As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

If you're a Republican, [PALIN] says it's time to get on your high horse!

1272829303133»

Posts

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    Which party was the last President that reduced the deficit during his term a member of? Which party controlled the legislative bodies when Paygo was reenacted? When it was last allowed to expire? Which party was the legislative bodies and the President members of when they stopped placing trillion dollar voluntary expenditures "off the books"?
    Who was the party in control of Congress though? They're the people who actually set the budget? Who was the president when paygo was reenacted? You can say what you want about the Republican held congress and presidency, but giving Clinton credit for the surplus and the Democrats in Congress credit for PAYGO, acting like the Republicans weren't involved in setting the Budget during Clinton and Bush didn't sign PAYGO despite his promises not to raise taxes seems to be showing only part of the story.

    It was like 20-10 years ago, and not really relevant to the current Republican party though.
    Remind me again who was in control of Congress during the Dubya administration...?

    Thanatos on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Speaker wrote: »
    I expect the Republicans to win both houses of congress.

    That's pretty much impossible. Gaining ten seats in the Senate is rather unlikely, and forty seats in the House isn't much better. The last time either party gained double-digit seats in the Senate during a midterm was 1958.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Johnny ChopsockyJohnny Chopsocky Scootaloo! We have to cook! Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    I voted for Ron Paul these last primaries purely because I wanted him to stay in the election as long as possible. Him asking McCain about the President's Working Group on Financial Markets and McCain clearly being at a complete loss during one of the debates was one of my favorite moments of this last election. He has an antiquated concept of monetary policy, but at the heart of things, I believe he's actually genuine. I don't think he'll run again though.

    I'm rooting for Paul in the GOP primary because he's a shit disturber. He says things that make his Republican opponents stammer and stutter, and I love seeing that in self-righteous shitbags like the candidates the Pubbies have foisted upon America for the last 20 years.

    I would never vote for Paul because his fiscal solutions involve the same amount of reality as a unicorn festival, but dammit I want him to at least make a large number of debates more interesting. Paul vs Palin in a debate? Schadenfreude-tastic!

    Johnny Chopsocky on
    ygPIJ.gif
    Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
  • devCharlesdevCharles Gainesville, FLRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    devCharles wrote: »
    Which party was the last President that reduced the deficit during his term a member of? Which party controlled the legislative bodies when Paygo was reenacted? When it was last allowed to expire? Which party was the legislative bodies and the President members of when they stopped placing trillion dollar voluntary expenditures "off the books"?
    Who was the party in control of Congress though? They're the people who actually set the budget? Who was the president when paygo was reenacted? You can say what you want about the Republican held congress and presidency, but giving Clinton credit for the surplus and the Democrats in Congress credit for PAYGO, acting like the Republicans weren't involved in setting the Budget during Clinton and Bush didn't sign PAYGO despite his promises not to raise taxes seems to be showing only part of the story.

    It was like 20-10 years ago, and not really relevant to the current Republican party though.
    Remind me again who was in control of Congress during the Dubya administration...?

    That's why I said "You can say what you want about the Republican held congress and presidency." I was referring to 2000-2006.

    devCharles on
    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    This is where they conveniently use the war. They'll say, well, we were also fighting two wars. The obvious response is...uh...wars you guys started? Their response will be, so you don't think we should have rescued people from tyrants. As soon as they make it a question of morality, the more they can hedge and cast aspersions. You're now someone who likes tyrants and hates freedom and so on.

    The problem is the left can't argue about matters military because of their base. Look at any military thread and watch the hard left progressives lie out their ass that their po military, and then always side against it, claim it's the troops job to die, criticize everything about, insult them because they chose service over college, it turns into a mess. Then go to say Huffington Post or KOS and see the insanity really come out.

    And no matter who pro military, or ex military, a Democratic politician is, he still answers to the loony left of his base which is the most anti military organization in the nation. Which strips all prior service right off him because now he can't be trusted if he wants to get elected again.

    It's that sort of behavior that gives the Republicans complete cred when it comes to anything military.

