You mean like telling the unemployed that they're to blame for their own problems when 25 million people are all trying to get 3.1 million jobs?

Or like saying he wouldn't hire Muslims? Or that, when he did hire Muslims, they'd have to take a special oath?

Or like saying he's in favor of letting communities keep Muslims out?

Or like advocating a tax plan that fits on a bumper sticker and has been roundly rejected by every sane economist that isn't working for Cain?

Or like telling black people their problem is that they just can't figure out how to vote Republican?

Or like claiming that liberals intend to make America mediocre?

IBCoupe wrote:You mean like telling the unemployed that they're to blame for their own problems when 25 million people are all trying to get 3.1 million jobs?

Or like saying he wouldn't hire Muslims? Or that, when he did hire Muslims, they'd have to take a special oath?

Or like saying he's in favor of letting communities keep Muslims out?

Or like advocating a tax plan that fits on a bumper sticker and has been roundly rejected by every sane economist that isn't working for Cain?

Or like telling black people their problem is that they just can't figure out how to vote Republican?

Or like claiming that liberals intend to make America mediocre?

Even with all your misrepresentation it still sounds much better than the rest of the lot.

What have I misrepresented?

stebo0728 wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:You mean like telling the unemployed that they're to blame for their own problems when 25 million people are all trying to get 3.1 million jobs?

Or like saying he wouldn't hire Muslims? Or that, when he did hire Muslims, they'd have to take a special oath?

Or like saying he's in favor of letting communities keep Muslims out?

Or like advocating a tax plan that fits on a bumper sticker and has been roundly rejected by every sane economist that isn't working for Cain?

Or like telling black people their problem is that they just can't figure out how to vote Republican?

Or like claiming that liberals intend to make America mediocre?

Even with all your misrepresentation it still sounds much better than the rest of the lot.

Here are some facts in a nutshell

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/opini ... ml?_r=1&hp

Any BTW what were the house republicans doing today?

Nothing about jobs but yapping about abortion again and attempting to take away womans health issues.
Republicans really do suck and many of them will have to find a new occupation after they come up for reelection

Occupy Wall Street is growing and the 99% are going to be heard loud and clear. Just like the old days

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DblvhECd ... re=related

Telcoman

stebo0728 wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:You mean like telling the unemployed that they're to blame for their own problems when 25 million people are all trying to get 3.1 million jobs?

Or like saying he wouldn't hire Muslims? Or that, when he did hire Muslims, they'd have to take a special oath?

Or like saying he's in favor of letting communities keep Muslims out?

Or like advocating a tax plan that fits on a bumper sticker and has been roundly rejected by every sane economist that isn't working for Cain?

Or like telling black people their problem is that they just can't figure out how to vote Republican?

Or like claiming that liberals intend to make America mediocre?

Even with all your misrepresentation it still sounds much better than the rest of the lot.

I'm with Isaac here -- what about those statements was misrepresentational?

Hey, let's keep this train rolling!

It occurs to me that a serious candidate for President might recognize that the Constitution makes foreign policy the main arena for Presidential power. As such, that serious candidate might not poke fun at certain allies upon whom we rely.

Turns out, the President of "Ubekibekibekistanstan" was the very guy who, in 2005, evicted us from the air force base we maintain within his borders. Now, knowing his name offhand might not be the most important thing, but it behooves a serious Presidential candidate to respect foreign countries if he has any intention of doing the main part of his job.

Luckily President Obama got it back in 2009, which is fortunate as it's relatively close to the Afghanistan border.

IBCoupe wrote:

So much material for The Daily Show and Saturday Night Live. My TIVOs are beginning to work overtime.

Not one of the Republican bunch is qualified for POTUS

Telcoman

People said that same about Obama back in 2007-2008, remember. And as much as I like the guy and appreciate some of what he's trying to do, he's not really giving us much reason to refute that, even after 2.5 years in office. (And I voted for him)

Telco, seriously, I appreciate the levity you bring to these discussions, but I know you are capable of so much more than petty trolling. Step up and prove it. You are even more blindly partisan than the people you accuse of being blindly partisan. I'm amping up my expectations -- I challenge you to come up with a line of objective argumentation for why the current POTUS candidates are unfit to hold the office of POTUS that holds up to scrutiny by the conservative members of this forum. I know you have it in you. Time to throw down.

Encryptshun wrote:You are even more blindly partisan than the people you accuse of being blindly partisan.

And more bigoted than the people he accuses of being bigots.

Encryptshun wrote:I'm amping up my expectations -- I challenge you to come up with a line of objective argumentation for why the current POTUS candidates are unfit to hold the office of POTUS that holds up to scrutiny by the conservative members of this forum. I know you have it in you. Time to throw down.

