican would ever let either get through the primary so my answer was the closest to reality your narrow example would allow.

 

My point has been like RO said, the world is made up on shades of gray, I will see that not every canidate will be white or black, I am capable of understanding the shades of gray, you guys will only see black or white, and the idiot part is if you can't get the perfect whilte canadate, you will instead help the other side out of spite.

 

 

 

 

Kind of like when you had to claim that you were "classy" if you have to claim to be more knowledgeable about politics than someone else, you probably aren't.

 

You don't seem to even know the difference between political party and ideology.

 

Just look below...

 

 

 

 

 

I never said anything about tea parties being republican or democrat. True tea party movement isn't either.

 

"democrat versions of the tea parties"!!! :lol:

 

Epic fail.

 

It seems you and Snaf really have no grasp of what the tea party movement is about. It's about supporting the most conservative candidate

 

No, you tried to say they were purely conservative, and that is the same thing, but where you mess up is there are pissed off Democrats and Independents who are also creating tea party groups out of frustration that the Government refuses to listen to the people. The movements are not based on one idealogy of political beliefs, it is much, much wider than that. The idea is these elected officials are supposed to be representing us, not themselves.

[RoyalOrleans]

I was mostly talking about the possitions of Ron Paul, there is no middle ground, no gray area, no part measures, he wants the complete elimination of all troops from bases in other Countries.

 

Why is this "gray area" of our foreign policy so hard for you to see?

 

The scaling back of our troops abroad will force countries, in which we have bases, to defend themselves.

 

We are supposed to be engaged in a "war on terror", but our borders remain liquid. As to why there is little homeland defense, I don't know... thus creating a gray area of understanding. (Afterthought: Though "free trade" appears in the acronym for NAFTA, it had nothing to do with it and everything to do with merging to create a North American Union. I guess, in contrast with the European Union.)

 

My point about trade and oil is from how things will unravel "AFTER" Ron Paul withdraws American involvement in the world and turns isolationist. Most of the peace in the middle east is because of America, remember what happened to oil when Iraq invaded Kuait before America stepped in? That was a tiny speck and was ended relatively fast without must turmoil in the region because America was strong enough to contain it. If America refuses to contain things like that you can gurantee things will get out of hand.

 

I don't claim to be an expert on American foreign relations, but I was over there with the 2nd Marine Division out of Camp Lejeune (Want my callsign, too?). We were in there and out of there, which is the kind of action that should take place. Not these prolonged, money-sapping engagements.

 

Still, if we didn't have something to lose (oil trade), we would not have gotten ourselves involved. There is a lot of gray area in our reasons to support this regime, condemn that regime in the Middle East but I believe it all revolves around their oil.

 

Why is it your capable of seeing shades of gray in one way but your only capable of seeing a perfect pure conservative for voting purposes?

 

I am capable of understanding that I can't always get everything I want and I will accept a 75% conservative that gives me most of what I want in a President than the 100% liberal that will tear down most of the things I hold dear.

 

I am only capable of seeing what I deem a viable candidate because I vote on principles and I never, ever, ever compromise.

 

You are voting in the gray area where there is a margin of error. That margin of error allows you to say things like, "Well, McCain was never a 100% conservative." or "I never fully agreed with McCain on that...". Whereas, I am voting on who I deem will defend our Constitution, uphold the values of our Founding Fathers, shrink the scope of government, and end the welfare state.

 

You have no intention of voting for things that will result in a little discomfort or inconvenience your little world in some way. So continue voting the same old socialists, neo-cons, and the lesser evil; and I will continue to vote for liberty.

[snafu]

Anyway you toss the ball Sarah and McCain would not be selling our childrens futures in the hopes of coming out of this resseion. And the other candidates didn't have a snowballs chance in hell to win. Who was that anyway? .

 

If you voted for any of those others you voted for Obama.

 

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

Edited April 2, 2016 by rem

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Like me Joe? I didn't help Obama get elected, you did by refusing to vote for the most conservative canadate, did you not say the tea parties for you was about getting the most conservative into office? Well McCain was the most conservative at that time and you refused to help him.

 

 

This is what they're trying to point out... McCain was NOT the most conservative candidate. That's why many Conservatives did not vote for him. He's not even 75% Conservative. He's at best a centrist, even straying left of GWB. Hopefully, we can get some actual Conservatives on the ticket, instead of softies like McCain and Romney.

