The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm trying not to say anything I'll regret, but [b]REALLY?

You want to talk about objective examination of the evidence? You want to play the 'Think for yourself' card?

Canopy of Ice, anyone? [/B]

Except i know where to look RH, and I know why certain things happen. I don't blindly read a NYtimes article and lie to myself. Now if you want me to give you a lesson, I will. You'll come out convinced.

Originally posted by truejedi
Lightsnake, i mean you no disrespect, none with my next sentence, but you obviously don't have any idea what you are talking about. I respect your right to have an opinion different than mine, but I don't think you are a follower of politics. For this reason, i'm going to cease rebutting your posts regarding politics. You aren't going to change your mind, and you really offer nothing of substance in return.

To put simply, your NY times article is at best skewed, at worst, wrong and purposely misleading. That is still the only bit of proof you offered in defense of our current President.
I don't like Obama, I didn't like Bush. They both had serious problems, and have made stupid decisions, however, an honest analysis of spending shows that Obama has put federal spending through the roof. Not Bush.
Bush spent too much, i don't deny it, and i loathe him for it. HOwever Obama has and is on pace to spend much much more.

I'm not a fan of the ex-President Bush, but i pick legitimate reasons for disliking him, rather than repeating the same campaign drivel handed out like candy by liberals preying on the innocent.

Once again, no disrespect at all, I'd go to war and fight and die for your right to hold the opinions that you do. I just wish you would take a more objective look at the information available, and learn for yourself what your reasons are for your political stance, instead of repeating everything you hear from fringe elements.

I really believe more people would have the attitude expressed in that article i already posted by Charley Reese if they did so.

Good day to you sir.

Amen. Some people are ignorant enough to think it's still a battle between the left and the right. Hilarious and sad.

You have a post to be working on. I want it now, and I want it to be good.

I mean, I win anyway, but you may as well make it fun...

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm trying not to say anything I'll regret, but [b]REALLY?

You want to talk about objective examination of the evidence? You want to play the 'Think for yourself' card?

Canopy of Ice, anyone? [/B]

I do. I'm not bringing a knife to a gunfight politically, i can promise you that. I spend at least an hour a day reading news from all CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. I do more research on stories that intrigue me. I read three papers, one local, one state, and USA today on a regular basis. I see both sides of the issues, and make sure to draw my own judgements. If you think of me as a neo-con (which is what i'm guessing you were incredulous over) think again. I am pretty sure almost every politician we have is corrupt in some way or another. I'm of the "vote them all out" persuasion Red. I don't consider myself an affiliate of either political party. Why? You consider yourself more educated and less biased I suppose?

And red, you know your stuff. I don't see you sitting back and saying: Well, this guy took you apart, so SHUT UP!! You do your own dirty work. I definitly respect that.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You have a post to be working on. I want it now, and I want it to be good.

I mean, I win anyway, but you may as well make it fun...

You'll get it this weekend. It's a difficult one. However arguing with you guys about something as practical as this is ridiculously easy, which is why I engage in it.

Now. What are you confused about exactly?

Originally posted by truejedi
Lightsnake, i mean you no disrespect, none with my next sentence, but you obviously don't have any idea what you are talking about. I respect your right to have an opinion different than mine, but I don't think you are a follower of politics. For this reason, i'm going to cease rebutting your posts regarding politics. You aren't going to change your mind, and you really offer nothing of substance in return.

I really believe more people would have the attitude expressed in that article i already posted by Charley Reese if they did so.

Good day to you sir.

There, I'm thinking more like you and your little anti-establishment special snowflake beliefs already

Originally posted by truejedi
I do. I'm not bringing a knife to a gunfight politically, i can promise you that. I spend at least an hour a day reading news from all CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. I do more research on stories that intrigue me. I read three papers, one local, one state, and USA today on a regular basis. I see both sides of the issues, and make sure to draw my own judgements. If you think of me as a neo-con (which is what i'm guessing you were incredulous over) think again. I am pretty sure almost every politician we have is corrupt in some way or another. I'm of the "vote them all out" persuasion Red. I don't consider myself an affiliate of either political party. Why? You consider yourself more educated and less biased I suppose?

