The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

shit ton = 1/3.

Since I value facts more than faith, might as well help the precision along. stimulus package was a 1:2 ratio of cuts:expenditures.
 
So if such things are not in the keynesian model that you support so well, then you should have no problem cutting such things right?
 
if you're trying to set me up by asking if I support cutting
- tax cuts
- bank bailouts
- defense

then you're going to be sorely disappointed. but let's not forget who pushed (and pushes) for tax cuts like an alcoholic rummaging through the pantry: your party. Let's not forget who are the warhawks, who want to go to war with every nation, who support a strong international military presense, who support pre-emptive military engagement, and who tried to blame poor military performance on Clinton's defense cuts ("you go to war with the army you have" ring a bell to you?). The neoconservatives? Those are the people you voted for and vote for.

I absolutely support cutting them, but I remember who, historically, is the party responsible for two of those three (and both for the third).

You must have exhausted after reading 75 words of the blog, as Krugman addressed that very issue. Go click the same link and keep reading if you have the stamina for it:

Not a day goes by without someone blithely asserting that I have never called for spending cuts on anything, and that I have never called for action against budget deficits. A few minutes searching this blog would disabuse them of these beliefs, but they don’t need to check — they *know*.
Click to expand...
 
Myke sounds like he has some of that pure gold common sense.

Meanwhile the cons here who are shocked that we have a gigantic deficit after 10 rounds of tax cuts during multiple (not mention an economic downturn) come off like infantile chumps.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You must have exhausted after reading 75 words of the blog, as Krugman addressed that very issue. Go click the same link and keep reading if you have the stamina for it:[/QUOTE]

One of my favorite posts was the one UncleBob posted that showed 'ohai guys, if you take all money from all rich people you won't be able to support your 1.5 trillion deficit'. As if we support spending on each and every thing that is in that caused that deficit. Strawman alert.
 
[quote name='IRHari']One of my favorite posts was the one UncleBob posted that showed 'ohai guys, if you take all money from all rich people you won't be able to support your 1.5 trillion deficit'. As if we support spending on each and every thing that is in that caused that deficit. Strawman alert.[/QUOTE]

Pretty sure that shows the issue isn't just a revenue problem, but also a spending problem. An argument I've made time and time again. Of course, the only solutions we hear from the left is "tax the rich" and "more social spending".

And I love the "Republicans are warmongers" line. It's not like Democrats voted for all this military action. It's not like Obama's choice for head of foreign policy didn't vote for these wars.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']No way of being classy when your a chick at a state fair eating a foot long dog.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/08/Corndog1-384x288.jpg

The media is being unfair and using this as the headline for a lot of their stories about her though. Funny, but not right.

Edit- I also bet that within 2 days 4chan or some other site has edited a big black guy or Ruper Murdoch in to that picture.[/QUOTE]

So far just some Marcus jokes, also the guy in the corner is creepy enough as is.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So far just some Marcus jokes, also the guy in the corner is creepy enough as is.[/QUOTE]

He reminds me of that internet meme with the cat staring in the background, then people edited it to be the cupcake dog etc etc. I bet people are going to have fun with that guy there too. I mean her choking down the dog alone would have given the internet gold but that guy being in the picture just takes it to a whole new level.
 
Now, see, if the media really hops on the usage of that image, *that* is crazy sexist (OMG BLOWJOB).

So it's a shame that the genuine sexism in the use of such a picture is going to be deflated by the GOP crying wolf just a week ago over the Newsweek cover (good or bad, it was an incredible stretch to call that sexism).
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] Now, see, if the media really hops on the usage of that image, *that* is crazy sexist (OMG BLOWJOB).