    I'd like to see all this change, but without a purge of their radical base, it's not going to happen.

    psychotix on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Oh, what a ridiculous load of crap. If the base actually controlled anything, Reid wouldn't have been elected majority leader. And Jim Webb, the former Marine and Reagan Naval undersecretary, would never have been nominated, let alone elected. Remember, you said he's really very conservative?

    Captain Carrot on
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Oh, what a ridiculous load of crap. If the base actually controlled anything, Reid wouldn't have been elected majority leader. And Jim Webb, the former Marine and Reagan Naval undersecretary, would never have been nominated, let alone elected. Remember, you said he's really very conservative?

    He got elected in VA, which is rather conservative, despite your protests that it's not. So that really doesn't prove squat.

    But, the base, is why Kerry was able to get tarred like he did. And as much as I'd like him, I wouldn't trust him to do the right things for the military because of who he answered to, and I felt rather bad voting for him, because since has that big D next to his name, he's answering to bunch of people that dislike vets like me.

    psychotix on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    psychotix wrote: »
    Oh, what a ridiculous load of crap. If the base actually controlled anything, Reid wouldn't have been elected majority leader. And Jim Webb, the former Marine and Reagan Naval undersecretary, would never have been nominated, let alone elected. Remember, you said he's really very conservative?

    He got elected in VA, which is rather conservative, despite your protests that it's not. So that really doesn't prove squat.
    He got nominated by the base, which is always more extreme than the state as a whole.

    Also, my argument has never been that the state is not conservative, but that one part of it is not conservative.

    Captain Carrot on
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    he's answering to bunch of people that dislike vets like me.

    Wait, there are people who genuinely dislike veterans? I have to say, I haven't really seen any examples of this - could you show me some?

    I thought the general "left wing" position in the US was "support the troops, hate the war" (but if you have evidence to the contrary I'd be open to changing my mind!).

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • RussellRussell Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Duffel wrote: »
    EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Romney has one of the most boring and generic personalities in American politics. Coming across as the living embodiment of a Brooks Brothers sweater vest is not going to win you the endearment of most Americans.

    He's basically the Republican version of John Kerry. Americans will elect a populist or ideologue over a milquetoast technocrat for President nearly every time, regardless of party affiliation.

    Russell on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I mean, the guy is totally about economics and high-brow stuff like that, but isn't above pandering.

    You win the understatement of the new century award, congrats Atomic Ross!

    Also, psychotix, you may be surprised to learn that Markos himself is a veteran!

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    psychotix wrote: »
    devCharles wrote: »
    This is where they conveniently use the war. They'll say, well, we were also fighting two wars. The obvious response is...uh...wars you guys started? Their response will be, so you don't think we should have rescued people from tyrants. As soon as they make it a question of morality, the more they can hedge and cast aspersions. You're now someone who likes tyrants and hates freedom and so on.

    The problem is the left can't argue about matters military because of their base. Look at any military thread and watch the hard left progressives lie out their ass that their po military, and then always side against it, claim it's the troops job to die, criticize everything about, insult them because they chose service over college, it turns into a mess. Then go to say Huffington Post or KOS and see the insanity really come out.

    And no matter who pro military, or ex military, a Democratic politician is, he still answers to the loony left of his base which is the most anti military organization in the nation. Which strips all prior service right off him because now he can't be trusted if he wants to get elected again.

    It's that sort of behavior that gives the Republicans complete cred when it comes to anything military.

    I'd like to see all this change, but without a purge of their radical base, it's not going to happen.

    I've never seen this anti-military sentiment you're describing, and I'm a leftist myself.

    Furthermore, Democrats answer to the "loony left" of their base? On what? When has the leftmost part of the base gotten their way on anything within the party?

    Yougottawanna on
  • devCharlesdevCharles Gainesville, FLRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I've seen anti-military sentiment on my campus, but it is a college campus, so it's probably over the top compared to other leftist people. I have a buddy in ROTC program that told me that he was called "Baby Killer" by some people organizing a anti-war rally in the central part of campus. In my political geography class, there were a few people who said the US military was basically a mercenary organization.