I really don't think the people on this forum understand politics or economics. It's more of a philosophy based forum and anything else would be wasting time somewhat.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
I think I do mean you disrespect here because you have precisely no idea what you're talking about. You posted things, I responded and now you whine, double back and cringe

Really, you and DS have a great habit in common: whine about the source and how wrong it is while substantiating precisely nothing

So, the last eight years didn't exist? We didn't run up the massive deficit under Bush? Quite frankly, you're full of it. Obama put federal spending through the roof? Your evidence here is "WAAAH! THE GRAPH IS BIASED! LET ME NOT EXPLAIN HOW!"
Bush's spending was far greater than Obama's

Despite it being statistical fact that Bush spent far more on numerous programs and the entire war? Are you kidding me?

'Liberals preying on the innocent,' great choice of words.
Your idiotic response to Bush actually breaking the law and authorizing torture was "but they did it to three people" so spare me your hackery.

Bullshit.

Translation: See it your way.
When youv'e given no real responses to anything and are proving yourself a master of sticking your head in the sand.

Charley Reese is biased. Whyu should I listen to him? In fact, I'll dismiss him off hand.

There, I'm thinking more like you and your little anti-establishment special snowflake beliefs already

You once again prove that ignorance is bliss. I give you hard data and you either ignore it or don't understand it. You respond with a NYtimes article without even understanding THAT, or explaining it. Your whole argument is "the economy is bouncing back because NYTimes says so", and when I prove your stupidity wrong with hard data, you start crying like a little schoolgirl and projecting your insecurities onto text.

And nobody argued about Bush's spending being through the roof. Once again, you've been given concrete data on Obama's spending habits and monetary/fiscal mismanagement using Keynesian economics, and your only response is either a diversion, or a NYTimes article stating "all is better". You should definitely educate yourself or I can educate you provided you stop embarrassing yourself with things you don't understand.

Your casual dismissal of the source of his article rather than the material itself surprised me, especially when juxtaposed with the 'think for yourself' message.

I'm probably not as educated (I've had my head in the sand since speech season ended). I'm biased enough to think Glenn Beck is a blibbering moron but not biased enough to think that Olberman is news. draw your own conclusions.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Your casual dismissal of the source of his article rather than the material itself surprised me, especially when juxtaposed with the 'think for yourself' message.

I'm probably not as educated (I've had my head in the sand since speech season ended). I'm biased enough to think Glenn Beck is a blibbering moron but not biased enough to think that Olberman is news. draw your own conclusions.

Because I can back UP my dismissal of his source, and everything I've posted the past 3-4 pages. This is an article with no backing whatsoever. For the millionth time, the government NEEDS to expand consumer confidence so that foreign investors continue buying the dollar. They've been distorting facts regardless of a Republican/Democratic president for decades. It's come full circle now that the FED has refused to announce M3(money supply) any longer. You know why? Because if domestic consumers and foreign investors saw what was going on behind price controls and government controlled inflation, the stock market would crash very soon, and we'd experience hyperinflation.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Your casual dismissal of the source of his article rather than the material itself surprised me, especially when juxtaposed with the 'think for yourself' message.

I'm probably not as educated (I've had my head in the sand since speech season ended). I'm biased enough to think Glenn Beck is a blibbering moron but not biased enough to think that Olberman is news. draw your own conclusions.

DS dismissed his source. Not I. I dismissed his numbers. They wrong. To be more precise, I'm dismissing the commentary running next to the numbers. Those are wrong.

And LS, hate all you want, disbelieve all you want, I don't really care. I've said what I have to say to you. One thing you need to do is take the emotion out of your debate. Look at it rationally before you go straight for the bashing tactic.

I reiterate. No disrespect intended, if you take it that way, then i apologize. You will never hear me accuse you of childish behavior (the whining, cringing, squealing comments that are in every one of your posts) I won't insult your person, and I think no worse of you for your viewpoints. I'm not sure if you are handling it at such a level though. (your constant all bolds are suggestive of shouting.)

Originally posted by truejedi
DS dismissed his source. Not I. I dismissed his numbers. They wrong. To be more precise, I'm dismissing the commentary running next to the numbers. Those are wrong.

And LS, hate all you want, disbelieve all you want, I don't really care. I've said what I have to say to you. One thing you need to do is take the emotion out of your debate. Look at it rationally before you go straight for the bashing tactic.

I reiterate. No disrespect intended, if you take it that way, then i apologize. You will never hear me accuse you of childish behavior (the whining, cringing, squealing comments that are in every one of your posts) I won't insult your person, and I think no worse of you for your viewpoints. I'm not sure if you are handling it at such a level though. (your constant all bolds are suggestive of shouting.)

oh and Red, sorry about the olbermann thing, i didn't see the author on the piece until after i had already posted that first time. I saw msnbc, and thought you had directed me to a news article.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Do you have any idea what tax cuts do to a country that isn't producing any kind of real wealth anymore? I didn't think so.

