Member Login  
 
  Home | Browse Swingers | Swingers Blogs | Swingers Stories | SDC Store | Lifestyle News
Adult Travel | Local Swingers Clubs | SDC Banners | Affiliate Program | Swingers Parties
Home Archives Create Topic About
   
       Posted by BOCABABE Posted January 28, 2012 View Comments 462      
Political / Question for/about conservatives

I understand this is a swinger website, and this is certainly off topic, but we see a lot of political discussions, so we hope you don’t mind helping answer a question that has been vexing us for quite a while.

Why do (some/many, not all) conservatives believe some crazy things (e.g., Obama is a terrorist, Marxist, socialist, fascist, Maoist, racist, Muslim, Kenyan, anti-capitalist, alien, liar, the anti-Christ, a cactus, anti-business, an idiot, anti-work, anti-border control, anti-defense, anti-rich, anti-American, etc.) with absolutely no evidence other than Rush or O'Reilly or a blogger (Drudge et al) or a chain email said they know someone who knows someone who knows someone that… (e.g., saw Barack in a Mosque or beheading babies)...?

Why, if presented with a mountain of independent, verifiable data to support a position contrary to their dogma, they are completely unswayed and respond with “that is not true” or “I don’t believe that” or my favorite “you actually believe scientists (when discussing science) or doctors (when discussing medicine) or economists (when discussing the economy or fiscal/monetary policy) or accountants (when discussing taxes) or Muslims (when discussing Islam)?  Why do they think no group of experts can be trusted or believed, yet believe everything they favorite personality says? And why, as more facts provided, the less likely the person will consider even rethinking their beliefs, or be open to the possibility that Rush or Beck or a blogger could have given them inaccurate or incomplete information.  

So our question is why do many conservatives so readily accept seemingly obvious fabrications (or completely impossibilities - e.g., one cannot (simultaneously) be fascist, communist, Marxist and socialist) because it comes from a source they “trust” or is on their “side”, despite how unreliable the source may have been in the past or how poor their track record?  They seemingly believe anything and everything spoken/written by enough fellow conservatives, regardless if there are any facts or independent information provided to support their position, but reject all information, data and facts if the source is a perceived to be a liberal?

Why does the source matter more than facts to many/most conservatives? 

Also why do they attack the source of the correct information with scurrilous character attacks or baseless assaults on someone’s acumen and/or name calling rather than focus on an intelligent discussion of the facts provided, conclusions drawn or a respectful discussion of the question(s)/issue(s) presented? 

Additionally often these people will be for greater role of religion in politics yet fight religious freedom for other faiths (e.g., Islam) mercilessly. 

We don’t believe this curious, unusual behavior can be explained by simple gullibility, greater susceptibility to propaganda, low IQ or other dismissive explanation or other trivialization.  These people (some of whom we met via SDC) are completely open minded to info from all sources when disusing other issues like sports (excluding of course, alleged divine intervention with Tim Tebow lol).

Please don’t respond with liberals are just as guilty, or progressives do the same thing; or sophomoric/unproductive name calling, serious answers only. Thank you!

For the non-US readers, your viewpoint is welcomed as well. Do you have anything similar in your country? Either currently or historical? How was it solved if at all (other than WWII)?


by MOJO911 on February 27, 2014
Because they are arrogant,racist,judgmental,fact defying,science defying,bible thumping,inbreeding,war mongering,intolerant,hostile,narrow minded,xenophobic,selfish,oneway,lying,unaccountable,no humor,no wit,no style,no flair,no character,no integrity,no honor,suspect,disgenuine,indifferent miserable aliens from the planet of Uranus ruled by The Assho ss  God !!!!