    Obviously, those people aren't necessarily connected to the democratic part at all.

    devCharles on
    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    I've never seen this anti-military sentiment you're describing, and I'm a leftist myself.

    Furthermore, Democrats answer to the "loony left" of their base? On what? When has the leftmost part of the base gotten their way on anything within the party?

    It's the irony of American politics.

    A lot of leftists are resistant to the popular "Veterans represent the best of us" propaganda, but are supportive of government policies that support veterans. Liberals don't like the military industrial complex, but can be guilted into full support of veterans' benefits.

    Conservatives are all about veterans being the America's heroes. They love the military and the flag. They also cut the shit out of veterans' benefits when they get into power and don't seem to have much shame about it.

    A veteran supporting conservatives gets their metaphorical dick sucked all day long by conservatives, but their actual benefits and life will suffer. A veteran supporting liberals may have to question whether they are God's Own Heroes, but they'll get the benefits owed to them if their candidates win.

    Phillishere on
  • big lbig l Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    psychotix wrote: »
    devCharles wrote: »
    This is where they conveniently use the war. They'll say, well, we were also fighting two wars. The obvious response is...uh...wars you guys started? Their response will be, so you don't think we should have rescued people from tyrants. As soon as they make it a question of morality, the more they can hedge and cast aspersions. You're now someone who likes tyrants and hates freedom and so on.

    The problem is the left can't argue about matters military because of their base. Look at any military thread and watch the hard left progressives lie out their ass that their po military, and then always side against it, claim it's the troops job to die, criticize everything about, insult them because they chose service over college, it turns into a mess. Then go to say Huffington Post or KOS and see the insanity really come out.

    And no matter who pro military, or ex military, a Democratic politician is, he still answers to the loony left of his base which is the most anti military organization in the nation. Which strips all prior service right off him because now he can't be trusted if he wants to get elected again.

    It's that sort of behavior that gives the Republicans complete cred when it comes to anything military.

    I'd like to see all this change, but without a purge of their radical base, it's not going to happen.

    Can you cite any Democrat elected to any office ever saying anything like this? Can you giev any examples of mainstream Dems pandering to the loony left? I don't think you can. You shouldn't base your judgement of an entire party on the comments of anonymous people posting in a thread on HuffPo. And if you think the Dems answer to the loony left, ask a member of the loony left about it and you'll hear plenty about how the mainstream Dems don't give a shit about the loony left, because they don't.

    big l on
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It's the irony of American politics.

    A lot of leftists are resistant to the popular "Veterans represent the best of us" propaganda, but are supportive of government policies that support veterans. Liberals don't like the military industrial complex, but can be guilted into full support of veterans' benefits.

    Conservatives are all about veterans being the America's heroes. They love the military and the flag. They also cut the shit out of veterans' benefits when they get into power and don't seem to have much shame about it.

    A veteran supporting conservatives gets their metaphorical dick sucked all day long by conservatives, but their actual benefits and life will suffer. A veteran supporting liberals may have to question whether they are God's Own Heroes, but they'll get the benefits owed to them if their candidates win.

    Well yeah. Lot of the dirt poor Tea Partiers would be better under democrats too, but they don't get that.

    DarkCrawler on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    big l wrote: »
    psychotix wrote: »
    devCharles wrote: »
    This is where they conveniently use the war. They'll say, well, we were also fighting two wars. The obvious response is...uh...wars you guys started? Their response will be, so you don't think we should have rescued people from tyrants. As soon as they make it a question of morality, the more they can hedge and cast aspersions. You're now someone who likes tyrants and hates freedom and so on.

    The problem is the left can't argue about matters military because of their base. Look at any military thread and watch the hard left progressives lie out their ass that their po military, and then always side against it, claim it's the troops job to die, criticize everything about, insult them because they chose service over college, it turns into a mess. Then go to say Huffington Post or KOS and see the insanity really come out.

    And no matter who pro military, or ex military, a Democratic politician is, he still answers to the loony left of his base which is the most anti military organization in the nation. Which strips all prior service right off him because now he can't be trusted if he wants to get elected again.