Maybe Telco should run for POTUS - he would get the Democratic vote, no?

Z

I invite you to research accomplishments of the past two Democratic presidents (one of which being Obama) and those of the last two Republican presidents. Then go ahead and cast snarky remarks about Democrats telling but not showing. And also take in to account BHO has only been in office for ~2.5 years.

Remember, it takes two to tango, and the stone-wall opposition he's faced would have prevented any POTUS from accomplishing everything he or she would otherwise have wanted to.

Encryptshun wrote:I invite you to research accomplishments of the past two Democratic presidents (one of which being Obama) and those of the last two Republican presidents. Then go ahead and cast snarky remarks about Democrats telling but not showing. And also take in to account BHO has only been in office for ~2.5 years.

Snarky remarks about Democrats? Oh, my! It was a cartoon.

Regardless of which, I totally stand by my agreement with you on Telco's extreme partisanship AND my own observation of Telco's bigotry in this forum. That is a reality that cannot be ignored.

Next, BTW, have you looked at the extreme comments cast on Bush (and other Republicans in and out of office) all the time by Democrats?

As a Republican myself, I am always willing to acknowledge that Bush was not perfect, made his mistakes, etc., etc., etc. I also did not agree with many of his policies or many of his selections of cabinet members and advisors.

But, the "Obama walks on water and all Republicans suck" attitude that many Democrats exude smugly all the time is nauseating. (P.S. I am not saying you are doing it, but just look at many of the posts by others here and elsewhere and, if you are at all objective, you will see what I mean!)

Encryptshun wrote:Remember, it takes two to tango, and the stone-wall opposition he's faced would have prevented any POTUS from accomplishing everything he or she would otherwise have wanted to.

Sure! Agreed. All POTUS's have faced this, when things are not in alignment in the House and Senate parties in "power".

Has Obama faced this more than normal? Perhaps, but it is not that clear to me - most POTUS's have had difficulty with their first term in office when the parties are not aligned. Most importantly, that is what keeps things in check and balance sometimes - makes it difficult to pass extreme laws for one thing.

But, yes, I am also old enough to remember how things have gone with Republican POTUS's with Democrats running Congress and/or the Senate. Wish I had the time to elaborate further, but ... it ain't worth the effort.

Z

The cartoon said nothing about Democrats or even about the POTUS (and the cartoon was funny). YOU added the rest. So yeah, snark.

And regarding effectiveness, I see where you are heading, but honestly and objectively are you saying that the Republican opposition of the current congress is designed to prevent extremist policy? Because I see it as ensuring ONLY extremist policy. Obama's a centrist and always has been. But he is facing a party that is hell-bent to render him utterly impotent, even at the expense of the well-being of their own constituency. They are unreasonable and misguided by partisan ideology to the point where they will vote against bills and parts of bills that they themselves wrote simply because they are brought to the floor by a Democrat. And then they will turn around and accuse Obama of not having any ideas, of not compromising, and not working with them.

The biggest reason I get on Telco's case about his methods is that what we need is more sanity and less bumpersticker rhetoric, yet the comment you posted is 100% the latter and, franky, none of the former. Falsities spread under the guise of humor are the most insidious of all, because people assume that any joke has an element of truth, so it's actually the best way to get people to believe the message.

Encryptshun wrote:The biggest reason I get on Telco's case about his methods is that what we need is more sanity and less bumpersticker rhetoric, ...........

Ok so I have to back off a little. I sometimes get riled up listening to the republican BS. Not all the republicans suck. Just most of them!

I watched Jon Huntsman on Hardball and he seems to be the only republican candidate that seems to have a brain and he does not suck.

When not one republican candidate will not stand up for a gay soldier putting his life on the line for his country then in my opinion they all suck.

Any candidate whether republican or democrat that refuses to stand up to the sunday morning political talk shows does not deserve to be considered for public office. I'm not referring to faux either.
Probably one reason why Palin is not running? Bachman made an A hole out of herself. Cain did poorly. His 9 9 9 plan is not going anywhere. Listen to his position on abortion. Doublespeak!
Perry executes too many people some who may be innocent, does poorly in debates and is on his way out.
Romney stands out for cutting jobs as governor and doesn't seem to have a clue on how the 99% live. So who among the republican candidates is qualified to be elected in 2012. None in my opinion.

Only our current president is qualified to continue to get this country out of the mess that previous republican administration left us in.

Telcoman

Encryptshun wrote:The cartoon said nothing about Democrats or even about the POTUS (and the cartoon was funny). YOU added the rest. So yeah, snark.