by BOCABABE on October 28, 2013
EROTICMOTION4U

Excellent sarcasm! Funny! However, many of the conservatives (here or in congress) will fail to see your the irony of your post and will only prove my (our?) point that (today's) conservatives only rejoinder (to their unsupportable positions and theories) is to state (without any support or evidence or example) that liberals are worse or resort to third grade name calling. :) 
Conservatives seem to think that wanting to believe something is enough for it to be true. 
They are too ingrained (unfortunately) and the product (sadly) of right wing radio thought manipulation - that they begin to think all they have to do is one of three things for one of their beliefs to be considered fact:
1. Repeat the (false/made up) assertion over and over (e.g., Obama is a poor leader, ObamaCare will kill people, or Obama is to blame for: Benghazi, the government shut down, the ACA website not working, the economy, the war in Afghanistan, gas prices, the federal deficit, health-care spiraling costs, etc.) as if repetition of lie magically turns it true.  
2.  Call the truth-monger names (liberal, pin-head, bleeding heart, elite, educated) as if calling someone a name means that the truth suddenly becomes untrue 
3. Yell or attempt to bully the spreader of truth, as if the person that yells the loudest must be telling the truth lol
Again excellent post :) thank you

 

by EROTICMOTION4U on October 28, 2013

Is it even possible to create a more redundant, rambling post desperately asking for information that didn't get presented on MSNBC or the Huffington Post?


 


by SAPPHOLOVERS on October 27, 2013

 

    Very engaging, provocative, well-written original post:  I hope it provokes the response it deserves, but I sense that most Conservatives will be too intimidated by its wisdom and challenge to respond, as it requires some thinking outside the box (especially the Fox TV box or the Limbaugh radio box).

 


 


by RICKAZ28 on October 27, 2013
First and foremost, its obvious that you are an intelligent person.  The questions and points you make are the same as those with equal intelligence.  Enquiring minds want to know".
There is a store on Fed Hwy in Stuart called Nautical but Nice.  You should go in the front door and read his table display immediately to the right.  Be sure to take a free copy of the US Constitution.  Who is it that doesn't understand that the Constitution is a cohesive document not to be excerpted.
Its abominable.  I am reminded that figures don't lie but liars figure.
I am assuming that you posted before the Congressional Shutdown.  The single most embarrasing moment in US history.
I taught American History at the University of Massachusetts for 10 years and I can assure you nobody knows how to read!  We are sheep being led to someplace unknown by pundits, idiots, and some seriously ill crazies.
The bottom is not everyone is as good as we are, they don't like a black president, some won't even recognize Predident Obama as president.  The general public has no clue of the monumental success of this presidency despite the Republican teaparty folks who are really scary.
As a former resident of Massachusetts, I also can assure you that Obamacare works.  It is modelled after the Massachusetts law reuiring health insurance.  The welfare dollars being spent in this country is absurd and unnecessary (I am a pharmacist as well).  I like the insurance companies paying the bills rather than my tax dollars.  Of course nobody understands that since the believability of this President is so low.  The rancor we see is indicative of unsolved problems from George W.and other former Presidents but of course today is today and the division in this country will continue for some time.  With all the blame going north to the white house.  We can only hope that a generation X person with sense rather than politics will rise to the surface.  Unfortunately, we never had a president that was a Vietnam vet. It would have changed everything.
Oh yes, there's more, much more, such as the country is at war and has been since 9/11.  In war, we all know that some civil rights must be compromised for the good of all.  "Loose lips sink ships" philosophy but extended to internet and phone (NSA).  I have nothing to hide and nor do you but don't drive in Jensen since they have cameras that track who is coming or going.  We have been misled, mistreated, and the public isn't stupid.  Those that precipitated a mess will be gone to include Rep Boehner-R, Ohio., the speaker.
Great subject, lets go to the beach and continue this most lively discussion.
Best
Ricky

by DANDD2 on March 13, 2013
Corporate interests prefer the infighting of american citizens and the deadlock in the legislative branch. Without conflict there may be change or progression that may not be to their benefit, so they create pseudo grassroots movement to fight their battles for them. just my $0.02.


by SPENDIDIDEA on March 12, 2013
This is getting to be a lot more fun!


by MIKEANDCHRISSIE on March 12, 2013
@ Boca Babe, Never mix politics with sex!!!! See where it got Bill Clinton..........Peace!!!

by LAUGHINGLOVERS on January 9, 2013
I think my parents still use Yahoo...oh wait, Yahoo!

by FUNSEEKER on January 8, 2013
Weseek: Why would you suggest that me and my close 25 friends would do that ? As opposed to other people? I dont get it.

It was a statement illustratiing a condition that seems to prevail in a very divisive world. So many people seem o have their feet in concrete with absolute right and wrong.

