posted March 11, 2010 05:12 PM            

the fact that you have swallowed hook line and sinker the knee jerk "FEAR OF OBAMA" being peddled by those WITH NOTHING ELSE TO SELL

the fact that you don't see that america is owned by a bunch of transnational CORPORATIONS and that obama will have to be a very good cloak-and-dagger chess player to get anything done they don't agree with

(and he is far from alone in the last fact)

well, my son, these things just make your arguments irrelevant. and the people are getting fed up with specious arguments picking on one person when the whole system is falling to pieces.

you were right, by the way. CITIZENS UNITED did not give the 1st amendment rights to corporations. that was done WAAAY back. they have had 30 years to buy and sell politics and america, all the while moving OUR money out to tax shelters and other countries...

posted March 11, 2010 05:58 PM            

I think your post demonstrates the validity of my previous post, Jwhop. If you weren't so sensitive to understanding the truth about yourself, you wouldn't try to create a fantasy show about me. It just goes to show once again who's comfortable with the truth [me], and who propagates lies/nonsense/fantasy [you].

So, there we go: the truth: Jwhop hates his countrymen. The proof is in the response: Not even so much as a denial. Sure, your thinking is totally in line with the founding fathers.

Incidentally, Democrats have long had larger numbers of declared voters than Republicans. 10% of the population did not put Obama in office. Nor are you only at war with 10% of your countrymen.

If you were a man of action, you'd be considered a domestic terrorist for your continued display of hate towards the people of your own country. It makes sense that you'd attempt to paint me an extremist when you so openly make yourself out as one. We are not similar, however. I, as everyone has seen and can verify quite easily, don't go after my countrymen in the Republican party every opportunity I get, do I? I don't write ridiculous editorial posts claiming outlandish things about Republicans, do I? Do you think it's because I can't? Do you think there's no material available that puts Republicans in a poor light? I wouldn't even have to resort to the sort of illogic or exaggeration that you do. That's never been my aim, has it? As such, it's quite easy to see what's going on here, and who the extremist is.

You were saying...about a dead bang loser of an argument? Want to try that again.

posted March 11, 2010 11:13 PM            

Liberals 20%
Moderates 36%
Conservatives 40%

Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group

Compared with 2008, more Americans “conservative” in general, and on issues by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/conservatives-maintain-edge-top-ideological-group.aspx

Your views are extremist....even by liberal standards. Though you're no liberal, you hide behind the liberal banner like the rest of the kook Progressives. They've destroyed the liberal brand and are in the process of destroying the demoscat party.

posted March 12, 2010 10:32 AM            

If you want a preview: http://people-press.org/report/517/political-values-and-core-attitudes

Edit: here's the chart:

And here's a further link confirming Pew's previous findings: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1018/democrats-post-gains-in-affiliation-across-age-cohorts

I see you decided not to take the advice to look more like a reasonable person. Bad move. Shall we play a round of jeopardy? Topic will be Countries More Socialized Than America That Haven't Become Murderous Regimes. It's pretty easy to take the teeth out of toothless arguments.

posted March 12, 2010 11:25 AM            

from jw-

quote:

---

...as I pointed out brand you as an extremist with little following among Americans.

---

Not only is this not true~ the mindset that believes it is truth displays a remarkable distance from planet reality.

The most extreme views posted currently are yours JW~ own it, wear that bagger t-shirt with pride, tuck the dogeared photo of Sara under your pillow and sleep well.

You have continually described anyone who disagrees a hater. In fact Leftists are haters.
I don't have time for more...
Usually don't play cheerleader here or anywhere else, but AG and Kat said it all quite well.

from AG->

quote:

---

As such, it's quite easy to see what's going on here, and who the extremist is.

---

Indeed

posted March 12, 2010 04:30 PM            

Here's a simplified version:

The SINGLE year that more people identified themselves as Republicans in greater numbers than Democrats is 1995.

This is interesting as well as it speaks to what people classify themselves as:

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1516

So much for the idea that "Conservative" translates to "Republican."

posted March 15, 2010 11:47 AM            

quote:

---

So much for the idea that "Conservative" translates to "Republican."..acoustic

---

Gee, I don't remember ever saying that "conservative translates to Republican".
Please refresh my memory acoustic.