[eddo]

Anyway you toss the ball Sarah and McCain would not be selling our childrens futures in the hopes of coming out of this resseion. And the other candidates didn't have a snowballs chance in hell to win. Who was that anyway? .

 

If you voted for any of those others you voted for Obama.

 

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

 

I'm not really sure McCain would have made all that many decisions different than what Obama has done. and we all saw the restraint he put on Palin during the campaign.

 

as of now, the man doesn't even have my support for reelection for state senator. I am just not impressed on how he flops around like a dying fish depending on where he thinks he can get the most votes...

 

 

 

 

I will also add that I do not think a vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul equates to a vote for Obama. Sure those votes could have been used to help McCain win, but at some point we have got to stand up to the crappy candidates that both the Repubs and Dems are cranking out and say "Dammit, we want something better!"

 

That's how I see the votes for Barr and Paul going. Each election cycle, more and more vote for someone other than the top two that are being shoved down our throats, and hopefully someday it will be enough to send a clearer message.

Edited April 2, 2016 by rem

[timesjoke]

Why is this "gray area" of our foreign policy so hard for you to see?

 

The scaling back of our troops abroad will force countries, in which we have bases, to defend themselves.

 

We are supposed to be engaged in a "war on terror", but our borders remain liquid. As to why there is little homeland defense, I don't know... thus creating a gray area of understanding. (Afterthought: Though "free trade" appears in the acronym for NAFTA, it had nothing to do with it and everything to do with merging to create a North American Union. I guess, in contrast with the European Union.)

 

I already said I was speaking on the Ron Paul policies, not my own views RO, please try to pay attention, of course I can see that, it was my point, I brought it up before you did.

 

I agree with you, we should scale way back, but Ron Paul does not want to scale back, Ron Paul want an immediate removal of all troops on forsign soil, Ron Paul's inability to see the gray areas is my point. I do not want someone who would be an isolationist, that will cause more harm than good.

 

 

I don't claim to be an expert on American foreign relations, but I was over there with the 2nd Marine Division out of Camp Lejeune (Want my callsign, too?). We were in there and out of there, which is the kind of action that should take place. Not these prolonged, money-sapping engagements.

 

Still, if we didn't have something to lose (oil trade), we would not have gotten ourselves involved. There is a lot of gray area in our reasons to support this regime, condemn that regime in the Middle East but I believe it all revolves around their oil.

 

Again, I agree, go to "win" then get out as fast as possible would be fine most of the time, but sometimes we need to do more as well. Europe owes it's success to the American military being there but America has also had a great deal of trade with Europe that offered a lot of prosperity to America as well. Leaving Europe now completely with a promise to never come back for any reason would cause Europe a lot of instability.

 

Now that may be good too, but our relationship will be very bad if we do this and trade will certainly suffer greatly even if a major war did not get started.

 

 

I am only capable of seeing what I deem a viable candidate because I vote on principles and I never, ever, ever compromise.

 

You are voting in the gray area where there is a margin of error. That margin of error allows you to say things like, "Well, McCain was never a 100% conservative." or "I never fully agreed with McCain on that...". Whereas, I am voting on who I deem will defend our Constitution, uphold the values of our Founding Fathers, shrink the scope of government, and end the welfare state.

 

You have no intention of voting for things that will result in a little discomfort or inconvenience your little world in some way. So continue voting the same old socialists, neo-cons, and the lesser evil; and I will continue to vote for liberty.

 

If the person you vote for you "KNOW" cannot win then in my mind your really voting for the other side. Don't you think that is what the liberals want? Splinter us apart, make us fight among ourselves then sit back and win the elections because people refuse to vote for who can win under the false claim of "purity"?

 

Your playing their game RO.

 

 

 

 

Did you ever read the speach by Richard Lamm about how to destroy America?

 

The main point was to use multiculturalism to divide people, to pit us against each other..............................Well this is the same thing RO. Divide the various conservative minded people against each other then win and take control by default.

[timesjoke]

This is what they're trying to point out... McCain was NOT the most conservative candidate. That's why many Conservatives did not vote for him. He's not even 75% Conservative. He's at best a centrist, even straying left of GWB. Hopefully, we can get some actual Conservatives on the ticket, instead of softies like McCain and Romney.

 

McCain was the only conservative minded person who could have won the election, any vote for anyone else was a vote for Obama. Wishful thinking does not eliminate the fact that we are a two party system "right now". Your either helping one side or your helping the other side. If you refuse to vote for the Conservative that can win, then you have voted for the liberal.