So it's a shame that the genuine sexism in the use of such a picture is going to be deflated by the GOP crying wolf just a week ago over the Newsweek cover (good or bad, it was an incredible stretch to call that sexism).[/QUOTE]

The funny part is most of the people crying sexism when Bachmann/Palin are criticized are the same ones who were criticizing Hillary when she was like 'hey I think I'm getting criticized a little more because I'm a woman'. Of course she wasn't a conservative woman, and to make things worse, she was one of the antichrist Clintons.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Pretty sure that shows the issue isn't just a revenue problem, but also a spending problem. An argument I've made time and time again. Of course, the only solutions we hear from the left is "tax the rich" and "more social spending".

And I love the "Republicans are warmongers" line. It's not like Democrats voted for all this military action. It's not like Obama's choice for head of foreign policy didn't vote for these wars.[/QUOTE]
Nothing like calling people treasonous or having a heaping helping of some freedom fries to put some pep in those moonbats amirite?

[quote name='mykevermin']Now, see, if the media really hops on the usage of that image, *that* is crazy sexist (OMG BLOWJOB).

So it's a shame that the genuine sexism in the use of such a picture is going to be deflated by the GOP crying wolf just a week ago over the Newsweek cover (good or bad, it was an incredible stretch to call that sexism).[/QUOTE]

[quote name='IRHari']The funny part is most of the people crying sexism when Bachmann/Palin are criticized are the same ones who were criticizing Hillary when she was like 'hey I think I'm getting criticized a little more because I'm a woman'. Of course she wasn't a conservative woman, and to make things worse, she was one of the antichrist Clintons.[/QUOTE]
I think the worst thing about the whole mess is that the cons cynically put these women out there with the sole purpose of saying "hey! we're not sexist! we have women candidates too!" while focusing on their sex appeal. I mean seriously, in what universe is Bachmann's narrative pro-feminism or even anit-sexist when she goes around promoting a reduction in women's rights?
 
63940934.jpg
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Of course, the only solutions we hear from the left is "tax the rich" and "more social spending".[/QUOTE]

[quote name='mykevermin']if you're trying to set me up by asking if I support cutting
- tax cuts
- bank bailouts
- defense

then you're going to be sorely disappointed.[/QUOTE].
 
[quote name='mykevermin']if you're trying to set me up by asking if I support cutting
- tax cuts
- bank bailouts
- defense

then you're going to be sorely disappointed. but let's not forget who pushed (and pushes) for tax cuts like an alcoholic rummaging through the pantry: your party. Let's not forget who are the warhawks, who want to go to war with every nation, who support a strong international military presense, who support pre-emptive military engagement, and who tried to blame poor military performance on Clinton's defense cuts ("you go to war with the army you have" ring a bell to you?). The neoconservatives? Those are the people you voted for and vote for.

I absolutely support cutting them, but I remember who, historically, is the party responsible for two of those three (and both for the third).

You must have exhausted after reading 75 words of the blog, as Krugman addressed that very issue. Go click the same link and keep reading if you have the stamina for it:[/QUOTE]

Do some research, although cuts across the board including defense are necessary, tax cuts are not spending. Yes it is irresponsible for them to cut taxes without compensating with a reduction in spending, however these days people like you are chanting that social programs are going bankrupt and that we need to increase taxes to spend more. If the general consensus among democrats was to increase taxes coupled with spending cuts with a goal of paying off the deficit, I would be happy. However that will never be the case with either party.
 
Perry even being nominated is so mind numbing that I think I could be fucked by Mandingo through the ear and not notice.

Our state's public education system is in the shitter, and hugely in deficit. Our borders aren't secure at ALL. We have a massive problem with drinking and driving. Enron. I'm sure speedracer could chime in about lots of other things I only have casual knowledge of.

We have an excellent collegiate sports program at UT though. Gawrsh. We have some oil and some tech stuff and some amazing medical facilities, agriculture and some killer fajitas, but otherwise, our state shouldn't be allowed to have a candidate for the next eighteen centuries.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']He reminds me of that internet meme with the cat staring in the background, then people edited it to be the cupcake dog etc etc. I bet people are going to have fun with that guy there too. I mean her choking down the dog alone would have given the internet gold but that guy being in the picture just takes it to a whole new level.[/QUOTE]

DDs2j.jpg
 
[quote name='Strell']Perry even being nominated is so mind numbing that I think I could be fucked by Mandingo through the ear and not notice.

