If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
"MuttonJeff" wrote in message ... On Jun 30, 6:27 pm, "Mike Laight" wrote: "MuttonJeff" wrote in message ... On Jun 29, 10:24 am, Governor Swill wrote: This is MuttonJeff's brain on drugs: Eat the rich wrote: Unfortunately, the neocons have amongst their members most of the wealthiest people in America. These wealthy people have over the years learned how to manipulate the masses into voting against their own best interest. Remember how union members voted for Reagan? Remember how many of the poor vote for Republicans? The wealthy will gain control of the masses one way or another. Remember how the kool-aid drinkers voted for Gore, Kerry and all the other wealthy hypocrites? No, but I do remember all the kool aid drinkers who voted for "wealthy hypocrite" Bush and the money grubbing GOP. Please note the current make up of Congress and the further losses sustained there by the party in special elections since 2006. Note how many Republicans, including the party's presumptive nominee, are struggling to distance themselves from George Bush. Even more telling, Republicans are linking themselves to Obama in their re-election bids or refusing to endorse the Republican nominee. It's starting to look like your kool aid pitcher has run dry and your party is in eclipse. Swill -- Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! |Please go into detail what your liberal run congress has accomplished |since taking power almost 2 years ago and why their approval rating |stays around 12%. | First, genie, a quibble. The Democratic Majority does not run congress and it has been in the majority between a year and a year and a half. Second thing, why do you persist in stating that it is the Democratic congress that has the awful approval rating? The whole congress has the awful rating but interestingly enough each poll that has asked about the approval of the Democrats in congress and that also asks about the approval of the Republicants in congress has rated the Democrats with a much higher approval rating than the republicants. Mike- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |Picking nits again. What has your dream team accomplished since taking |power almost 2 years ago? They crowed for 3 months after getting the |majority that it was a "mandate by the american people to undo all the |damage done by the neocons". Piglosi just gave Bush funding for the |war in Iraq. Does'nt that just rip your knickers? The supreme court |just blew the **** out of your kooks confiscating of guns owned by |private citizens. Been a bad week for the moonbat party. Hussein's |minion just shot both feet off at the knees by saying McCain's miltary |service does'nt make him qualified to be President but Hussein has all |the right qualifications (without going into detail just what those |qualifications might be). You ****ing idiots never learn. You arrogant |assholes think the american people are so brain dead and desperate for |change they'd vote for Sasquatch if he was'nt a republican. Same old |****, different day. | I told you I was picking nits but if you want to pick nits back then at least do be accurate. I am very unhappy with the war continuing but it seems that the administration has found out who to pay off so that the violence around the country has cooled down, at least for as long as we keep sending the money to the right people. I have no evidence to support this but if the decision was made, by our Democratic Party leaders, based upon having to choose between: 1- Defunding and having the president work out an exit strategy that would likely not work well, and 2 - waiting until an exit strategy could be put into place by President Obama's team that would minimize the human suffering after we leave, I would support the second option. If, on the other hand, we have continued to fund the war because of some political calculation of the political advantages for the Democratic party I am going to start working to get every part of the Democratic leadership replaced with people who understand and believe in the Democratic ideals. But all of this is beside the point. The American people understand that this congress has been unable to accomplish much of what the people want addressed. The American people also blame the republicants more for the problems in congress. Both you and I know that the only things that can get passed by this legislature are bills that both sides have to give up that which they want but can live without in return for getting something more important to them. That type of negotiation takes time. Mike |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
"MuttonJeff" wrote in message
... (Snip) |The american people |held their noses and voted for the lesser of two evils both times. |Here we go again. You goddamned idiots put all your chips on a ****ing |half-breed marxist/muslim/america hating racist who's totally |dedicated to Mother Africa. You kool-aid drinking imbeciles never |learn. We'll have to listen to 4 more years of you handwringing |bedwetters crying about how McCain "stole the election from the |messiah". | How did you come up with this Mother Africa stuff? Obama has never lived in Africa. Senator Obama has visited Africa twice (that I recall.) All of the family members that he has lived with and who are still alive live in the US. Is this going to be another smear campaign - Mother Africa? Mike |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:30:17 -0400, Governor Swill
