Schoolyard Taunting

[timesjoke]

I know you saw my point, now your just flooding the topic with a lot of empty words to try and take attention away from that point.

 

 

My comment teken in context as a reply to hugo is clear. Hugo contends that no conservative vote was wasted on alternative canidates because every sane person in America knew there was no way Obama could lose.

 

 

If we are to believe that concept is valid we should stop playing football games because all we need to do is award the win to the team "expected" to win and not waste any time actually playing it...........right?

 

 

 

 

My example was based on the fact that nobody knows for sure what the outcome of a contest is going to be..............unless they give up before the end, as he evidently did.

 

 

 

 

 

The quote is relivent reguardless of party, Most should understand that voting is a concept for all Americans, not just conservatives.

[RoyalOrleans]

Other people chatter constantly about wanting conservative values to come back but fail to support the only conservative who can win the election, that to me is inconsistent because you have to start somewhere, you can't expect to get everything you want the first time around, the idea is to encourage conservative minded people to run for office.

 

The centrists are responsible for the current mess that we are in: Obamacare and the whole lot of them. The centrists, either those in the Republican or Democratic Party, have decided every election that I can remember. It is the centrists, not the independents, who represent the undecided swing vote. Any columnist, talking head, or writer who says that its the "independents" who elected Obama, they are confused.

 

Your 25-45% socialists easily fall in with the centrists... no matter if there is an R or a D next to their name. There should be no such animal as a centrist position in America, as there is not a middle of the road between capitalism and socialism. A centrist might vote for one or the other, but it is that doubt of who they really are and what they believe that troubles me. Over time, centrism will leave us only with the right to vote and then bellyache about who they voted for.

 

I believe that the centrist mediocrity represent most views of Americans: middle-of-the-road, unconcerned about government, or just believe in luke-warm conservativeness with a liberal sprinkling of statist complacency. These centrists believe that there is only one choice to make between the two parties. Any other candidate is part of the "lunatic fringe" that contain your extremists and radicals. And these centrists make a decision on who seems to be the "lesser evil" or the one that lines up, lockstep with both ruling parties more centrist representatives.

 

That said, I have always voted independently and will continue to vote that way. God gave me the ability to exercise free will, I am blessed to have a free mind, and I don't march lockstep with the centrists.

 

I would have voted for Sarah Palin just to piss off the liberals, they seem so completely scared of a conservative woman who is successful and did not have to look like a smashed mushroom or give up being a woman to gain her success. The disruption Palin caused alone would have blocked pretty much everything the liberals tried to do.

 

That doesn't surprise me.

 

I do things everyday to piss off people.

[RoyalOrleans]

My example was based on the fact that nobody knows for sure what the outcome of a contest is going to be..............unless they give up before the end, as he evidently did.

 

I never gave up thinking that God would smite McCain, Palin, Obama, and Biden in the head with furious bolts of lightning, so that the real conservatives could have a chance to turn the tide.

 

 

The quote is relivent reguardless of party, Most should understand that voting is a concept for all Americans, not just conservatives.

 

All I was saying is that, if you are going to talk about conservative values, conservative politics, etc; quoting FDR is not the greatest way to go.

 

Americans need to see past the myths and legends of FDR in order to make better voting decisions.

[timesjoke]

The centrists are responsible for the current mess that we are in: Obamacare and the whole lot of them. The centrists, either those in the Republican or Democratic Party, have decided every election that I can remember. It is the centrists, not the independents, who represent the undecided swing vote. Any columnist, talking head, or writer who says that its the "independents" who elected Obama, they are confused.

 

Your 25-45% socialists easily fall in with the centrists... no matter if there is an R or a D next to their name. There should be no such animal as a centrist position in America, as there is not a middle of the road between capitalism and socialism. A centrist might vote for one or the other, but it is that doubt of who they really are and what they believe that troubles me. Over time, centrism will leave us only with the right to vote and then bellyache about who they voted for.

 

I believe that the centrist mediocrity represent most views of Americans: middle-of-the-road, unconcerned about government, or just believe in luke-warm conservativeness with a liberal sprinkling of statist complacency. These centrists believe that there is only one choice to make between the two parties. Any other candidate is part of the "lunatic fringe" that contain your extremists and radicals. And these centrists make a decision on who seems to be the "lesser evil" or the one that lines up, lockstep with both ruling parties more centrist representatives.

 

That said, I have always voted independently and will continue to vote that way. God gave me the ability to exercise free will, I am blessed to have a free mind, and I don't march lockstep with the centrists.

 

But the 'centrists' who have the R or D in their description generally are voting for the R or D anyway, the only "wild cards" are the independents, they are the fence sitters who go either way the wind blows them at the time, that is why normally conservative minded people like the Libertarians ended up voting for the liberal instead of the conservative in the race. They are always going to be the deciding factor.

 

 

 

Let me give it to you another example, in Canada recent elections have shown conservative canidates winning elections and gaining a lot of power, but do you know why? In most polls they only get 33% of the popularity and the heavy liberals have 56% of the popularity....but that 56% is divided among three seperate groups who do not cooperate with each other. If they joined under one banner they would easily destroy the conservatives, division and splintering is costing them control.

 

 

 

 

 

That doesn't surprise me.

 

I do things everyday to piss off people.

 

I would not want to piss off everyone, but the liberals need to learn to learn a little humility, they are so dazzled by their own glamor they don't even see the little people and constitution they are trampling on.