You are taking it too literally.

by FUNSEEKER on January 8, 2013
Why do we or anyone believe anything that anyone in the media says? Seriously. We live in an age where people first decide what they believe then find the info on the internet to support it. I say dont beleive anything unless you can see it or touch it. 

by LAUGHINGLOVERS on January 8, 2013
Fun, 

I think you have the right question, why do liberals believe conservatives think Obama is a terrorist?

I like how the proposterous is thrown out and then they say, see Obama is not a terrorist and therefore Obama is not a big spender!  Liberal logic at work.


by FUNSEEKER on January 6, 2013
Why do you believe that conservatives believe all of this stuff? Where do you get this information from? Based on what?

BTW, Oreilly is not very conservative.

by LAUGHINGLOVERS on September 8, 2012
Sens, Thanks for posting the follow ups to my original post noting GMs slide toward bankruptcy and furthering it with details of the bail out itself. I hadn't been back on the thread to see the liberal denial of easily attainable facts through respected financial news outlets.

Although its worth noting Bush involved pouring funds into the same pork trough prior to Obama's managed bankruptcy process they are touting as a "success". Some success, Billions more of those and we can complete the US own credit slide.

by LAUGHINGLOVERS on September 8, 2012
"I know of no "entitlement mentality"."

Now hat is truly liberal denial at work.  Wow.  Where do you even start a debate on personal responsibility when a fact of human nature can't be agreed upon. From the family unit to the government you can watch entitlement mentality at work.  I'd bet every person on here has a family member that feels entitled.

It happens, you give to someone, they expect it to continue.  They rationalize their right to that hand out.

by US09092004 on September 7, 2012
@BOCABABE

Why do I get the impression that any comments put here by some one on the right is going to be called "an unsupported statement". What evidence do you have to arrive at the conclusions you presented in your extensive blog post about how conservatives think. 

"There was a time in this country when success was admired and viewed as a goal to achieve. Now its being demonized by the left of this country to exacerbate the animosities among the people" 

What more evidence do you want when you have the President of the United States talking about the 1% and the 99%, that kind of divisive retoric had never been used in this country by any other president. What more evidence do you want when you have the same dude accusing the people who pay 60% of all the taxes in this country of not paying their fair share. Are you telling me that the left is not demonizing the rich as if they were some kind of heartless pariahs

Can you honestly say that you have not seen many in NBC, CNN and other networks trying to marginalize Romney as out an of touch person, living in his rich world. Give me a break. 

I have a little piece of news for you. Out of all the Candidates who ran in the 2012 election from both parties. The 0bamas were the ones who donated the least to charity as a percentage of their income. Don't try to tell me that he was cash strapped because he was helping his family in Africa, because it is widely known that he does not. There in lies the hipocrisy of many like them on the left. They are very willing to take other's wealth and redistribute it. But are extremely unwilling to give up their own. By the way, there is plenty of evidence of this fact everywhere.

I know my words are probably falling on deaf ears, and that's ok. Let's wait for Novemember and let's hear the silent majority speak. Then we will all listen.


Cheers,



by BOCABABE on September 7, 2012
this is the kinda crazy comment we are trying to understand? Why do people believe these unsupported statements? the purpose of the blog is not to solict opinions but rather to try and understand why some people just people what they are fed? No challenge? No search for evidence? No pass on as truth? Why? and Why are these same people so unwilling to believe things that have a mountain full of evidence?

"There was a time in this country when success was admired and viewed as a goal to achieve. Now its being demonized by the left of this country to exacerbate the animosities among the people"

by US09092004 on September 7, 2012
@ICARUS88 

Whatttt? Excuse my inability to decipher such sophisticated language. The only part I understood was your statement about Capitalism promoting greed. Greedy people promote greed, capitalism does not. Big capitalists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are also very generous people. While other socialism promoting capitalists like Michel Moore are not.

Capitalism is about entrpreneurship and sacrifice as a means to provide for your self, while in the process creating an increased wealth that allows you to provide opportunities for others (employees). Hopefully, many of those employees then use part of their own wealth to also become entreprneurs themselves, thus the cycle continues. 