On a different note acoustic; I'm glad I took the time to condition you as the LindaLand anti-jwhop. Like Pavlov's dog, you howl and drool right on cue. You take the opposite position to everything I say and ignore the facts...and common sense. In short, you march yourself right to the edge of the cliff and jump off without so much as a nudge from me.

In the present instance, you allege Woodrow Wilson was merely a Democrat...not a Progressive. 30 seconds spent on a simple Internet search and you would have found the "Progressive Era" with Woodrow Wilson featured prominently.

So acoustic, who are we to believe on this matter? Those historians who have studied Wilson's every known word and action; those who have read every word he wrote, even private correspondence, his associates and friends OR you?

posted March 15, 2010 01:21 PM            

quote:

---

On a different note acoustic; I'm glad I took the time to condition you as the LindaLand anti-jwhop.

---

You didn't condition me to be anything, and I'm not the "anti-Jwhop". I'm the "anti-nonsense."

If you recall, I didn't initially take on the nonsense of your first post. In fact, you accused me of demurring, which was an improper use of the term (and yet another example of your slaughtering of the english language). I would consider your goading to be the nudge you DID INDEED provide. (Even when you think you're in relatively safe territory you still mispeak. I'm dumbfounded at this ability of yours.)

Your first post was and still is nonsense, and it makes extraordinarily small difference whether or not Wilson was a Progressive for this point to be true. Tying the validity of your argument to a single point shows just how poor your argument was in the first place.

Now, we WERE on the subject of voting blocks if you recall your previous post, Jwhop. I don't want to see any more accusations that Kat veers from the subject when you so clearly do so yourself.

______________

posted March 15, 2010 03:24 PM            

You confuse argumentativeness with debate just as you confuse definitions of other common English words and mangle the English language.

Yes, it took a while to fully condition you to jump into that empty pool on command but the effort was well worth it. Now, you're way over invested and can't help yourself.

This will continue acoustic. You always find yourself on the wrong side of definitions, history, politics and common sense. You are argumentative to no purpose but that's not debate.

Any kid with average intelligence would have entered "Progressive Presidents" into their search engine and found a wealth of information with which to shoot your nonsense argument out of the air.
http://us.yhs.search.yahoo.com/avg/search?fr=yhs-avgb&type=yahoo_avg_hs2-tb-web_us&p=Progressive%20Presidents

Ode to Palin

A foggy day in LeftistLand
Had them sad, had them down

They viewed each morning with great alarm
Their ONE, their Messiah
has lost his charm

How long they wondered
could this thing last
but the age of miracles
is in the past

Then suddenly they saw her standing there
and in foggy LeftistLand the rain was falling everywhere.

posted March 15, 2010 03:36 PM            

quote:

---

You've lost every debate here acoustic; just as you lost this one.

---

Confused much, Jwhop?

quote:

---

You confuse argumentativeness with debate just as you confuse definitions of other common English words and mangle the English language.

---

Ok, Mr. "Demur" , Mr. "I don't know what answering a question on a scale means"

quote:

---

Any kid with average intelligence would have entered "Progressive Presidents" into their search engine and found a wealth of information with which to shoot your nonsense argument out of the air.

---

Clearly you don't understand how the intelligent mind works. "Progressive" is an essentially meaningless word to me. I know Democrats call themselves Progressives, however, they DO NOT run as Progressives. They run as Democrats. That's the most appropriate title for any "Progressive." Wilson was a Democrat. That is what differentiates him from his "Progressive" Republican predecessor. Understand. (Not a question; a command.)

What's troublesome is that your whole argument hinges on this single point. If we were to list the relevant points in this thread, and even give this point to you, we'd still have a lopsided list that showed I made far more relevant points in this thread than you have, which is typical of our "debates". I don't think the great debators in history would categorize this as debate, as debate typically occurs between two rational people. You have to raise your game considerably to reach that mark.

Tell me, what would Wilson being a Progressive do for you? Would it help the point of your first post? Nope. Do you believe in your first post yourself? Not really, not if we look at your continued citizenship in this country. No Democrat has wrecked the U.S. to the point that you ever thought of leaving. I think now I get why you think I'm overextended. It has nothing to do with me being overextended. It has to do with your being underextended. You're just talking nonsense as a form of masturbation whilst other people actually engage their mind. It annoys you that other people can so easily challenge your dunderheadedness.

posted March 15, 2010 09:36 PM            

I'm not in the least surprised you don't. It's easy to understand why you remain in a perpetual fog considering where your head resides.