I love how you divert attention from the real issues. The misdirection is hilarious. Don't argue what you don't understand.

Coming from you, this's hilarious.

You don't have an argument. You're arguing out of ignorance and telling yourself your argument holds water.

Regan also created more additional jobs than any president in history and his only apparent fault was increasing defense spending during the apex of the cold war. Clinton was also responsible for removing realistic loan standards from banks and as a direct result of this hilarious policy, we have had a credit crisis and now a credit crunch. Go Clinton!

Of course I do. Go back 2 pages and read, otherwise stfu since you don't know what you're talking about other than "READ NYTIMES!!!"

Ad Hominem, irrelevant misdirection. Again, a refusal to so much look at the source. Hint: It's a graph.

I don't watch Foxnews champ, and the same would apply to CNN. Oh wait, is that wrong? Double standards? And you're telling me out of the left and right wing, the RIGHT is opposed to reality? Way to stereotype the incompetent left.

Actually, unemployment didn't go down. Then again you don't know how to do any kind of research. There are no more jobs to cut. What's that? Unemployment benefit claims are being reduced? Could it be that after 18 months, those same people aren't counted in the BLS? Wow

Yes, I've addressed statistics as it pertains entirely to the argument that our economy is headed for disaster. You're telling me there's a bright light because....NYTimes reported it? Good lord..

This isn't about liberal and conservative crap, otherwise I would give a detailed history of all the amazing accomplishments achieved by the leftist economists.

You definitely have balls arguing something you don't understand. Keep up the good work though. Or perhaps you need to start with intro to Macro and learn basic concepts.

Originally posted by truejedi
DS dismissed his source. Not I. I dismissed his numbers. They wrong. To be more precise, I'm dismissing the commentary running next to the numbers. Those are wrong.

I won't insult your person, and I think no worse of you for your viewpoints. I'm not sure if you are handling it at such a level though. (your constant all bolds are suggestive of shouting.)

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Because I can back UP my dismissal of his source, and everything I've posted the past 3-4 pages. This is an article with no backing whatsoever. For the millionth time, the government NEEDS to expand consumer confidence so that foreign investors continue buying the dollar. They've been distorting facts regardless of a Republican/Democratic president for decades. It's come full circle now that the FED has refused to announce M3(money supply) any longer. You know why? Because if domestic consumers and foreign investors saw what was going on behind price controls and government controlled inflation, the stock market would crash very soon, and we'd experience hyperinflation.

oh, and LS, you make a good point with the 3 waterboarded people thing. One thought on that: Check the Geneva convention, and find the definiton of a prisoner of war (protected from waterboarding) and a spy. You will find the people we captured actually fall under the term spy, and therefore aren't privy to the rights of the Geneva Convention. In fact, that convention allows that spies be shot on sight if the capturere so chooses.

I gotta go to work man, have a good one. Don't be hatin'. I hope you enjoy this kinda discussion a little bit, or else, its kinda pointless. I've read enough now to realize that nobody posting here is going to have their mind changed (which is the case 95% of the time in political debates anyway)

And we've held them in a completely different manner. So your point is "it applies to something completely different."

again, your point effectively comes down to: We only tortured three people! I mean, sure we broke the law...but only for three people."
So, the executive branch gets a set limit on how many times they can flagrantly violate the law?

Originally posted by Lightsnake
*Looks at the current affairs* Seems to be doing better

I love how you totally ignore any sources I link to as evidenced by you not even knowing what they SAID and then claim I'm the ignorant one.

You linked one source and said "Thats it!!" You can't explain it, I doubt you can read it. I accept your concession.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Your backing up: "DUR HUR! IT'S DAH TIMES!"

Liberals say it so it must be true! Republicans are unrealistic!! ROFL

Originally posted by Lightsnake
And we've held them in a completely different manner. So your point is "it applies to something completely different."

again, your point effectively comes down to: We only tortured three people! I mean, sure we broke the law...but only for three people."
So, the executive branch gets a set limit on how many times they can flagrantly violate the law?

If you really want to get into it, The FED printing an obscene amount of money is against the constitution and Obama is printing with speed never seen before. But I guess that's totally ok ROFL