[timesjoke]

I never gave up thinking that God would smite McCain, Palin, Obama, and Biden in the head with furious bolts of lightning, so that the real conservatives could have a chance to turn the tide.

 

Just because someone like McCain does not believe everything you do that does not mean he is not a conservative, your only willing to see black and white but the world is shades of gray.

 

 

 

All I was saying is that, if you are going to talk about conservative values, conservative politics, etc; quoting FDR is not the greatest way to go.

 

Americans need to see past the myths and legends of FDR in order to make better voting decisions.

 

Again, voting is not conservative or liberal.

 

 

Voting is American.

[RoyalOrleans]

Just because someone like McCain does not believe everything you do that does not mean he is not a conservative, your only willing to see black and white but the world is shades of gray.

 

Being colorblind isn't a handicap.

 

 

 

Again, voting is not conservative or liberal.

 

 

Voting is American.

 

No... I concur... voting is not affiliated with a party or a culture.

 

Other countries vote, however Americans don't vote in record numbers every election.

[timesjoke]

Being colorblind isn't a handicap.

 

 

I will fall back on this quote again, it says my point better than anything else on sticking together:

 

 

 

“There are plenty of teams in every sport that have great players and

never win titles. Most of the time, those players aren't willing to

sacrifice for the greater good of the team. The funny thing is, in

the end, their unwillingness to sacrifice only makes individual

goals more difficult to achieve. One thing I believe to the fullest

is that if you think and achieve as a team, the individual accolades

will take care of themselves. Talent wins games, but teamwork and

intelligence win championships.� ~ Michael Jordan

 

 

 

 

No... I concur... voting is not affiliated with a party or a culture.

 

Other countries vote, however Americans don't vote in record numbers every election.

In many countries the vote means little, other countries it means a little more, but only America is the great experiment where true freedoms were put in the hands of the people and now they seem to be choosing the shackle of the European socialism anyway.......so many have no real clue as to what they are giving up.

 

 

 

You know RO, Obama did accomplish a great thing, he inserted an excitement that brought many people to the voting booth who normally would not have come, but he brought them to the booth with a lie that has dashed their dreams of the HOPE he was supposed to give them. The CHANGE in Washington so many people wanted....but all of it just more lies to get elected and gain power for himself and his liberal friends....what a waste, imagine if we could find a conservative minded person who could bring that kind of hope to the people but then follow through instead of turning his back on the campaign promises?

 

Now that is a guy I could get behind reguardless of what his party he belonged to, you know, even though my mind knew Obama was telling lies, my heart really wanted him to be telling the truth about ending the Washington as usual politics, but as usual, great dreams are exactly that, dreams, not reality.

[Chi]

I will fall back on this quote again, it says my point better than anything else on sticking together:

 

 

 

“There are plenty of teams in every sport that have great players and

never win titles. Most of the time, those players aren't willing to

sacrifice for the greater good of the team. The funny thing is, in

the end, their unwillingness to sacrifice only makes individual

goals more difficult to achieve. One thing I believe to the fullest

is that if you think and achieve as a team, the individual accolades

will take care of themselves. Talent wins games, but teamwork and

intelligence win championships.� ~ Michael Jordan

 

 

 

 

 

In many countries the vote means little, other countries it means a little more, but only America is the great experiment where true freedoms were put in the hands of the people and now they seem to be choosing the shackle of the European socialism anyway.......so many have no real clue as to what they are giving up.

 

 

 

You know RO, Obama did accomplish a great thing, he inserted an excitement that brought many people to the voting booth who normally would not have come, but he brought them to the booth with a lie that has dashed their dreams of the HOPE he was supposed to give them. The CHANGE in Washington so many people wanted....but all of it just more lies to get elected and gain power for himself and his liberal friends....what a waste, imagine if we could find a conservative minded person who could bring that kind of hope to the people but then follow through instead of turning his back on the campaign promises?

 

Now that is a guy I could get behind reguardless of what his party he belonged to, you know, even though my mind knew Obama was telling lies, my heart really wanted him to be telling the truth about ending the Washington as usual politics, but as usual, great dreams are exactly that, dreams, not reality.

 

Obama hasn't dashed any hope and faith in me. If anything he keeps proving and accomplishing things no one has been able to accomplish in this country yet.

[RoyalOrleans]

But the 'centrists' who have the R or D in their description generally are voting for the R or D anyway, the only "wild cards" are the independents, they are the fence sitters who go either way the wind blows them at the time, that is why normally conservative minded people like the Libertarians ended up voting for the liberal instead of the conservative in the race. They are always going to be the deciding factor.

 

What about the phenomenon of the Reagan Democrats? Aren't they centrists who are Democrats in name, but crossover on election day? What about these guys? Republicans For Obama

 

---------

 

Libertarians tend to be less willing to set aside their own personal convictions to vote for a lesser of two evils than the left, right, and center. In a race between evil and a greater evil, they are more likely to refuse to vote at all than to vote for an evil. Not voting based on principle is not a vote cast for or against either candidate, it is the simple fact that they are not willing to compromise.

 

I challenge you to provide some statistical evidence verifying the claim that libertarians actually did the "not-very-libertarian thing" and voted overwhelmingly for Obama during the last election or swing left at the voting booth in general. Such claims are either based on statistical data or are complete fabrications.

 

If based on statistical facts, then you should have no trouble producing them to back up your assertion.