 

 

 

 

 

That's how I see the votes for Barr and Paul going. Each election cycle, more and more vote for someone other than the top two that are being shoved down our throats, and hopefully someday it will be enough to send a clearer message.

And how many things like this healthcare bill gets passed while your standing around with your hands in your pockets complaining?

 

How many activist Judges get appointed to the courts?

 

 

 

 

 

I made a point to RO in another thread that this is like the speach from Richard Lamm on how to destroy America. It is all about splitting us apart, using any method to have us fighting among ourselves while the liberals are taking control and we do not even notice.

 

The splinter groups are helping the liberal cause, not fighting against it by refusing to stick together on the thinge we can agree on.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

McCain was the only conservative minded person who could have won the election, any vote for anyone else was a vote for Obama. Wishful thinking does not eliminate the fact that we are a two party system "right now". Your either helping one side or your helping the other side. If you refuse to vote for the Conservative that can win, then you have voted for the liberal.

 

 

 

 

 

And how many things like this healthcare bill gets passed while your standing around with your hands in your pockets complaining?

 

How many activist Judges get appointed to the courts?

 

 

 

 

 

I made a point to RO in another thread that this is like the speach from Richard Lamm on how to destroy America. It is all about splitting us apart, using any method to have us fighting among ourselves while the liberals are taking control and we do not even notice.

 

The splinter groups are helping the liberal cause, not fighting against it by refusing to stick together on the thinge we can agree on.

 

I disagree. Just because it's mainly a 2 party system, doesn't mean that we should vote along party lines, for one candidate or another. I can see your logic, but it feels flawed. Voters should be shown that more than 2 parties can exist. It feels like we've got Dems on the far left, Repubs in the middle, and a new part (the tea party maybe?) starting on the right. This new Centrist/Repub party will start getting alot of former dem and neocon votes, the dems will get the far left votes, and the new party will get far right votes.

[snafu]

I think the GOP picked McCain was because he was a centrlist. Remember the Bush bashing? We needed somone more in the middle. Sarah was supposed to be the icing on the cake. She had the more conservitive ideas and she was a women who could counter act the black card. One way or another it was history in the making. We didn't have the tea party during the election and maybe this kind of movment might break the two party barier but until then you voted for Obama if you didn't vote for McCain.

[timesjoke]

I disagree. Just because it's mainly a 2 party system, doesn't mean that we should vote along party lines, for one candidate or another. I can see your logic, but it feels flawed. Voters should be shown that more than 2 parties can exist. It feels like we've got Dems on the far left, Repubs in the middle, and a new part (the tea party maybe?) starting on the right. This new Centrist/Repub party will start getting alot of former dem and neocon votes, the dems will get the far left votes, and the new party will get far right votes.

 

It is possible to win the lottery, but if you spend your dollar, do you think you will win automatically? No.....why? Because knowledge of reality tells you that the odds are against you, so you know that most likely you have wasted your dollar.

 

 

Voting for someone other than McCain was less likely to produce favorable results than your lottery dollar because of the same knowledge of reality that no other conservative minded person stood any chance of winning against Obama, so the vote was actually for Obama because it was taken away from McCain because of the divisions and inner termoil of conservatives that are encouraged by liberals.

 

 

 

This is exactly the same concept as what Richard Lamm warned us about where we are too busy fighting among ourselves as to who is the most "pure' and we waste our votes while the liberals stick together.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Just go ahead and refuse to understand the other side of that coin. The more you "vote for the guy who is going to win" the further we get from being able to elect somebody who is a good candidate.

[snafu]

Just go ahead and refuse to understand the other side of that coin. The more you "vote for the guy who is going to win" the further we get from being able to elect somebody who is a good candidate.

 

 

Well RE that's real noble of you but you can't win an election by yourself. There had to be a movement that could get the percentage to win.

[timesjoke]

Just go ahead and refuse to understand the other side of that coin. The more you "vote for the guy who is going to win" the further we get from being able to elect somebody who is a good candidate.

Just because I do not do it, that does not mean I do not understand it.

 

I completely understand that the person who voted for someone he knows cannot possibly win is doing so as a kind of personal protest, he is unhappy with the two choices that are available and wishes that this other person could win.

 

 

 

But wishing does not change reality, the person who casts the vote still cannot escape the fact that they know their vote will not help a conservative canidate win, so that means he is really helping the liberal.