Our state's public education system is in the shitter, and hugely in deficit. Our borders aren't secure at ALL. We have a massive problem with drinking and driving. Enron. I'm sure speedracer could chime in about lots of other things I only have casual knowledge of.

We have an excellent collegiate sports program at UT though. Gawrsh. We have some oil and some tech stuff and some amazing medical facilities, agriculture and some killer fajitas, but otherwise, our state shouldn't be allowed to have a candidate for the next eighteen centuries.[/QUOTE]

They're going to promote Perry as the job creating candidate. Nearly half the jobs created since the recession have been created in Texas - that's a figure you can expect him to tout a lot.

I just wonder how easily he'll be able to shake off comparisons to Bush. I mean, the fact that they have both held the position of Texas governor aside, they even sound alike.
 
[quote name='Clak']Perry will never win the nomination because he used to be a pinko commie.[/QUOTE]

Well that and that he is not electable. His biggest strength is also a huge double weakness. He wants to run on the fact that Texas has created more jobs then the rest of the nation. Problem is that first off that puts Texas in the spot light which puts Dubya in the spot light. Second and more importantly it allows his opponents to point out that while he created so many jobs 90% of them are McDonalds jobs, Texas is swimming in debt, their education, welfare and pretty much every other important social benchmark are all far behind the rest of the nation. So basically he flooded his state with jobs....but their low paying jobs and the policies it took to bring them in created an unsustainable horrible path for growth and made Texas a horrible place to live.
 
Anyone wanna take any bets on this prediction: If Perry is the nominee, most conservatives will probably not make a big deal of the Texas deficit.
 
[quote name='Knoell']tax cuts are not spending.[/QUOTE]

You're not a person with ideas and logic. You're a See N' Say.

Aping GOP talking points ≠ making a cogent point.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're not a person with ideas and logic. You're a See N' Say.

Aping GOP talking points ≠ making a cogent point.[/QUOTE]

Myke, you seem quite keen on dismissing peoples arguments simply on the basis of them being "GOP talking points". Of course they are GOP Talking points, what conservative arguments these days aren't talking points being spouted by some member of the GOP? The fact that an argument is a common talking point of a member of the Republican party does not necessarily invalidate it. I know you're smarter than simply having to resort to Reductio Ad Hitlerum arguments in relation to the Republican Party.
 
[quote name='IRHari'].[/QUOTE]

Weird... I must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque and turned up in some alternate universe where Obama and crew worked/voted against the bank bailouts and slashed military spending while they controlled majorities in the House, Senate and controlled the White House.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Weird... I must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque and turned up in some alternate universe where Obama and crew worked/voted against the bank bailouts and slashed military spending while they controlled majorities in the House, Senate and controlled the White House.[/QUOTE]
It must've been a magical place where the filibuster doesn't exist.:roll:
 
If only there had been a period of time when the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority. Bet they could have gotten a lot of stuff done then.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If only there had been a period of time when the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority. Bet they could have gotten a lot of stuff done then.[/QUOTE]
Show your work instead of bullshitting.
 
Show my work on what? A period of time when the Democrats (and the independents that caucus with them) had a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the recent past?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Show my work on what? A period of time when the Democrats (and the independents that caucus with them) had a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the recent past?[/QUOTE]
You're asserting that the Democrats always vote in unison as well as the 2 independents caucusing with them as well. The fact of the matter is that the Democrats never had 60 votes even if they DID vote in unison and Sanders caucused with them because we both know that Lieberman jumped ship the second he didn't get DNC support for re-election and had to become an independent. You also conveniently ignore the period of time that Franken was in the midst of an election recount.