wrote: This is nobody's brain on drugs: Governor Swill wrote: This is nobody's brain on drugs: No argument there. I don't think of oil as the long term option. But to provide no relief for a suffering public while we talk about alterntives that are not even on the horizon borders on criminal. The People get what they deserve. We were warned in 1973 and again in 1979 but still the People did not demand long term programs to get us off imported oil. Now we're stuck. We can't drill our way out of our energy problems, we have to seek other means of dealing with the issue. Too bad the only energy vision the GOP can come up with expired in the eighties. A more rational thought would be to drill while pouring resources into alternate sources. It appears right now, there are many who think it's great that people can't afford to drive to work, heat their homes, or eat. How else would you explain their complete inaction? Thank you, sir! Thank you very much indeed! *applause* I've been waiting weeks for somebody else in this place to think of that too. Sadly the position of those holding the power is to finger point, talk about doing things, and do nothing. When you start messing with people's ability to provide for their family, heat their homes or even eat, they begin to get very angry. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:21:09 -0700, "Mike Laight"
wrote: "nobody" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:18:48 -0700, "Mike Laight" wrote: "nobody" wrote in message ... On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:17:25 -0700, "Mike Laight" wrote: "nobody" wrote in message om... On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:52:26 -0700, "Mike Laight" wrote: (Snip) Senator Obama has repeatedly called for spending those tax breaks and subsidies on the next generations of energy sources and not on dumping more money down the oil wells. So, in other words, he has no plans whatsoever to help people who are losing ground financially *right now* due to the high cost of energy. All he seems to talk about are things that will happen some day yet we can't drill in Anwar because it would supposedly take ten yers to get the oil. president Bush this last week said that there is no way to lower prices in gthe short term. Senator McCain said the same in May, 2008. What is Senator McCainsJune, 2008 plan for what he said couldnot happen one month ago? Both Bush and McCain have been pushing for increased domestic oil production. Yes, this week Senator McCain flip-flopped on domestic drilling, while president Bush is now pushing it harder than he had been. Does it seem reasonable to you that Senator McCain has voted against every type of renewable energy and that he and President Bush agree that what we should do right now to get us off our oil addiction is to drill for more oil? While I have no enthusiasm for McCain. at least he appears to be open now to the option. Yes and no. Senator McCain says that he now, this month, is in favor of drilling on the coastal shelf but he has said repeatedly that domestic drilling will not change oil availability or pricing for many years and that it will never bring oil prices down substantially. I think he said a dollar amount that he believed it would affect our gasoline prices but I cannot say for sure. He has voted against every recent bill, upon which he has voted, not to fund any renewable energy programs or research. Again, I said he appeared open to the idea. It's a heck of a lot closer than being completely closed to the idea as Obama and the Dems are. That is the place to start. You can then move forth into developing alternatives. To do as the Dems (and Obama) have been doing --- talk, talk, talk with no specific proposals guarantees no improvement in cost or real alternatives. You may not like or agree with Senator Obama's proposals but I am not an expert and I have seen several reports from reputable and somewhat objective "experts" that are in complete agreement with Senator Obama's energy proposals and other equally reputable and somewhat objective "experts" that are in complete agreement with the Bush/McCain proposals. Which experts agree with Obama and what specific alternatives are they agreeing with? I am not going down this street. It may be unfair of me to think this but in the past, on Usenet, when I would post cites like this then people would want to get into arguments over the relative value, reliability, and scientific accuracy of the respective experts. I'm confused. Why would you claim there were objective experts in complete agreement with Obama and McCain if you are unwilling to back it up? Your response is confusing as well. Of course when someone provides a cite, it should be able to stand up to scutiny. That's part of the nature of debate. There are two things that seem axiomatic to me: 1 - At some point in time we will not have an option of using oil as an energy source. 2 - At some point in time we have to decide that it is in the best interest of this country to stop spending public funds and public resources to scrape along further using oil as an energy source. The disagreement is about when and what to do now. No argument there. I don't think of oil as the long term option. But to provide no relief for a suffering public while we talk about alterntives that are not even on the horizon borders on criminal. Well, in the last two weeks President Bush, Senator McCain, and Senator Obama have all said that there are no quick or easy solutions available. There are few things that each of these men have agreed on at nearly the same time. I would settle for action that will lead to progress. Honestly I don't think either McCain or Obama are doing that currently, but McCain is closer to it. The Japanese seem to be putting a lot more resources into solving this problem than we are. The Chinese, Indians, and South and Central America's desire for oil is growing at a faster pace than is ours. In fact,our use has pretty much plateaued at a level that is below our peak usage. (This could be out of date data and I am too lazy to look up more recent data but at the very least this was true a couple years ago.) My point is that I want the US to spend