Okay, criticism accepted, albeit not entirely agreed with.

I will do a better job.

Encryptshun wrote:And regarding effectiveness, I see where you are heading, but honestly and objectively are you saying that the Republican opposition of the current congress is designed to prevent extremist policy? Because I see it as ensuring ONLY extremist policy. Obama's a centrist and always has been. But he is facing a party that is hell-bent to render him utterly impotent, even at the expense of the well-being of their own constituency. They are unreasonable and misguided by partisan ideology to the point where they will vote against bills and parts of bills that they themselves wrote simply because they are brought to the floor by a Democrat. And then they will turn around and accuse Obama of not having any ideas, of not compromising, and not working with them.

The problem is that the rhetoric happens everywhere.

When I see Pelosi stand up with 10 or 12 other democrats and take extreme stands on "no cuts allowed" to some entitlements, then I react the same way as you just did against the Republicans. In my opinion, they are taking extreme stands on items that do not benefit the long-term well-being of the country. It is all too easy to head towards apathy and a "government will take of me regardless" attitude that do not foster the right mindset on the part of hard-working people.

All extreme ideologies tend to get in the way of reality.

Encryptshun wrote:The biggest reason I get on Telco's case about his methods is that what we need is more sanity and less bumpersticker rhetoric, yet the comment you posted is 100% the latter and, franky, none of the former.

And, of course, I disagree with your use of the word "none".

Encryptshun wrote:Falsities spread under the guise of humor are the most insidious of all, because people assume that any joke has an element of truth, so it's actually the best way to get people to believe the message.

Perhaps the reason it stings is because there IS an element of truth there? Think about it objectively.

Z

telcoman wrote:Ok so I have to back off a little. I sometimes get riled up listening to the republican BS. Not all the republicans suck. Just most of them!

Perhaps not surprisingly, I can say the same about the Democratic BS. Not all the Democrats are liberal nut-cases. Just most of them.
.
.
.
How does that feel to you? Do you see why extreme rhetoric pisses people off?

Z

szh wrote:The problem is that the rhetoric happens everywhere.

When I see Pelosi stand up with 10 or 12 other democrats and take extreme stands on "no cuts allowed" to some entitlements, then I react the same way as you just did against the Republicans. In my opinion, they are taking extreme stands on items that do not benefit the long-term well-being of the country. It is all too easy to head towards apathy and a "government will take of me regardless" attitude that do not foster the right mindset on the part of hard-working people.

All extreme ideologies tend to get in the way of reality.

They haven't taken that position. The one time they did (last July) it was for the debt ceiling fight, which was an invented crisis, and that's what the objection was. It was an attempt to take one more bite of the apple by Republicans because they didn't like that the budget wasn't as slim as they wanted it to be the first time around.

Unless you can find me a news clip of Rep. Pelosi and those ten or twelve other folks standing up and saying that recently, then I'm gonna call you on this line of crap, because it's been the one thing you point to in support of your "Both sides are bad" mantra.

Yes, you and I have danced that waltz before.

I will not convince you and you will not convince me. Let's leave it at that.

Z

szh wrote:Yes, you and I have danced that waltz before.

I will not convince you and you will not convince me. Let's leave it at that.

Z

Pretty sure you said something last time, too. Why not try?

Bam

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquar ... 46088.html

Possibly something with some substance....

"It looks like a law school exam on potential campaign finance violations," Norton said, according to The Washington Post. "Many of these payments would be prohibited contributions under federal election law."

Remind me to take that class.

I like how real he is meaning he seems to be straight up with people yall know what i mean? For example A couple presidential debates back he was asked about how he will control the border and he said we will have an electrified fence haha... (even though he just doesn't fully realize how big of an undertaking that would cost and be to maintain)

Or the legal and human rights implications of making an attempt at an uninspected border crossing punishable by death.

We could always take a page out if Iran's book and hold any illegal border crossers hostage until we get half a million dollars in ransom from the home country.

Of course, no one would pay it, so we'd just end up throwing them back anyway. But it's a thought.

bigbadberry3 wrote:http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquar ... 46088.html

Possibly something with some substance....

Could his 9 9 9 plan have been hatched in his pants?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ml?hpid=z1

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... on-bialek/

I wonder if Cain will be pushing any other womans face into his crotch?

Telcoman

HA.

That is all.

300ZXttZMAN wrote:I like how real he is meaning he seems to be straight up with people yall know what i mean?

Based on the growing allegations, perhaps he meant instead being straight up with people, he "wanted to get something straight" up some former female coworkers.

I'm sure Old Newtie is keeping his mouth shut about Cain's infidelities....