I know, being intellectually honest is one of your handicaps.:roll:
 
[quote name='dohdough']You're asserting that the Democrats always vote in unison[/quote]

As opposed to your assertion that the Republicans always vote in unison?

I know, being intellectually honest is one of your handicaps.:roll:
 
[quote name='dohdough'] You also conveniently ignore the period of time that Franken was in the midst of an election recount.[/QUOTE]

The time the Democrats had the technically filibuster proof majority was best measured in weeks.

Which reminded me of the times Republicans forced Senator Byrd to come from his death bed to vote.

Or the time they prayed for his death on the Senate floor.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Weird... I must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque and turned up in some alternate universe where Obama and crew worked/voted against the bank bailouts and slashed military spending while they controlled majorities in the House, Senate and controlled the White House.[/QUOTE]Weird, you said the 'ONLY' solution 'the left' (which encompasses more than just 'Obama and the crew') is proposing is tax increases & more social spending. I showed myke's views, which clearly prove you're wrong.
 
Even when the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, it didn't matter because there is such a huge gamit of ideologies ranging from self described socialists like Benard Sanders to why isn't this guy a Republican like Joe Lieberman. The fact that the term "Democrat" in this country seems to encompass so many radically different ideologies none of which can ever agree with each other, has always been their biggest weakness. At least with the GOP, most people who claim to be Republican can generally come to agreement on at least a handful of core principals. Democrats usually can't even do that.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Weird, you said the 'ONLY' solution 'the left' (which encompasses more than just 'Obama and the crew') is proposing is tax increases & more social spending. I showed myke's views, which clearly prove you're wrong.[/QUOTE]

Likewise, there are people on "the right" who, say, voted against Iraqi military action, support cutting defense spending, etc. Yet those actions would hardly be something one would attribute to "the right".

Minority ideas within a large group mean nothing - even more so when they come from individuals with virtually zero power to make them happen.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As opposed to your assertion that the Republicans always vote in unison?

I know, being intellectually honest is one of your handicaps.:roll:[/QUOTE]
Wow, you literally have the reasoning and arguments of a child.

[quote name='UncleBob']Likewise, there are people on "the right" who, say, voted against Iraqi military action, support cutting defense spending, etc. Yet those actions would hardly be something one would attribute to "the right".[/quote]
How Republicans voted on the Iraq War:
- Representatives: 215 Ayes(97%) 6 Nays(3%)
- Senators: 48 Ayes(98%) 1 Nay(2%)

Now do some homework and find the other figures.

Minority ideas within a large group mean nothing - even more so when they come from individuals with virtually zero power to make them happen.
Click to expand...
ORLY??!!?!111 Talk about stumbling onto a pot of gold!
 
[quote name='dohdough']Wow, you literally have the reasoning and arguments of a child. [/quote]

Glad to see you admit that your same line of thought is that of a child.

How Republicans voted on the Iraq War:
- Representatives: 215 Ayes(97%) 6 Nays(3%)
- Senators: 48 Ayes(98%) 1 Nay(2%)

Now do some homework and find the other figures.
Click to expand...

I do believe that proved exactly what I said - that "there are people on "the right" who, say, voted against Iraqi military action". Unless, in your world, seven doesn't count as "some".

Likewise, I find it amusing that IRHari's argument is that Myke, a non-elected official, has ideas, thus "the left" has ideas. Yet, when we talk about "the right", you jump straight to the elected officials...

ORLY??!!?!111 Talk about stumbling onto a pot of gold!
Click to expand...

It's no different that someone holding up Ron Paul or Charles Baldwin and claiming they're wholly representative of "right-wing" views.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Glad to see you admit that your same line of thought is that of a child.[/QUOTE]
Do you really want to keep this up? You're really not helping your cause as you've already talked yourself into a circle.