    It's that sort of behavior that gives the Republicans complete cred when it comes to anything military.

    I'd like to see all this change, but without a purge of their radical base, it's not going to happen.

    Can you cite any Democrat elected to any office ever saying anything like this? Can you giev any examples of mainstream Dems pandering to the loony left? I don't think you can. You shouldn't base your judgement of an entire party on the comments of anonymous people posting in a thread on HuffPo. And if you think the Dems answer to the loony left, ask a member of the loony left about it and you'll hear plenty about how the mainstream Dems don't give a shit about the loony left, because they don't.

    Psychotix has never had any hold on reality. On the issue of DC being able to vote in federal elections, he asserted that no other cities can vote in federal elections.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    It's the irony of American politics.

    A lot of leftists are resistant to the popular "Veterans represent the best of us" propaganda, but are supportive of government policies that support veterans. Liberals don't like the military industrial complex, but can be guilted into full support of veterans' benefits.

    Conservatives are all about veterans being the America's heroes. They love the military and the flag. They also cut the shit out of veterans' benefits when they get into power and don't seem to have much shame about it.

    A veteran supporting conservatives gets their metaphorical dick sucked all day long by conservatives, but their actual benefits and life will suffer. A veteran supporting liberals may have to question whether they are God's Own Heroes, but they'll get the benefits owed to them if their candidates win.

    Well yeah. Lot of the dirt party Tea Partiers would be better under democrats too, but they don't get that.

    Not everybody likes to feel bought off for their vote. And some people view pride and principals as more important then economic kick backs. This doesn't make people rubes, or fools. And screaming and yelling at them that "you will get more if you vote our side, even though we hate you, we'll give you a buck, you guys are stupid" is flat out insulting.

    Most of these people get that they would be better off, but that's not the most important thing to them. I'd rather have less kick backs from a group that doesn't answer to the baby killer movement, then get a couple more bucks in cash from people that hate me. Call me a fool, but pride and honor do actually mean something.
    Psychotix has never had any hold on reality. On the issue of DC being able to vote in federal elections, he asserted that no other cities can vote in federal elections.

    Call me crazy but I'm not for giving a city the powers of a state, and that's that. I offered other sulotions, ie sucking it into MD (hell VA got arlington back) and moving from there, but nobody wanted that. And if a city has the powers, and representation of a state, then lets not be biggots and give that power to all major cities.

    it's you who lack the grasp on reality.

    psychotix on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    psychotix wrote: »
    It's the irony of American politics.

    A lot of leftists are resistant to the popular "Veterans represent the best of us" propaganda, but are supportive of government policies that support veterans. Liberals don't like the military industrial complex, but can be guilted into full support of veterans' benefits.

    Conservatives are all about veterans being the America's heroes. They love the military and the flag. They also cut the shit out of veterans' benefits when they get into power and don't seem to have much shame about it.

    A veteran supporting conservatives gets their metaphorical dick sucked all day long by conservatives, but their actual benefits and life will suffer. A veteran supporting liberals may have to question whether they are God's Own Heroes, but they'll get the benefits owed to them if their candidates win.

    Well yeah. Lot of the dirt party Tea Partiers would be better under democrats too, but they don't get that.

    Not everybody likes to feel bought off for their vote. And some people view pride and principals as more important then economic kick backs. This doesn't make people rubes, or fools. And screaming and yelling at them that "you will get more if you vote our side, even though we hate you, we'll give you a buck, you guys are stupid" is flat out insulting.

    Most of these people get that they would be better off, but that's not the most important thing to them. I'd rather have less kick backs from a group that doesn't answer to the baby killer movement, then get a couple more bucks in cash from people that hate me. Call me a fool, but pride and honor do actually mean something.

    So they vote based on who is the most sycophantic, and will believe anyone who claims to like them.

    Sounds like you really respect the troops, especially their intellect.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    psychotix wrote: »
    It's the irony of American politics.