There was a time in this country when success was admired and viewed as a goal to achieve. Now its being demonized by the left of this country to exacerbate the animosities among the people.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on September 7, 2012

Taxes should be raised on every citizen; we have a 16 Trillion dollar national debt. The hard truth for many conservatives to follow is that we didn’t have a problem with Social Security and Medicare 10 years ago. In fact the biggest problem to the national debt is Medicare so you have two choices. Pull the plug on grandma or raise taxes.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?cat=6&ind=297


by US09092004 on September 6, 2012
@SAPPHOLOVERS

If we are going to start quoting here consider this one:

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
  --  Winston Churchill  

Regarding FDR and his broken social security idea. The answer is yes. Last time I checked, the constitution of this country does not call for the government to offer retirement plans to its citizens. In fact, the worst place where you can put your money for retiremnt is perhaps in the social security. Just do the math of how much you have contributed and how much you are going to get back after retirement (if you are lucky to get anything at all before it goes completely kaput) and you will see what a wonderful investment your beloved government has done for you.

The Jesus part, I dont like talking about fictional characters. Next.

Look, this is not about a bunch of heartless conservative dudes as liberals enjoy to paint us all. There are people who truly need help from their fellow humans and I am all in favor of providing for us.
The situation here is much different than that, the reality is that the entitlement mentality that liberals in this country continue to promote have created an ever growing generation of people with no incentives to work at all. For reasons that escape my capacity to undestand it, there are a very large number of people who are perfectly happy with a minimum welfare check in exchange for not having to wake up and go to work in the mornings. This situation, over a long enough period of time inevitably brings about the fiscal debacle that countries like Greece and Spain are enduring right now. 

Taxing the people to death, to support perfectly able people is not paying your fair share, it is a form of tyrany...

Cheers,




by ROCKSTEADY69 on September 6, 2012
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by SAPPHOLOVERS on September 6, 2012
US09092004 (Mario),


       Please check out what Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison (1785):

     "I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property....  Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

      On the basis of this statement by Jefferson on using progressive taxation to lessen the inequality of property and reduce the misery of mankind, would you call Thomas Jefferson a socialist?   Or does he seem to be more of socialist than Obama?

       Would you also call Franklin Roosevelt a socialist for what he did in regards to Social Security?

        Finally, would you call Jesus Christ a socialist for his advocacy of caring for the poor and the sick and the needy?

by BOCABABE on September 6, 2012
US09092004 Mario, 

Thanks for the kind words they are available for purchase in this capitalist soceity for all.

Please tell me what actions President Obama has performed that indicates to you that he is a socilaist or views the US as an oppresive superpower?

You can be a liberal for a day, you just must renounce goverment instrusion into american citizens' uterui (or uteruses? lol) and their choice of who to merry.  Vote for freedom not the GOP and ideas of restricting individual libery! You also must renounce twisting or spinning the facts! lol

btw there are plenty of countries with a make greater degree of "socialism" and higher taxes that have significantly higher standards of living. But since you have lived abroad you know this.

by US09092004 on September 6, 2012
I must admit I like your boobs much more than your opinion about conservatives. It is impossible to have an objective conversation when the premise of the argument is false. Your point of view about conservatives is simply false. A simplification of an otherwise very wide group with corresponding very wide opinions.

As a conservative myself, I do believe that 0bama holds socialists views of what the world should be, as well as I believe he views US as an oppressive superpower. I don't need Rush or Beck to tell me this, 0bama's actions speak louder to me than anything one of those talking heads could say. I lived in a socialist country for a long part of my life and as such I think I am more equipped that many here to understand what socialism means and how it feels like. The bad news for USA is that it has never worked well for the people.

Regarding the part of your post where you ask to not reply with "liberals do the same". Well as a liberal you should be prepared to accept any opinion not just those you choose right? So, yes you guys do exactly the same. If not, just give me your honest opinion about what you think President Bush's believes are, and you'll be surprised to discover how much of that was implanted in your head by Chris Mathews or any of the other NBC's so called hosts.

Have a nice day, I really love those boobs, damn I wish I could be a liberal just for one day.