You think you're being clever, but in reality, you just look like a moron because not only do you not have anything resembling more than superficial thoughts, but a complete lack of factual knowledge and any understanding.

I do believe that proved exactly what I said - that "there are people on "the right" who, say, voted against Iraqi military action". Unless, in your world, seven doesn't count as "some".
Click to expand...
You asserted that the Democrats and Independents vote in unison because somehow, being a Democrat means you always work together enough to block any Republican filibuster. Then you made the argument that somehow, the Republicans have the same problem when voting trends clearly show that the minority of Republicans that vote against the party line have little or no effect on the direction the party wants to go. Unlike how Democrats are so split that even having a majority by party affiliation is virtually meaningless.

Likewise, I find it amusing that IRHari's argument is that Myke, a non-elected official, has ideas, thus "the left" has ideas. Yet, when we talk about "the right", you jump straight to the elected officials...
Click to expand...
Have you not noticed the trend of the same rapid-fire talking points that are parroted by those on the right whether you're an elected official or not? Whereas the elected officials on the left don't really reflect the views of people on the left that's highlighted in those issues of war, bailouts, etc?

It's no different that someone holding up Ron Paul or Charles Baldwin and claiming they're wholly representative of "right-wing" views.
Click to expand...
Theocratic facism on a state level rather than a federal level is not a huge difference. And you seem to not understand the depth of the pothole you just destroyed your cv joint of an argument on with that statement about the ineffectiveness of minorities to change things in a vast majority of circumstances.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']This is like watching a horribly fat girl and a gawky girl covered in pimples argue who is uglier ;)[/QUOTE]
Are you starting to get the hint about why I called you the lefty version of bob yet?
 
[quote name='dohdough']You asserted that the Democrats and Independents vote in unison because somehow, being a Democrat means you always work together enough to block any Republican filibuster.[/QUOTE]

Pointing out the Democratic Party's inability to work together as a team doesn't really go very far into helping you establish an argument against my statement degrading the Democratic Party's (lack of) ability to get anything meaningful done.

Have you not noticed the trend of the same rapid-fire talking points that are parroted by those on the right whether you're an elected official or not? Whereas the elected officials on the left don't really reflect the views of people on the left that's highlighted in those issues of war, bailouts, etc?
Click to expand...

This is an interesting statement. Are you saying citizens on the "left" elect people to office that don't reflect their views/concerns?

Somehow, the "right" is evil/stupid because the citizens elect people who - on a vast majority of issues - actually reflect their political and social agenda (i.e.: what the politicians are saying reflects what the people who vote for/support them want)... but the "left" is wholesome/good/awesome because they constantly elect people who can't get their acts together and don't support what their constituents want, therefore don't have any kind of unified message that their voters can get behind?

Besides, a party who's philosophy is "take, take, take" shouldn't be expected to understand what teamwork and cooperation means.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Myke, you seem quite keen on dismissing peoples arguments simply on the basis of them being "GOP talking points". Of course they are GOP Talking points, what conservative arguments these days aren't talking points being spouted by some member of the GOP? The fact that an argument is a common talking point of a member of the Republican party does not necessarily invalidate it. I know you're smarter than simply having to resort to Reductio Ad Hitlerum arguments in relation to the Republican Party.[/QUOTE]

Then explain the logic of the idea that "tax cuts aren't spending." That's a combination of childlike naivete and poor logic at best; willful ignorance and pedantic posturing (i.e., lying) at worst. A reduction in revenues must correlate to a cut in expenditures or else we run a deficit. We can agree on that, yes? If we are therefore concerned about deficits and the debt, then we must consider tax cuts as a contributing factor (or else we're lying to ourselves).

Therefore, a $700B package *costs* $700B, even if $230B are tax cuts. There were no spending reductions - ceteris paribus, those tax cuts are responsible for growing our debt by $230B (forgoing further analysis - it certainly is not less, it could be more). That's why the bailout package is stated as being $700B, and not the $460B package.