 

PS: Independents do not count. That is, unless, you can prove that these independents are in fact libertarians and voted for Obama. Ohh... and a vote for a Libertarian candidate is NOT a vote for Obama, either. As statistics prove that they did not vote for Obama or McCain, but an actual Libertarian. (By default and indirectly has no room in hardened fast data).

 

PSS: Opinion polls do not count, either. Opinion polls (like a Rasmussen poll just before the election) ask voters if they consider themselves "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" and instantly brand you a "libertarian". That's not cold, hard evidence of libertarians casting a vote for Obama in the 2008 elections.

[hugo]

What TJ ignores in his football anbalogy is that the Presidential election game has about 30 seconds left and McCain was down by three touchdowns. Can't win.

 

Of course, in my state McCain was up by three touchdowns with 30 seconds left. Can't lose. If ignorance is bliss TJ is a very happy man.

 

Now to make things even more unlikely. In order for McCain to lose Texas and still win the Presidency he would have to lose 10 points among Texas voters while gaining 8 points nationally. I would call this impossible. Of course Ignorance is Bliss.

 

In any presidential election if Texas and/or Georgia is in play crown the Democrat victor. If California is in play crown the Republican victor.

[RoyalOrleans]

You know RO, Obama did accomplish a great thing, he inserted an excitement that brought many people to the voting booth who normally would not have come, but he brought them to the booth with a lie that has dashed their dreams of the HOPE he was supposed to give them. The CHANGE in Washington so many people wanted....but all of it just more lies to get elected and gain power for himself and his liberal friends....what a waste, imagine if we could find a conservative minded person who could bring that kind of hope to the people but then follow through instead of turning his back on the campaign promises?

 

Now that is a guy I could get behind reguardless of what his party he belonged to, you know, even though my mind knew Obama was telling lies, my heart really wanted him to be telling the truth about ending the Washington as usual politics, but as usual, great dreams are exactly that, dreams, not reality.

 

The only great thing that happened in November of 2008, the first black president of the USA was elected.

 

Sadly, it was the wrong black man.

[timesjoke]

So nothing counts unless you want it to count? Seems to me like your putting on your blinders and blocking out anything that does not feed into your self-imposed concept that only your 'purity' stand is good and everyone else in America has it wrong. Your circular agrguments are designed for one thing, to dodge the truth that only two people can win, and refusing to support the conservate in the race is in reality supporting the liberal.

 

 

I can't even remember how many times you and many other people made big deals about gray area being real life but now, it is you who refuses to see the gray, why is that RO? Why is this one time you cannot see the gray? Maybe because it proves it is you who is being unreasonable?

 

 

 

 

The game we have comes down to two people, I know that sucks, I agree that sucks, but it sucking does not change the reality and that reality is we have to choose between two men. If you refuse to play the game at hand then your part of the reason we lose.

 

 

 

Now I just gave you another great example of how the 33% popularity conservatives in Canada are winning elections because the 56% popularity liberals are divided among three seperate groups and still.....you claim to not understand the concept of how splintering weakens a group.........I have to admit I am out of ideas on how to educate you on this concept so I will bow out of this, I have tried my best, but I guess it was not enough.

[snafu]

For the billionth time, I'm not an f-ing liberal! Nor a Democrat nor any of those boxes some of you like putting yourselves in when it comes to politics!

 

 

Yeah she's just a plain Obama moma .

Edited April 2, 2016 by rem

[timesjoke]

Obama hasn't dashed any hope and faith in me. If anything he keeps proving and accomplishing things no one has been able to accomplish in this country yet.

 

 

Hitler accomplished many things no one had done before too, that did not make his actions good.

 

And no, I am not trying to compare the two, Obama is not anywhere near that realm and I would never say he was, but my point is just because you can do a thing, that does not mean you should do a thing. Obama is running the most closed door administration in over 30 years when he promised to run the most open one. Obama is a pure partisan President when he promised to be someone who was going to change Washington and bring people together.

 

 

What are some of his big accomplishments Chi?

 

Spend money faster than any other President in history?

 

Did his stimulus bill keep unemployment below 8% as promised? Remember that was why it had to be passed right away before anyone could read it?

 

Obama has passed a healthcare bill into law that most Americans did not want.

 

Obama is close to destroying our relationship with Israel.

 

Obama has shown himself weak on foreign policy and places like North Korea and Iran are looking down their nose at him.

 

 

What exactly are his great accomplishments? Help me out here because I really do want to be proud of the man running our Country but I am having difficulty finding something I can point at and say "that" is a great thing Obama has done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

hugo, you gave up before the game was over, imagine if any game was played that way, why not end the football games at 30 minutes of play? How about 6 innings in baseball? Your saying it is okay to assume defeat and act accordingly, I don't believe that is part of the American way, we don't give up, hell if we had looked at the assumptions of who was the most powerful we never would have fought for our freedom but we did fight the unwinnable war and guess what......we beat the odds and came out on top.

 

 

We won not because we were divided but because like minded people stuck together and used their combined will to give each other the strength to go one, to keep going, and to ultimately win.

[RoyalOrleans]

So nothing counts unless you want it to count? Seems to me like your putting on your blinders and blocking out anything that does not feed into your self-imposed concept that only your 'purity' stand is good and everyone else in America has it wrong. Your circular agrguments are designed for one thing, to dodge the truth that only two people can win, and refusing to support the conservate in the race is in reality supporting the liberal.