Strange don't you think acoustic that any 10 year old with average intelligence would have done a simple Internet search and found the Progressive Era which lists Wilson as a "Progressive" president.

posted March 16, 2010 01:58 AM            

quote:

---

Rational minds understand the point of tying Wilson, FDR, Johnson and O'Bomber to the "Progressive" movement in America acoustic. It was a very foggy century for those in LeftistLand.

---

No...they don't. Rational minds think of Progressives in either of two ways. They think of Progressives generically as Democrats, or they think of Progressives as the Progressives of the Progressive movement. Either way "foggy" wouldn't enter into the equation. That's a silly, nonsensical, unsensible suggestion. "Progressive" doesn't equal "foggy". That's completely irrational. It's bad math, and more poor word association.

quote:

---

Strange don't you think acoustic that any 10 year old with average intelligence would have done a simple Internet search and found the Progressive Era which lists Wilson as a "Progressive" president.

---

No. The point is moot as I already said. Do you not understand how incredibly silly it looks that you're trying to stand upon this point? Even if you were to prove definitively without a shadow of a doubt that Wilson was a Progressive, it still would do absolutely nothing to help the point of your opening editorial. What part of being a Progressive do you think damns people in your audience's eyes, especially a Progressive from the Progressive Era?

quote:

---

They would have had the intelligence and good sense to not attempt a challenge on that subject...

---

You should understand by now just how weak an argument this is. I killed your first post point by point. You think saving an insignificant aspect will invalidate everything else? Really?

Besides that, it's almost always a good idea to challenge you when you go on labeling spree, because you label in the most ridiculous manner possible. You think you've in some way presented a case here for how Obama's the last in a line of Progressive Socialists. Marxists even. As I illustrated, though, you're still a citizen. No Democrat has perverted the country enough for you to give it up. That tells us that you lump Obama in with a group of men that haven't forced you to seek asylum elsewhere. That tells us that you lump Obama in with a group of men that has only inspired you to whine about them. Whoop-de-doo. Oh yeah, the case has definitely been made that Democrats are foggy. Yeah, bringing up the longest standing American president of all time shows just how much Democrats suck. You're ridiculous, and the thing is...you never stepped away from being ridiculous this entire thread.

posted March 16, 2010 09:10 AM            

Imagine, having their lips super glued to the ass of Karl Marx who was a 5th rate thinker and failure from the 19th Century, these clowns would call themselves "Progressives". And they can't even see what's wrong with that picture.

It was unnecessary to reply to the rest of your 1st post acoustic...since I saw immediately you were talking out of your ass when you said Woodrow Wilson wasn't a Progressive but was, merely a Democrat. That's the usual case when reading your drivel. You show your incompetence early on and what follows is more of the same.

Barack Hussein O'Bomber IS a Marxist...which makes O'Bomber a Socialist also. All Marxists, Leninists, Maoists and other grease ball Collectivists ARE Socialists.

acoustic, we're going to clip this "comrades" wings on November 2 and throw his sorry butt out of the White House in 2012. He's already done enough damage to the United States.

posted March 16, 2010 10:17 AM            

Also, it might be worth mentioning that it took you two weeks just to come up with ONE objection to my response to your first post. Surely, if my post were riddled with error you'd have found a more sustainable argument than the moot noting that you believe Wilson was a Progressive.

posted March 16, 2010 12:15 PM            

advocate for child welfare;
believe that paying your workers a living wage is good for your business;
legislate against monopolies in business;

or in general recognize that big business and the "little man" are inextricably entwined...

dastardly, communist progressives!!

posted March 17, 2010 02:19 AM            

Every American Democrat is firstly American. This notion that they're going to take the country in a Marxist/Socialist direction with dire consequences is [dramatic] nonsense. Not only so, but years after a major social program has been inacted Republicans rise up to defend it when they think it's being threatened. How many times did Jwhop spout some bloated number of dollars they'd be taking away from Medicare? How many Republicans have vowed to keep Social Security solvent?

posted March 17, 2010 10:32 AM            

At the beginning of the 20th Century there were those who believed they knew what was best for everyone. They had no practical experience in much of anything but they had all those theories to put into practice and got themselves elected. They were government geeks and so called academic theorists who had mostly never held a job producing anything of value...much like the government geeks O'Bomber, O'Biden, Hillary and the rest of the non thinking left.