    A lot of leftists are resistant to the popular "Veterans represent the best of us" propaganda, but are supportive of government policies that support veterans. Liberals don't like the military industrial complex, but can be guilted into full support of veterans' benefits.

    Conservatives are all about veterans being the America's heroes. They love the military and the flag. They also cut the shit out of veterans' benefits when they get into power and don't seem to have much shame about it.

    A veteran supporting conservatives gets their metaphorical dick sucked all day long by conservatives, but their actual benefits and life will suffer. A veteran supporting liberals may have to question whether they are God's Own Heroes, but they'll get the benefits owed to them if their candidates win.

    Well yeah. Lot of the dirt party Tea Partiers would be better under democrats too, but they don't get that.

    Not everybody likes to feel bought off for their vote. And some people view pride and principals as more important then economic kick backs. This doesn't make people rubes, or fools. And screaming and yelling at them that "you will get more if you vote our side, even though we hate you, we'll give you a buck, you guys are stupid" is flat out insulting.

    Most of these people get that they would be better off, but that's not the most important thing to them. I'd rather have less kick backs from a group that doesn't answer to the baby killer movement, then get a couple more bucks in cash from people that hate me. Call me a fool, but pride and honor do actually mean something.
    Psychotix has never had any hold on reality. On the issue of DC being able to vote in federal elections, he asserted that no other cities can vote in federal elections.

    Call me crazy but I'm not for giving a city the powers of a state, and that's that. I offered other sulotions, ie sucking it into MD (hell VA got arlington back) and moving from there, but nobody wanted that. And if a city has the powers, and representation of a state, then lets not be biggots and give that power to all major cities.

    it's you who lack the grasp on reality.

    Cities already have that power, idiot.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    It is especially insulting equating infrastructure and across the board quality of life improvements to "kickbacks and a few extra bucks".

    Just_Bri_Thanks on
    ...and when you are done with that; take a folding
    chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
  • GarthorGarthor Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    psychotix wrote: »
    It's the irony of American politics.

    A lot of leftists are resistant to the popular "Veterans represent the best of us" propaganda, but are supportive of government policies that support veterans. Liberals don't like the military industrial complex, but can be guilted into full support of veterans' benefits.

    Conservatives are all about veterans being the America's heroes. They love the military and the flag. They also cut the shit out of veterans' benefits when they get into power and don't seem to have much shame about it.

    A veteran supporting conservatives gets their metaphorical dick sucked all day long by conservatives, but their actual benefits and life will suffer. A veteran supporting liberals may have to question whether they are God's Own Heroes, but they'll get the benefits owed to them if their candidates win.

    Well yeah. Lot of the dirt party Tea Partiers would be better under democrats too, but they don't get that.

    Not everybody likes to feel bought off for their vote. And some people view pride and principals as more important then economic kick backs. This doesn't make people rubes, or fools. And screaming and yelling at them that "you will get more if you vote our side, even though we hate you, we'll give you a buck, you guys are stupid" is flat out insulting.

    Most of these people get that they would be better off, but that's not the most important thing to them. I'd rather have less kick backs from a group that doesn't answer to the baby killer movement, then get a couple more bucks in cash from people that hate me. Call me a fool, but pride and honor do actually mean something.

    So having somebody act as if they were acting in your best interests is more important than somebody actually acting in your best interests? You'll willingly forego collecting debts owed to you because somebody is willing to give you a verbal blowjob?

    That really isn't pride, nor is it honor. It's being tricked by a few nice words and a whole bunch of not-so-nice words.

    Garthor on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Garthor wrote: »
    psychotix wrote: »
    It's the irony of American politics.

    A lot of leftists are resistant to the popular "Veterans represent the best of us" propaganda, but are supportive of government policies that support veterans. Liberals don't like the military industrial complex, but can be guilted into full support of veterans' benefits.

    Conservatives are all about veterans being the America's heroes. They love the military and the flag. They also cut the shit out of veterans' benefits when they get into power and don't seem to have much shame about it.