 

 

I can't even remember how many times you and many other people made big deals about gray area being real life but now, it is you who refuses to see the gray, why is that RO? Why is this one time you cannot see the gray? Maybe because it proves it is you who is being unreasonable?

 

 

The game we have comes down to two people, I know that sucks, I agree that sucks, but it sucking does not change the reality and that reality is we have to choose between two men. If you refuse to play the game at hand then your part of the reason we lose.

 

I asked you to produce some evidence backing your claim that libertarian voters overwhelmingly swung left for Obama.

 

You failed in doing so, but I'm not surprised. Typical.

 

This leads me to the conclusion that your claim is fabricated. Probably generated by some talking head over at some mainstream media outlet to shift blame from the centrist Republicans and onto a supposed splinter group within the party.

 

 

Now I just gave you another great example of how the 33% popularity conservatives in Canada are winning elections because the 56% popularity liberals are divided among three seperate groups and still.....you claim to not understand the concept of how splintering weakens a group.........I have to admit I am out of ideas on how to educate you on this concept so I will bow out of this, I have tried my best, but I guess it was not enough.

 

You mentioned Canada and I tuned out. Not because I can or can't refute your comparison, but because it has no bearing on how American politics run. At least, I will say this, there are viable parties splintered from each other. The smaller the faction, the better the people of a politician's constituency is represented. Not everything in your mind sounds good on paper, you know?

 

Now I totally understand your little concept of splintering, I have said that I understand it, but what you fail to recognize is my assertion of understanding. Just because I don't agree 100% with you, doesn't give you a free pass to talk to me like a child.

 

You are throwing flames now, TJ. Saying that you were trying to educate me is a blast against my intelligence. If you were offended by the remark that I made, I am offended by this remark that you made. It's all relative, subjective and equally impugnable. So just watch who you're trying to "educate", TJ.

 

If you are out of ideas, then you should concentrate staying on topic concerning Sarah Palin.

[timesjoke]

I asked you to produce some evidence backing your claim that libertarian voters overwhelmingly swung left for Obama.

 

This leads me to the conclusion that your claim is fabricated. Probably generated by some talking head over at some mainstream media outlet to shift blame from the centrist Republicans and onto a supposed splinter group within the party.

 

No, you frontloaded your question to allow you wiggle room to say whatever I offered was not 100% scientific fact, and I agree, but we do have these polls and these polls have been accurate in the past, trying to say now things like exit polls are not to be considered as evidence of voting trends just shows that your hiding from the truth.

 

There is nobody in the voting booth with each of us RO, of course there is no way to know for certain, but I believe in using the tools we do have and even listening to people like hugo and yourself who admitted to not voting for the conservative out of the two choices we had to choose from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mentioned Canada and I tuned out. Not because I can or can't refute your comparison, but because it has no bearing on how American politics run. At least, I will say this, there are viable parties splintered from each other. The smaller the faction, the better the people of a politician's constituency is represented. Not everything in your mind sounds good on paper, you know?

 

Now I totally understand your little concept of splintering, I have said that I understand it, but what you fail to recognize my assertion of understanding. Just because I don't agree with 100% with you, doesn't give you a free pass on berating my understanding of your concept.

 

You are throwing flames now, TJ. Saying that you were trying to educate me is a blast against my intelligence. If you were offended by the remark that I made, I am offended by this remark that you made. It's all relative, subjective and equally impugnable. So just watch who you're trying to "educate", TJ.

 

If you are out of ideas, then you should concentrate staying on topic concerning Sarah Palin.

 

No RO, a flame is when you say something that is only designed to hurt, like when someone steps outside the conversation and starts making personal comments about the other guy's manhood or something personal. I have made a promise to you and everyone else that I was going to try harder not to hurt your feelings and I mean that so I would not now turn to flames, I have no desire to hurt your feelings and if I do it will be only by mistake.

 

 

In this case I was on topic and expressing my inability to get through to you on the concept of splintering and how it harms the general causes of these groups. I had no idea that you understood the concept and was just pretending not to know, these conversations would go a lot easier if you would just say what you understand to be true instead of pretending not to understand just to avoid admitting I am right about something.

 

 

 

 

 

And Canada is a great example, people are people, voting is voting (as long as there is no major corruption changing the votes after they are cast), their general trend is liberal while most of America tends to be conservative. Both Countries are having issues politically staying on the course of the general trend of the majority of those who live there. In Canada the people tend to be liberal but right now conservatives win control while here in America the people tend to be conservative and liberals have control. Both Countries have lost control for the same reason, splintering.

[RoyalOrleans]

No, you frontloaded your question to allow you wiggle room to say whatever I offered was not 100% scientific fact, and I agree, but we do have these polls and these polls have been accurate in the past, trying to say now things like exit polls are not to be considered as evidence of voting trends just shows that your hiding from the truth.

 

There is nobody in the voting booth with each of us RO, of course there is no way to know for certain, but I believe in using the tools we do have and even listening to people like hugo and yourself who admitted to not voting for the conservative out of the two choices we had to choose from.

 

It's not a loaded question if you can produce facts. Your assertion is that Libertarians elected Obama president. I asked you for some statistical data to back up your claim. You failed to provide proof of your point.

 

Ohhh......... and I do remember other conservatives being on the 2008 ballot. Do you know how hard it is for a third party to get on a ballot in most states? Damn near impossible.

 

The optimistic voter believe that every candidate on the ballot has equal chance to win. The pessimist knows better given how Obama's (no matter how dirty) political machine rolled all over McCain.