This was known as the "Progressive Era" in America and these morons botched their jobs to the point they produced a Depression in America most people have never heard of. The Depression of 1920.
http://mises.org/daily/3788

Among these so called "Progressives" were those who called themselves Democrats and Republicans...so called because no one whose lips are firmly attached to the ass of the 5th rate so called thinker from the 19th century, Karl Marx could possibly be "Progressive".

"Regressives" is the proper word for these backward looking morons and they were such a disaster for America they destroyed the image of "Progressives" and went underground calling themselves "Liberals" for the next 90 years or so.

Today, they're back out of the closet calling themselves "Progressives" and they still have their lips super-glued to the ass of one of the supreme failures in history, Karl Marx, whose theories, when put into practice destroyed nations and peoples.

Both O'Bomber and Hillary proclaim themselves as "Progressives". Those who know what's best for everyone and bloviate that Americans should listen to them and they will lead America to a new utopia.

Their policies are being firmly rejected by the American people but these morons continue attempting to force their ideas of a utopian existence on America.

These "Progressives" should properly be known as the "Know Nothings".

Anyone can look up the "Progressive Caucus" in Congress and get a list of those who believe they know what's best for Americans and are attempting to govern without the consent of the American people...which is precisely what every would be tyrant would attempt to do.

Not only are these "Progressives" morons; their intelligence is substandard when compared to the average American who isn't going to buy into their little Socialist gulag where government geeks attempt to tell Americans what's best for them and attempt to use the power of government to force them to comply with idiocy.

November 2, 2010 is the real date for "Hope and Change". That's the date O'Bomber and the rest of the "Progressives" get their wings clipped when they lose the power to ram their Socialist agenda down America's throat.

The presidents I listed in the opening post on this thread were all "Progressives". Among them was Woodrow Wilson".

acoustic wishes to contest my posts but has no facts on his side so he must blither, blather, bloviate and lie.

acoustic could have done a simple Internet search...Progressive American Presidents...like any 10 year old with average intelligence would have done and found a long list of hits featuring Woodrow Wilson prominently. But that's not what acoustic did.

posted March 17, 2010 11:05 AM            

who called terrorists ballsy?
Certainly no-one in this forum. If so, post the reference.

I am sick of those who politicize what has become a life or death struggle to millions.
Am I being dramatic? Perhaps:
* a super majority for most of the major [and not so major] legislation is required. Fifty-one percent is not the majority, sixty is.
*That deals were cut with pharma before the legislation was even close to finalization in the house....
*That reconciliation was hypocritically turned into a dirty word by those who used it numerous times themselves.
*that stimulus monies were distributed and used successfully by states whose legislators then said that the stimulus did not work.
*that financial reform has not happened!!
regulations have not been re-instituted, nor the fail safes re-constructed.
*that the states who most desperately need health care reform [South Carolina for 1] have the loudest most corrupt mouthpieces.

Ram down the throat?
Certainly 10-11 months might be considered swift.....for the gestation of a baby elephant.

This is just arguing for arguments sake.
If the focus is on the argument then the real focus is lost.
Who the hell cares about a political label applied to a president nearly a century ago?
Distortion, misdirection, spin doctoring.

Like Karl Rove said: we didn't do wrong, we just didn't spin it right.

posted March 17, 2010 11:41 AM            

the republicans balked at medicare. now they are claiming to be defending it from dismantling.

johnson, that progressive, was a born and raised racist who got apartheid dismantled because to do otherwise was political suicide.

lincoln, that communist, passed legislation to free slaves!! heresy!!

and ford paid his workers $5 a day. that was enough to be considered progressive in HIS day, it indicated that the workers would do a better job if treated like human beings with food and shelter NEEDS!

yes those progressives were a sly and dastardly bunch. communists every one.

on another front i here the texas school board is planning to remove jefferson from the history lessons...now THAT is progressive. no one else has thought of that one yet!!

never mind that one of the cornerstones of obama's campaign was universal health coverage in this country...who cares what the people voted for? the opposition seems to think that trying to get this done is ramming it down the throats of those who were eager and voting for it. go figure.