    A veteran supporting conservatives gets their metaphorical dick sucked all day long by conservatives, but their actual benefits and life will suffer. A veteran supporting liberals may have to question whether they are God's Own Heroes, but they'll get the benefits owed to them if their candidates win.

    Well yeah. Lot of the dirt party Tea Partiers would be better under democrats too, but they don't get that.

    Not everybody likes to feel bought off for their vote. And some people view pride and principals as more important then economic kick backs. This doesn't make people rubes, or fools. And screaming and yelling at them that "you will get more if you vote our side, even though we hate you, we'll give you a buck, you guys are stupid" is flat out insulting.

    Most of these people get that they would be better off, but that's not the most important thing to them. I'd rather have less kick backs from a group that doesn't answer to the baby killer movement, then get a couple more bucks in cash from people that hate me. Call me a fool, but pride and honor do actually mean something.

    So having somebody act as if they were acting in your best interests is more important than somebody actually acting in your best interests? You'll willingly forego collecting debts owed to you because somebody is willing to give you a verbal blowjob?

    That really isn't pride, nor is it honor. It's being tricked by a few nice words and a whole bunch of not-so-nice words.

    Ooh-Rah

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    psychotix wrote: »
    It's the irony of American politics.

    A lot of leftists are resistant to the popular "Veterans represent the best of us" propaganda, but are supportive of government policies that support veterans. Liberals don't like the military industrial complex, but can be guilted into full support of veterans' benefits.

    Conservatives are all about veterans being the America's heroes. They love the military and the flag. They also cut the shit out of veterans' benefits when they get into power and don't seem to have much shame about it.

    A veteran supporting conservatives gets their metaphorical dick sucked all day long by conservatives, but their actual benefits and life will suffer. A veteran supporting liberals may have to question whether they are God's Own Heroes, but they'll get the benefits owed to them if their candidates win.

    Well yeah. Lot of the dirt party Tea Partiers would be better under democrats too, but they don't get that.

    Not everybody likes to feel bought off for their vote. And some people view pride and principals as more important then economic kick backs. This doesn't make people rubes, or fools. And screaming and yelling at them that "you will get more if you vote our side, even though we hate you, we'll give you a buck, you guys are stupid" is flat out insulting.

    Most of these people get that they would be better off, but that's not the most important thing to them. I'd rather have less kick backs from a group that doesn't answer to the baby killer movement, then get a couple more bucks in cash from people that hate me. Call me a fool, but pride and honor do actually mean something.
    Psychotix has never had any hold on reality. On the issue of DC being able to vote in federal elections, he asserted that no other cities can vote in federal elections.

    Call me crazy but I'm not for giving a city the powers of a state, and that's that. I offered other sulotions, ie sucking it into MD (hell VA got arlington back) and moving from there, but nobody wanted that. And if a city has the powers, and representation of a state, then lets not be biggots and give that power to all major cities.

    it's you who lack the grasp on reality.

    Cities already have that power, idiot.

    Show me a city that gets it's own senator, which is what you were arguing for in the other thread, prior my pointing out you were full of it and you're twisting facts, as usual.
    So they vote based on who is the most sycophantic, and will believe anyone who claims to like them.

    Sounds like you really respect the troops, especially their intellect.

    I never said that. But I sure as hell will look twice before voting for somebody that has progressive support, given what progressives really think of the military. Unless you are saying you should buy my vote for a couple bucks, all the while for a group of people that think of military people as criminals.

    That shit doesn't fly and it never will.

    "Hey here's is a dollar, vote for people that I want, BTW, I hate you and think you are horrible"

    Sorry, you can't buy me off, which is what the entire left has been saying from the get go. "we hate them, we tell them we hate them, but they won't accept a buck to vote, they are stupid, they could use a buck".

    Welcome to reality where not everybody is easily bought off.

    psychotix on
  • big lbig l Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    big l wrote: »
    psychotix wrote: »
    devCharles wrote: »
    This is where they conveniently use the war. They'll say, well, we were also fighting two wars. The obvious response is...uh...wars you guys started? Their response will be, so you don't think we should have rescued people from tyrants. As soon as they make it a question of morality, the more they can hedge and cast aspersions. You're now someone who likes tyrants and hates freedom and so on.