 

So......... moving on.

 

 

No RO, a flame is when you say something that is only designed to hurt, like when someone steps outside the conversation and starts making personal comments about the other guy's manhood or something personal. I have made a promise to you and everyone else that I was going to try harder not to hurt your feelings and I mean that so I would not now turn to flames, I have no desire to hurt your feelings and if I do it will be only by mistake.

 

 

In this case I was on topic and expressing my inability to get through to you on the concept of splintering and how it harms the general causes of these groups. I had no idea that you understood the concept and was just pretending not to know, these conversations would go a lot easier if you would just say what you understand to be true instead of pretending not to understand just to avoid admitting I am right about something.

 

First off, I wasn't offended by your remark. I have a tendency for the dramatics and was trying to show you how a supposed flame can be subjective to the reader. Not everyone is offended by the same thing.

 

Now... just because I say that I UNDERSTAND something does NOT mean that I agree with it! I totally UNDERSTAND what the progressives are doing to our country, but I don't agree with it! I UNDERSTAND that the progressives have the upper hand now and are capitalizing on it, but I don't agree with it.

 

You say that splintering hurts the Republican's chance of winning. And I say that I don't agree that splintering is a terrible thing. Right now, the Democrats are winning because of their unity and that will be their downfall. For the simple reason, the American people will lump all democrats into the same bin and vote out the more moderate or conservative representatives. Happens all the time.

 

In factions, there is hope that there are three conservatives on the ballot to take away from the Democrats one major candidate. I can't help it if America had it with the Republicans and all their spending in the post-9/11 U.S.

 

And Canada is a great example, people are people, voting is voting (as long as there is no major corruption changing the votes after they are cast), their general trend is liberal while most of America tends to be conservative. Both Countries are having issues politically staying on the course of the general trend of the majority of those who live there. In Canada the people tend to be liberal but right now conservatives win control while here in America the people tend to be conservative and liberals have control. Both Countries have lost control for the same reason, splintering.

 

I understand what you are saying here, and have understood it from jump.

[timesjoke]

It's not a loaded question if you can produce facts. Your assertion is that Libertarians elected Obama president. I asked you for some statistical data to back up your claim. You failed to provide proof of your point.

 

 

 

It is a loaded question, you know all votes are private so there is nothing that can be said as hard facts, all that we have to use for discussion is things like the exit polls and you already excluded from consideration any kind of opinions or polls so your question was not a question, it was a closed comment designed to create a false impression of fabrication on my part because you do not want to admit that the splintered groups were what made the difference in getting Obama elected.

 

 

Very slick actually, but I am not interested in lawyer like word twisting RO, all I concern myself with is reality, and reality tells us that the independents elected Obama, not the two main party members who are going to vote for the guy in their party anyway. The only question in each of these elections is what way will the independents lean this time.

 

 

Ohhh......... and I do remember other conservatives being on the 2008 ballot. Do you know how hard it is for a third party to get on a ballot in most states? Damn near impossible.

 

The optimistic voter believe that every candidate on the ballot has equal chance to win. The pessimist knows better given how Obama's (no matter how dirty) political machine rolled all over McCain.

 

So......... moving on.

 

What the heck are you talking about?

 

The optimistic voter what???????

 

You can't possibly believe that. The educated voter knows it is down to two people, one liberal, one conservative, nobody else has any chance in hell of being elected. Voting for anyone other than those two is taking a vote away from one of the two who are capable of winning. That does not mean I like this reality, but like it or not it is still reality.

 

 

This is why I offered a sports example earlier, if the USA hockey team had your attitude in 1980 they would not have even bothered to play USSR and just gave up, nobody in the world gave the American team a chance to beat USSR. But they did beat the USSR team and set the world on it's ear. The contest is not over until it is over.

 

 

First off, I wasn't offended by your remark. I have a tendency for the dramatics and was trying to show you how a supposed flame can be subjective to the reader. Not everyone is offended by the same thing.

 

 

Being offended is not what makes a flame a flame, I am all for spirited debate where some feathers fly but when someone steps outside of the discussion at hand and tosses pure insults that have nothing to do with the discussion that to me is a flame, no matter if the flame caused hurt feelings or not. It is all about being decent. I have made the decision to try and be less hostile and more decent to my fellow forum members and try not to get into a back and forth insult fest, that kind of thing is not very mature anyway.

 

 

 

 

Now... just because I say that I UNDERSTAND something does NOT mean that I agree with it! I totally UNDERSTAND what the progressives are doing to our country, but I don't agree with it! I UNDERSTAND that the progressives have the upper hand now and are capitalizing on it, but I don't agree with it.

 

You say that splintering hurts the Republican's chance of winning. And I say that I don't agree that splintering is a terrible thing. Right now, the Democrats are winning because of their unity and that will be their downfall. For the simple reason, the American people will lump all democrats into the same bin and vote out the more moderate or conservative representatives. Happens all the time.

 

In factions, there is hope that there are three conservatives on the ballot to take away from the Democrats one major candidate. I can't help it if America had it with the Republicans and all their spending in the post-9/11 U.S.

 

 

 

I understand what you are saying here, and have understood it from jump.

 

 

Well clearly you do not understand it based on what you just said.

 

The concept of splintering has nothing to do with progressives because these same progressive types are falling victim to it in Canada where their own splintering is making the conservatives win.