a huge amount of money to at least catch up with the Japanese and then spend another huge amount to move ahead of them. I want to let oil companies stop getting subsidies and tax breaks for at least the next ten years. I want the US to spend huge amounts of money developing safe nuclear power systems and waste handling and perhaps settle our deficit by selling, building, and installing renewable power systems and safe nuclear power systems to every country in the world. Which Democrat has introduced a bill with proposals for new nuclear plants? I was not talking about any politicians in this paragraph. That is why so many of the sentences begin with "I want Understood, however if the Dems are to grow in power (and right now it appears they will) then it's a perfectly valid question to ask. If the answer is none, then why the heck should anyone expect the Dems will offer anything more than increased taxes and even higher energy prices? This is the future, eventually, and Senator Obama talks about a very similar vision. I don't see anything about nuclear power on his web site. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ I have not recently looked at Senator Obama's site to read his nuclear energy position. I thought he had made his position quite clear. Here is a youtube of a debate question about nuclear power, Senator Obama starts his answer at about 1:12 into the tape. He is preceded by Senator Edwards and followed by Senator Clinton. If you still want to talk about his position then let me know after you have had a chance to hear his words yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBE I can't put any stock in a debate. If something was part of his position, it would certainly appear on his official campaign web site. *BTW* visiting his web site prevents you from using the "back" arrow to exit his site. You must close your browser. Poor design - although I suspect done on purpose. Oh, that crap absolutely drives me crazy. I tell companies, when their web site does that, they have lost my business for now. I always assume that if that happens to me the company wants it to happen. I do not remember that happening to me on Obam's website but I use a lot of windows and tabs when browsing so I probably just close his tab when I am done. There's a certain arrogance displayed by such web site owners and authors. They are acting like they're the most important site on the Internet, why would you want to leave? When I listen to Senator McCain I think about something written by Robert Heinlein. He wrote about what it must have been like in the buggy whip business as cars started to become common and affordable. Heinlein wrote that it is likely that only the best buggy whip manufacturers were likely to survive as the market for buggy whips was shrinking. The last buggy whip companies probably took a great deal of pride in making the best buggy whips they could make. It used to be taught that one of the worst places for a business to be is in gaining market share in a shrinking market. I believe that Senator McCain is treating the energy problem in the same way as the buggy whip manufacturers. He is looking for the very best way he can find to address the problem of oil prices while not addressing that oil is going to be replaced as a source of energy. I only hope that we have the time to solve this problem before we have to start burning down the house for warmth. I don't think that's a fair analysis of McCain's position. He appears to be for oil to transition to alternatives -- the only realistic approach. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...f1468e96f4.htm You may be correct that it is an unfair analysis of Senator McCain's positions but it isn't really an analysis. Also, I have read the positions covered by Senator McCain's The Lexington Project energy policies and positions. No elected president is able to accomplish everything that they want to accomplish and frankly, I do not think any president could achieve all of the items listed on John McCain's position sheet concerning energy. Strangely, I was unable to find an energy position which Senator McCain is against. We have to evaluate which items our president really pushes and which fall by the wayside. When I listen to Senator McCain on the subject of energy he seems to become more excited when he talks about not sending money, through purchasing oil, to nations and regimes we dislike and on any other discussion of energy he seems to be somewhat out of energy. Senator Obama seems to be much more energized when talking about renewable energy sources and emergent technologies. In these times, I don't think any energy alternative should be ignored. Everything should be on the table. I guess my suggestion would be for you to read the candidate's published, official positions. What you feel about McCain's positions doesn't hold up if you read his actual positions. He appears to offer more in the way of specifics than Obama. Just my best guess and only time will tell if we elected a good choice. Sadly, I don't see either candidate helping to solve the issues. I thijnk it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:06:18 -0400, Governor Swill