"tax cuts aren't spending" is a canard - a lie, plain and simple. The underlying idea you're trying to get at here, that tax cuts are revenue neutral, is a preposterous lie such that I can't truly grasp if you're trying to convince yourself of its truth when you make posts like this, or if you're just so hedonistic you will tell bold faced lie after bold faced lie for your individual benefit, exposing your selective hypocrisy about deficits and debts in the process. Perhaps you can tell me which it is.

[quote name='willardhaven']I think they're just trying to explain to you that Democrats are less likely to "fall in line" with their party than the Republicans.[/QUOTE]

On the real tip. Hey spmahn, you're a bit more on the level than the other blundering fools who fancy themselves GOP/conservatives around here. I have a challenge for you:

1) explain the difference between a RINO and a moderate Republican
2) identify an example of each, citing the votes or policy stances they took that would place them into each category.

[quote name='MSI Magus']This is like watching a horribly fat girl and a gawky girl covered in pimples argue who is uglier ;)[/QUOTE]

You're among the first to whine and moan when people get personal and/or shitty on here. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
You're among the first to whine and moan when people get personal and/or shitty on here. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.[/QUOTE]

90% of their posts are not saying anything. If they debated as you are clearly doing id not have said a word. Problem is both of them love to make snippy little comments that suggest the other is wrong, yet neither offers up a true debate(thus why I rarely bother talking to either one). So seeing the two of them go at it is like watching one big long pointless argument where no one offers any substance.
 
Tax cuts are not spending.

If a guy loses his job and his income goes from $50,000 to $0, we don't accuse him of suddenly going on a spending spree, wasting away $50,000. At least, sane people don't.

Tax cuts alone do not - and cannot - cause deficit spending. Only spending can cause deficit spending.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']90% of their posts are not saying anything. If they debated as you are clearly doing id not have said a word. Problem is both of them love to make snippy little comments that suggest the other is wrong, yet neither offers up a true debate(thus why I rarely bother talking to either one). So seeing the two of them go at it is like watching one big long pointless argument where no one offers any substance.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='MSI Magus']This is like watching a horribly fat girl and a gawky girl covered in pimples argue who is uglier ;)[/QUOTE]

dotdotdot
 
Myke,

The conservatives fear their base, the Democrats more or less go out of their way to punch their liberal supporters.

As for for whether tax cuts need to be paid for or not, you already know which direction the conservative clown car is heading towards.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']dotdotdot[/QUOTE]

I never claimed that last post was brilliant or any different from what I was accusing you guys off. The difference is that I on a regular basis elaborate on my views and why I hold them. The other day I was discussing something with someone else when dohdoh came in and asked me to expand on something I said, I did, he asked me to further expand, I did and one more time he asked and I did. No response from him came, no debate, no putting his own theory on the table and defintly no facts or links to back anything up. A few days later in a different topic he took a cheap little pot shot relating to something I said days before. So apparently he had made a judgement and disagreed, yet was too cowardly to actually do anything.

This is the way you both tend to act. While many members of the board like Myke or Feeding the Abscess put their thoughts out and then right or wrong at least try to stand behind them/debate , you and dohdoh just pop in, make snippy/snide little comments and then duck out. Even when you stay involved you bounce back and forth across different subjects with every post being a quick childish jab that often has nothing to do with the debate at hand(thus changing the subject). The only time I have seen either of you actually truly communicate and try and have a real discussion is Dohdoh on race since again for some reason thats the trigger that sets him off. Real quick, the other thing is that when one of you does raise a good point the other just brushes it off, neither of you have the ability to concede when someone makes a good point if its something you dong agree with.

Anyways ill duck out/drop it now. I just found it amusing watching the two of you go at it these last two pages in the same way I find a dog chasing his tail amusing. It went round and round, never went anywhere and the only purpose it served was to amuse me ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top