 

 

The basic concept is that people generally fall into two basic groups, those who want the Government to help provide for the people (play Robin Hood), and those who believe the Government should stay out of our lives as much as possible. That is it, we can argue all day and all night on tiny specks of definitions on the finer points but at the end of the day this is where it boils down to when we get rid of all the childish bickering. Sure, we each may want to look at different ways of reaching those goals but still the basic root directions are the same. So the question is why is it some people who agree on less or more Government, will at the same time bicker among people with the same general beliefs instead of joining together?

 

 

In America the liberals seem to be able to stick together most of the time but in Canada these same progressive types cannot stick together and are crippled with splintering. At the same time in America, the Conservatives are crippled with splintering but in Canada the conservative minded people stick together. So it is possible to stick together by both types of people but some figure out how to do so while others do not.

[RoyalOrleans]

It is a loaded question, you know all votes are private so there is nothing that can be said as hard facts, all that we have to use for discussion is things like the exit polls and you already excluded from consideration any kind of opinions or polls so your question was not a question, it was a closed comment designed to create a false impression of fabrication on my part because you do not want to admit that the splintered groups were what made the difference in getting Obama elected.

 

Very slick actually, but I am not interested in lawyer like word twisting RO, all I concern myself with is reality, and reality tells us that the independents elected Obama, not the two main party members who are going to vote for the guy in their party anyway. The only question in each of these elections is what way will the independents lean this time.

 

So you admit, that libertarians (whether you lump them in with the Republicans or the Independents) voted Obama is an outright opinion. That's all I wanted to hear.

 

The way you have asserted yourself with this opinion is that it is infallibly true and can not be refuted.

 

What the heck are you talking about?

 

The optimistic voter what???????

 

Yeah... I kind of did a hack job with my comparisons there. I started a thought, got distracted, forgot all about where I was in the reply and then submitted the post sans proofreading. I had a point, but it's gone the way of the DoDo and searching my thoughts... I can not recall it. I will reiterate my point when it comes back to me.

 

Strike that from the record.

 

This is why I offered a sports example earlier, if the USA hockey team had your attitude in 1980 they would not have even bothered to play USSR and just gave up, nobody in the world gave the American team a chance to beat USSR. But they did beat the USSR team and set the world on it's ear. The contest is not over until it is over.

 

Ohhhh.... I get it now! It's like hockey. Ok... ok... thanks.

 

Being offended is not what makes a flame a flame, I am all for spirited debate where some feathers fly but when someone steps outside of the discussion at hand and tosses pure insults that have nothing to do with the discussion that to me is a flame, no matter if the flame caused hurt feelings or not. It is all about being decent. I have made the decision to try and be less hostile and more decent to my fellow forum members and try not to get into a back and forth insult fest, that kind of thing is not very mature anyway.

 

Well... then... don't worry about being flamed or not. You know this all boils down to you being less hostile and wanting to make changes within yourself. I never made such an agreement nor do I have a desire to. Just because you have decided to try and change doesn't mean that I have to, I'm obligated to be nicer, I have to be decent, etc... this is your little self-project. Not mine.

 

If you don't like it, then leave or take the high road. If something that I say to you or another member doesn't sit right, then RO will make it all better. Yet, you can't expect me to take this trip with you. As I have no desire to compromise for this site or any other. If that gets me demoted... fine... if it ultimately gets me banned... fine!

 

RO will carry on the way RO has always carried on (which is probably the reason I am still here and another reason why I was promoted.)

 

And about the past, I said that I would leave the past in the past and not bring up our previous grievances. As long as you did the same. I haven't reopened old wounds from the past to throw in your face, nor do I have any intention of doing such as that. So far we have both held up our end of the contract.

 

Want to do a poll on the subjectivity of flames?

 

Well clearly you do not understand it based on what you just said.

 

Huh? I'm not some knucklehead that smiles and nods pretending to understand. What don't you understand about "I understand" and "I don't agree.".

 

The basic concept is that people generally fall into two basic groups, those who want the Government to help provide for the people (play Robin Hood), and those who believe the Government should stay out of our lives as much as possible. That is it, we can argue all day and all night on tiny specks of definitions on the finer points but at the end of the day this is where it boils down to when we get rid of all the childish bickering. Sure, we each may want to look at different ways of reaching those goals but still the basic root directions are the same. So the question is why is it some people who agree on less or more Government, will at the same time bicker among people with the same general beliefs instead of joining together?

 

You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere, TJ. Somewhere, somehow, some way... you have to tell yourself that neither party is worth wasting my vote. Yet, I can't tell you how to vote. I can only tell you that there doesn't have to be a two party system, but it is continuous acceptance of centrist beliefs that give us mediocre politicians.

 

You know, most successful politicians are sociopaths. That means that anyone with any integrity at all has small chance of winning and no chance for re-election.

 

It says a lot about someone who ran and did not get elected. All good.

 

Why I Am Not A Conservative by FA Hayek

 

To answer your question... people bicker among people with same general beliefs because they disagree on how they should be instituted. There are centrist Republicans who share a great many values with the Libertarians within the party, but ultimately the centrist wants to get re-elected. Not to say that the Libertarian wants to lose his seat, but he is less likely to compromise... his constituency respects that about him and doesn't want him to roll over.

 

In America the liberals seem to be able to stick together most of the time but in Canada these same progressive types cannot stick together and are crippled with splintering. At the same time in America, the Conservatives are crippled with splintering but in Canada the conservative minded people stick together. So it is possible to stick together by both types of people but some figure out how to do so while others do not.