wrote: This is nobody's brain on drugs: On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:01:26 -0400, Governor Swill wrote: His proposals shown here seem specific enough. As for increasing the cost of energy, doing nothing will increase it even faster. If you don't think so, consider the increase in gas prices since Bush came to office. Perhaps the best news here is the job creation that will result from shifting to domestic energy production. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ Feel free to quote anything specific that will make a significant difference in the next 10 years. Oh yeah, I missed something. He's for Cap and Trade. This will equal a tax increase on anyone using energy. That'll help... Yes, it will help because it will motivate people to use less energy. Which has done nothing to lower costs. You did notice that our energy demand is down now, right? McCain otoh, offers crap like this: "John McCain's Clean Car Challenge. John McCain will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit for the consumer based on the reduction of carbon emissions. He will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission t car, encouraging automakers to be first on the market with these cars in order to capitalize on the consumer incentives. For other vehicles, a graduated tax credit will apply so that the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit. " In other words, he intends to do nothing until the markets have already accomplished the goal of zero emissions, then he's going to cut a tax. What about investing in the research and technology that's going to be needed to arrive at that zero emissions car? I must have missed your quote from Obama's site that spelled out the incentives offered to those who would buy clean air / zero emission cars. None needed. Energy prices will see to that. I see, McCain offering incentives after the building of a zero emission vehicle is somehow a bad idea, but Obama offering none at all is a good idea. Oh, and you missed his rather specific ideas also (but what else can one expect from a lib). These are topics only. Refer to his web site http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing...f1468e96f4.htm for details (since oddly you cited only Obama's web page". Um, where do you think I got the McCain issue quote, stupid. I got it from his site. I read that entire page and guess what? It's all about energy based on combustion technology. I suggest you re-read the web site because you are incorrect. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
On Jun 30, 8:39*pm, "Mike Laight" wrote:
"charley" wrote in message ... On Jun 30, 11:22 am, Governor Swill wrote: This is charley's brain on drugs: You really are an idiot. *Conservatives have one TV outlet which is Fox.....libs have everything else including most print media.....libs are just stupid and depend on minorities for power....what's funny is the hierarchy of the democratic party is run by Whites. You really must be on drugs if you have failed to notice that almost all media has been bought by, and for the interests of, large corporations. Large corporations who are run by, and the largest stock owners are usually, republicants. *No one can seriously call most television, newspaper, and magazines part of some liberal bias or conspiracy. *Why do you think that democrat administrations and legislators have always fought against letting media companies be owned by fewer and fewer companies while republican administrations, specifically Presidents Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43, have enacted changes in law so that huge corporations could purchase more and more media. Mike George Soros is now a republicant??? Ted Turner is now a republicant?? |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
On Jun 30, 9:43*pm, Governor Swill wrote:
This is MuttonJeff's brain on drugs: Because he's a ****ing neocon you ****ing drooling imbecile. If you bedwetters would run somebody for president that was'nt a ****ing lunatic maybe Bush would'nt have won two terms. The american people held their noses and voted for the lesser of two evils both times. Here we go again. You goddamned idiots put all your chips on a ****ing half-breed marxist/muslim/america hating racist who's totally dedicated to Mother Africa. You kool-aid drinking imbeciles never learn. We'll have to listen to 4 more years of you handwringing bedwetters crying about how McCain "stole the election from the messiah". Maybe if you cocksmokers on the right could manage to nominate somebody who wasn't a simpleton, Bush would never have been elected in the first place and the GOP would likely still be in power. Swill -- Gobama! *Gobama! *Gobama! *Gobama! Where's Kerry and Dr. Gore?? |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
On Jul 1, 2:12*am, "Mike Laight" wrote:
"MuttonJeff" wrote in message ... (Snip) |The american people |held their noses and voted for the lesser of two evils both times. |Here we go again. You goddamned idiots put all your chips on a ****ing |half-breed marxist/muslim/america hating racist who's totally |dedicated to Mother Africa. You kool-aid drinking imbeciles never |learn. We'll have to listen to 4 more years of you handwringing |bedwetters crying about how McCain "stole the election from the |messiah". | How did you come up with this Mother Africa stuff? *Obama has never lived in Africa. Senator Obama has visited Africa twice (that I recall.) *All of the family members that he has lived with and who are still alive live in the US. Is this going to be another smear campaign - Mother Africa? Mike Fact. You kooks call facts "smear". Get used to it. You ain't seen nothing yet. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
Where's Kerry and Dr. Gore??
The latter is swelling up like a wood tick on a bloodhound. The former is quite possibly wearing his wife's undergarments and wearing rouge. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
Sadly the position of those holding the power is to finger point, talk
about doing things, and do nothing. Now c'mon here, voting oneself a fat pay and pension increase is tiring work. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Your Lowest Mintage US Coin? | Sibirskmoneta | Coins | 17 | October 27th 06 04:03 AM |
Lowest grade, ever? | note.boy | Coins | 1 | January 12th 06 05:04 AM |
What's your lowest mintage coin? | LM5403 | Coins | 18 | September 13th 05 06:32 AM |
Your lowest mintage? | Alan & Erin Williams | Coins | 57 | April 8th 04 08:50 AM |