 

 

 

This is the system we have. Let me offer another easier example, wasting their vote is like trying to use baseball rules during a football game, sure you wanted to play baseball, but everyone else is playing football so complaining about the reality will not get you very far. You want baseball first you have to talk everyone else into playing baseball, until then your stuck playing football.

 

 

 

 

A new party, a "tea" party would only divide the conservative minded people into two groups, each without the numbers needed to stand against the liberals who stay united. Division among the conservative minded people is actually helping them. That is why I mentioned the speach by Lamm, it is the same concept.

[snafu]

The thing is if the "tea" party becomes an entity and trys to branch off the rebublican party will wise up and adopt the conservitive ideas they will project. I'm pretty sure thats whats happing now. The rebublican party is returning to the fundamentals of what conservitizim means today. Less goverment, less taxes, less depedancy on foreign intrusions, compreshsable health care system and a cleaner greener solution to our energy needs. Hay I sound like Sarah!

 

Thus we will still only have two parties.

 

TJ that baseball /football anolgy was perfect!.

Edited April 2, 2016 by rem

[timesjoke]

The thing is if the "tea" party becomes an entity and trys to branch off the rebublican party will wise up and adopt the conservitive ideas they will project. I'm pretty sure thats whats happing now. The rebublican party is returning to the fundamentals of what conservitizim means today. Less goverment, less taxes, less depedancy on foreign intrusions, compreshsable health care system and a cleaner greener solution to our energy needs. Hay I sound like Sarah!

 

Thus we will still only have two parties.

 

But while we are waiting for things to resettle, we are dividing the vote while the liberals are sticking together. "Divided we fall"

 

Really my biggest problem is when people split hairs and go off the deep end saying things like Palin is the same thing as Obama, it serves no useful purpose to be so completely disingenuous if we truly want to stiffen up the Republicans and make them return to conservative values. We should be rewarding real conservatives like her and encouraging people like her to run for office. When the tide of stupid people call her a socialist, that makes all the decent people run for cover and not even consider public office.

 

 

This is why we have all these 'professional' politicians, people with quality and character don't want to face the mess.

 

 

 

TJ that baseball /football anolgy was perfect!.

 

Thanks for the compliment.

Edited April 2, 2016 by rem

[hugo]

Stupid people tend to be fooled by words. Smart people look at peoples actions. Sarah has a record as a tax and spend liberal.

 

Palin: Uninspiring Tax Policy Record

by Chris Edwards

 

On tax policy, Alaska governor Sarah Palin has a rather uninspiring, albeit brief, record. The following is some information gleaned from State Tax Notes.

 

Palin supported and signed into law a $1.5 billion tax increase on oil companies in the form of higher severance taxes. One rule of thumb is that higher taxes cause less investment. Sure enough, State Tax Notes reported (January 7): “After ACES was passed, ConocoPhillips, Alaska’s most active oil exploration company and one of the top three producers, announced it was canceling plans to build a diesel fuel refinery at the Kuparuk oil field. ConocoPhillips blamed the cancellation on passage of ACES [the new tax]. The refinery would have allowed the company to produce low-sulfur diesel fuel onsite for its vehicles and other uses on the North Slope, rather than haul the fuel there from existing refineries.�

 

Stupid people do not realize what seperated Reagan from GW Bush.

[ImWithStupid]

you didn't know there were democrat versions of the tea parties did you?

 

 

 

Closest thing to at "d(D)emocrat" tea party...

 

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Trifecta/Strange_Brew%3A_Why_is_the_Coffee_Party_Movement_an_Overnight_MSM_Sensation%3F/3251/

[hugo]

Sarah Palin had kept mum on the topic of immigration right up until her first interview with a Spanish-language network. Anchor Jorge Ramos sat down with the Republican vice presidential candidate to finally shed some light on Palin's views on immigration.

 

The interview was aired on October 21, 2008 during the broadcast of "Aquí y Ahora" on Univision Network. The following excerpt was taken from that interview:

 

Governor, let me ask you about immigration. How many undocumented immigrants are there in Alaska?

I don't know, I don't know. That's a good question.

 

As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?

There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.

 

Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?

No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They've got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.

 

To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

 

Off with her head. She likes babies and guns, she is still a commie.

[hugo]

If you are a typical voter for President you go to the polls already knowing who is going to carry your state. To vote for a candidate tells that candidates party that you approve of that choice. Thus making it more likely they will pick someone similar in the future.

[snafu]

Off with her head. She likes babies and guns, she is still a commie.

 

 

So where is the communism? she's totally right. Do you know how many illegals are in your state? lol Oh man.