 

The so called liberals of America stick together on one mantra, "Obama is not Bush.".

 

Whatever... I wipe my hands of this argument. It's tiring and circular.

 

 

 

This thread is way out, far and beyond the intent of the original poster (I'm hugo doesn't mind, but I am trying to stick with the rules of this particular forum). Though the topics discussed are still that... topics, I have to weigh my heavy hand on this thread and discontinue it if we can't get back on track.

 

So...

 

Sarah Palin, huh?

[hugo]

 

hugo, you gave up before the game was over, imagine if any game was played that way, why not end the football games at 30 minutes of play? How about 6 innings in baseball? Your saying it is okay to assume defeat and act accordingly, I don't believe that is part of the American way, we don't give up, hell if we had looked at the assumptions of who was the most powerful we never would have fought for our freedom but we did fight the unwinnable war and guess what......we beat the odds and came out on top.

 

 

We won not because we were divided but because like minded people stuck together and used their combined will to give each other the strength to go one, to keep going, and to ultimately win.

 

Next time you watch a football game where a team is down by three touchdowns and has the ball in the last 30 seconds. They are seldom throwing Hail Marys. A better analogy is we are at war; capitalism versus socialism and some battles or lost but the war is not over. By election Tuesday the battle had been lost but the war against socialism must continue, That means not giving your vote to liberal, a man whose name is on the bill that was the greatest attack on free speech in 200 years, just because he has an R by his name.

[snafu]

YOUR FIRED!

 

 

SEARCHLIGHT, Nev. -- Sarah Palin told thousands of tea party activists assembled in the dusty Nevada desert Saturday that Sen. Harry Reid will have to explain his votes when he comes back to his hometown to campaign.

 

The wind whipped U.S. flags behind the former Alaska governor as she stood on a makeshift stage, holding a microphone and her notes as she spoke to the cheering crowd. She told them Reid, fighting for re-election, is "gambling away our future."

 

 

 

"Someone needs to tell him, this is not a crapshoot," Palin said.

 

About 7,000 people streamed into tiny Searchlight, a former mining town 60 miles south of Las Vegas, bringing American flags, "Don't Tread on Me" signs and outspoken anger toward Reid, President Barack Obama and the health care overhaul.

 

Palin told them the big-government, big-debt spending spree of the Senate majority leader, Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over.

 

"You're fired!" Palin said.

 

A string of polls has shown Reid is vulnerable in politically moderate Nevada after pushing Obama's agenda in Congress. His standing has also been hurt by Nevada's double-digit unemployment and record foreclosure and bankruptcy rates.

 

 

The Searchlight native responded with sarcasm to the large crowd gathered in the hardscrabble town of about 1,000 he grew up in.

 

"I'm happy so many people came to see my hometown of Searchlight and spend their out-of-state money, especially in these tough economic times," Reid said Saturday in a statement released through his Senate campaign. "This election will be decided by Nevadans, not people from other states who parachuted in for one day to have a tea party."

 

Traffic on a highway leading into the town was backed up more than two miles Saturday afternoon as people gathered for the rally, which kicks off a 42-city bus tour that ends in Washington on April 15, tax day.

 

Cars and RVs filled the dusty area where the rally was held, as people set up lawn chairs and braced against the stiff wind whipping up dust clouds and blowing dozens of flags straight out.

 

The rally that's been called a conservative Woodstock takes place just days after the historic health care vote that ushered in near-universal medical coverage and divided Congress and the nation. The vote was followed by reports of threats and vandalism aimed at some Washington lawmakers, mostly Democrats who supported the new law.

 

Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, appeared after spending Friday and Saturday morning campaigning for Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who led the 2008 ticket.

 

Now a Fox News analyst and potential 2012 presidential candidate, Palin faced criticism after posting a map on her Facebook page that had circles and cross hairs over 20 Democratic districts. She also sent a tweet saying, "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!"

 

She said Saturday she wasn't inciting violence, just trying to inspire people to get involved.

 

"We're not going to sit down and shut up. Thank you for standing up," Palin said.

 

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department sent dozens of uniformed and plainclothes officers to patrol the crowd. Officer Jay Rivera said there was a report of a fistfight in the morning, but when police responded, they found nothing. He said there had been no arrests.

 

"So far it's nice and peaceful," Rivera said.

 

The tea party movement is a far-flung coalition of conservative groups angered by Washington spending, rising taxes and the growth and reach of government. It takes its name from the Boston Tea Party in 1773, when colonists dumped tea off English ships to protest what they considered unfair taxation by the British crown.

 

"Some of you are registered Republicans. Some of you are ... what we used to call Reagan Democrats," Palin said. "And some of you are like so many of my friends and my family, including my own husband, just independent, not registered in any party. Just true, blue-blooded Americans."

 

Some people milling around at the rally wore old-fashioned costumes and carried drums, lending to a festival-like atmosphere. Organizers had said up to 10,000 people might come; around 1 p.m., police estimated the crowd was about 7,000.

 

Leonard Grimes, a 70-year-old retired logger, said the nation is drifting toward socialism, and he's not convinced Obama is eligible to be president.

 

"I'd like him to prove he's an American citizen," said Grimes, a registered independent who is originally from Michigan but now lives in Golden Valley, Ariz.

 

He called the health care bill "a joke, just another way to enslave the American public."

 

Ketha Verzani, 60, said she came to the rally from her home in Las Vegas "to stand with those who want to clean house."