    The problem is the left can't argue about matters military because of their base. Look at any military thread and watch the hard left progressives lie out their ass that their po military, and then always side against it, claim it's the troops job to die, criticize everything about, insult them because they chose service over college, it turns into a mess. Then go to say Huffington Post or KOS and see the insanity really come out.

    And no matter who pro military, or ex military, a Democratic politician is, he still answers to the loony left of his base which is the most anti military organization in the nation. Which strips all prior service right off him because now he can't be trusted if he wants to get elected again.

    It's that sort of behavior that gives the Republicans complete cred when it comes to anything military.

    I'd like to see all this change, but without a purge of their radical base, it's not going to happen.

    Can you cite any Democrat elected to any office ever saying anything like this? Can you giev any examples of mainstream Dems pandering to the loony left? I don't think you can. You shouldn't base your judgement of an entire party on the comments of anonymous people posting in a thread on HuffPo. And if you think the Dems answer to the loony left, ask a member of the loony left about it and you'll hear plenty about how the mainstream Dems don't give a shit about the loony left, because they don't.

    Still waiting on that cite, pyschotix

    big l on
  • MalaysianShrewMalaysianShrew Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    big l wrote: »
    big l wrote: »
    psychotix wrote: »
    devCharles wrote: »
    This is where they conveniently use the war. They'll say, well, we were also fighting two wars. The obvious response is...uh...wars you guys started? Their response will be, so you don't think we should have rescued people from tyrants. As soon as they make it a question of morality, the more they can hedge and cast aspersions. You're now someone who likes tyrants and hates freedom and so on.

    The problem is the left can't argue about matters military because of their base. Look at any military thread and watch the hard left progressives lie out their ass that their po military, and then always side against it, claim it's the troops job to die, criticize everything about, insult them because they chose service over college, it turns into a mess. Then go to say Huffington Post or KOS and see the insanity really come out.

    And no matter who pro military, or ex military, a Democratic politician is, he still answers to the loony left of his base which is the most anti military organization in the nation. Which strips all prior service right off him because now he can't be trusted if he wants to get elected again.

    It's that sort of behavior that gives the Republicans complete cred when it comes to anything military.

    I'd like to see all this change, but without a purge of their radical base, it's not going to happen.

    Can you cite any Democrat elected to any office ever saying anything like this? Can you giev any examples of mainstream Dems pandering to the loony left? I don't think you can. You shouldn't base your judgement of an entire party on the comments of anonymous people posting in a thread on HuffPo. And if you think the Dems answer to the loony left, ask a member of the loony left about it and you'll hear plenty about how the mainstream Dems don't give a shit about the loony left, because they don't.

    Still waiting on that cite, pyschotix

    Remember, being against war means you hate the troops, because anyone who loved the troops would want them to get shot at.

    MalaysianShrew on
    Never trust a big butt and a smile.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    psychotix wrote: »
    I never said that. But I sure as hell will look twice before voting for somebody that has progressive support, given what progressives really think of the military. Unless you are saying you should buy my vote for a couple bucks, all the while for a group of people that think of military people as criminals.
    I do not know anyone who thinks that, much less a substantial chunk of the movement.
    psychotix wrote:
    Sorry, you can't buy me off, which is what the entire left has been saying from the get go. "we hate them, we tell them we hate them, but they won't accept a buck to vote, they are stupid, they could use a buck".
    Fucking show me a single person who says that. One single goddamn person.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    It is especially insulting equating infrastructure and across the board quality of life improvements to "kickbacks and a few extra bucks".

    Quoting one self is crass, but look what you push me into.

    Just_Bri_Thanks on
    ...and when you are done with that; take a folding
    chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    I'm tired of trying to babysit this thread into on-topicness. Palin is not so special a snowflake that she needs her own thread anyway, so this thing is getting shit-canned. If you want to discuss midterm elections or presidential candidates or DC getting electors or whatever the hell, make a thread for that.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
This discussion has been closed.