 

The Republican opposes the health care bill and worries Americans are losing their rights, including parental rights and gun rights.

 

"It seems like every day more and more of our rights are being taken away," Verzani said, sporting a Palin 2012 button to show support for the former Alaska governor who "doesn't beat around the bush."

 

Reid supporters set up a hospitality tent Saturday in the parking lot of a Searchlight casino, about a mile from the tea party rally. The Senate leader planned to spend part of the day at a new shooting range in Las Vegas with National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

 

Luis Salvador, 55, an unemployed fire sprinkler fitter, drove down from Las Vegas to support Reid, who he said has done a lot for the state and doesn't deserve the protest brought to his hometown.

 

"You don't come to a man's house and start creating a ruckus," said Salvador, a registered independent. He and several others taped signs saying "Nevada Needs Harry Reid" to the side of a truck near the highway that runs through town.

 

Another Reid supporter, Judy Hill, 62, said she doesn't understand the hatred of Reid. The longtime Democrat from Searchlight, said she thinks people just don't know the man she calls a friend.

 

"They listen to the rhetoric. I think he's very misunderstood and under-appreciated," she said.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2...l#ixzz0jQ8Io1Ss

 

[hugo]

McCain campaign gets Palin support

ARIZONA SENATOR HAS TOUGH RE-ELECTION BATTLE WITH TEA PARTY OPPONENT

By The Associated Press 1 Comment Published: March 27, 2010

 

TUCSON, Ariz. — Sarah Palin lent her star power among fellow conservatives to former running mate John McCain in his tough Senate re-election campaign, telling a rally Friday that McCain pegged President Barack Obama right when he said the Democrat would swell the size of government.

 

MultimediaPhoto

view all photos McCain is facing the hardest election fight of his Senate career as he fends off a Republican primary challenge from the right. J.D. Hayworth, former congressman and conservative talk radio host, says McCain is too moderate for Arizona Republicans. Hayworth has tried to build support among conservative activists who identify with the tea party

 

One commie supporting the other against a true conservative. Hayworth has a 100% rating by the American Conservative Union.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read more: http://newsok.com/mccain-campaign-gets-palin-support/article/3449497#ixzz0jQHlKzWm

[RoyalOrleans]

Next time you watch a football game where a team is down by three touchdowns and has the ball in the last 30 seconds. They are seldom throwing Hail Marys. A better analogy is we are at war; capitalism versus socialism and some battles or lost but the war is not over. By election Tuesday the battle had been lost but the war against socialism must continue, That means not giving your vote to liberal, a man whose name is on the bill that was the greatest attack on free speech in 200 years, just because he has an R by his name.

 

I concur.

 

Just because you lose one game, doesn't mean that the season is over.

 

If the Republicans truly want to make a big push to regain the White House in 2012, they will have to cut their losses. Meaning, dropping and booting out those old RINOs masquerading as members of the "conservative" movement. Otherwise, we'll have another four years of the community organizer.

[RoyalOrleans]

One commie supporting the other against a true conservative. Hayworth has a 100% rating by the American Conservative Union.

 

Read more: http://newsok.com/mccain-campaign-gets-palin-support/article/3449497#ixzz0jQHlKzWm

 

I don't pray much, but when I do it is for something big.

 

If McCain loses the race, there is a God. If Palin wakes up with her mouth sewn shut, my other prayers will be answered.

[timesjoke]

You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere, TJ. Somewhere, somehow, some way... you have to tell yourself that neither party is worth wasting my vote. Yet, I can't tell you how to vote. I can only tell you that there doesn't have to be a two party system, but it is continuous acceptance of centrist beliefs that give us mediocre politicians.

 

Well that 4,000 word book was interesting but it seemed to be designed to take us further off the path.

 

No, we do not "HAVE" to have a two party system but at least on the National scale, this is what we do have and I again mention my football example, the game is the game, trying to get mad at your team and run from the field to play a different game only gurantees defeat for the causes you claim to hold dear.

 

 

 

And this is on topic for Sarah Palin. Part of running off to play a different game than the one at hand is people take unreasonable shots at people like Sarah Palin.

 

You know, most successful politicians are sociopaths. That means that anyone with any integrity at all has small chance of winning and no chance for re-election.

 

 

What decent and moral person would want to run for office when even conservative minded people like you and hugo will rip them apart because they are not "pure" enough for you? We end up with mostly lawyers because they go to school to learn how to manipulate and lie with a straight face and let the mess slide off their backs, ignore the harsh public where even if your on their general side of beliefs, that is not good enough. If it was just one side attacking most decent people can take that, but when your being attacked on both sides, what good person would want that?

 

 

 

 

 

As far as the flames are concerned, I took considerable heat because I gave back what I got, I undetrstand now the mess only gets worse by feeding into the flames by giving it back, but at the same time I am not going to be a punching bag. Flames are not supposed to be a part of the forum anyway and yes I know, your staff so you can choose not to enforce the rule on yourself but in reality it is a very good rule. So being as I am not one to just be a punching bag, and this is a great rule even if it will not be enforced, I will simply point it out when it happens instead of joining in as I used to do.

 

My responding to flames made by other people was not wrong RO.

 

But it was garbage the rest of the forum got tired of seeing so even though I was not really wrong to respond in kind, I was still not being fair to my forum mates by adding to the mess. So, from now on when someone flames I will try to not respond with more flames but instead simply point them out instead. There really is no excuse for flames anyway.