Mario

by BOCABABE on September 6, 2012
sens,

my bad, i thought GM went public, but was caught up in discussing the fallacy of the author's points and failed to notice that the article a previous commenter posted was from awhile ago. my bad. :)




by SAPPHOLOVERS on September 5, 2012
Senshuus,

    I don't know of any Univesity than has a university policy declaring Wikipedia to be an unreliable source.

    Some professors may decide not to accept Wikipedia as a source for essays and arguments.

    But many professors do accept Wikipedia as a source.  Indeed, some professors themselves depend significantly on Wikipedia as a source.

     No book, no encylopedia, no source material should be relied upon or depended upon on faith, without questioning.

     Ideally, Wikipedia, as a source, should be checked and balanced with other sources of information.

     But for a quick guide to information and resource, it can be very helpful, and, again, some professors are very willing to accept it as a source, even if they also remind students to question any source, including Wikipedia.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on September 5, 2012
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by ROCKSTEADY69 on September 5, 2012

BOCABABE – I think sometimes it is more to do with payback then trying to make a cohesive point. I have shown him time and time again that the information I post is solid, but he is on some mission to prove me wrong whenever he can twist what little information he has to his point. Frankly I get bored dealing with many of them and only post articles with the factual sources so not to be bother with the back and forth. I try to confirm those facts through many sources and I post many of those facts from other sources of media like Forbes, and Fox News, but sometimes I have to rely on NPR, CBS or TMP, and even sometimes I go outside of the country to do my reading. You see I don’t stop reading an article because I don’t like what it is saying. I find out how true the information is by verifying through other outlets. I don’t post incomplete graphs missing pertinent information. Maybe if he stop trying to prove other people wrong he might get something right.


by BOCABABE on September 5, 2012
Senshuus, 

I appreciate your participation.  Please understand that I am writing you because I think you are anything but stupid. 

Your response goes back to my original question... why do some conservatives (and some liberals) take off their thinking cap when reading something from a conservative and believe everything, yet disbelieve anything and everything (despite the truth) from conservative or independent sources? Why are some so willing to believe some things without a scintilla of evidence, yet refuse to believe other things that have a mountain of evidence? Evolution? Global Warming, OJ Simpson guilts, astromony? magic sperm killers? guns dont kill? it reminds me of the flat earth group or religious fundamentalists or islamic terrorists.   Why do we ignore the facts and try to "lie" to get the story we want? 





by BOCABABE on September 5, 2012
It is funny how people discredit something because of the source but then use a widely discredited source! Forbes and the Wall Street Journal are both known to be run by right wing extremists and not at all impartial when it comes to attacking the President. 

In any event, I read the article and it appears that the writer (despite her best efforts) only serves to give creditability to GM's claim that is paid back all loans.  She admits they paid off all debt in full with interest, early! 

She tries to comingle debt and equity saying both have not been paid back.  Equity investment (as Mitt Romney knows all too well) is not debt. Venture Capitalists do the same thing! Each waits for the ideal time to monetize its investment.  The author even states that this will not happen until GM goes public again. Investors (especially equity investors) look for the right time to go public - when the returns are greatest.  I have helped numerous companies go public and all of them consider or try to anticipate when their shares/company will have the most value.  

She also, correctly points out, "
If it (the US government) hadn't (loaned/invested in) the company (because GM) couldn’t raise this kind of money from private lenders, would have been forced into liquidation, its assets sold for scrap." and all employees laid off and many smaller business that make auto parts would also be forced out of business.  Imagine where our unemployment rate would be then! 

So despite her best efforts to spin, the truth is the truth and facts are facts. 

by BOCABABE on September 5, 2012

Information on GM loans from Wikipedia (not some partisan website)

Although the Obama administration had initially provided the automaker five years to repay the money in full, in March 2010 GM made more than $2 billion in payments to the U.S. and Canadian governments and promised to pay the full balance of the loan portion by June. The company beat that self-imposed dead when on April 21, 2010, GM CEO Ed Whitacre, Jr. announced that the company had paid back the entire amount of the U.S. and Canadian government loans, with interest, a total of $8.1 billion.

The government still has $2.1 billion invested in preferred shares that pay dividends, plus a 61% share of common equity valued at about $45 billion to the U.S. and another $8.1 billion to Canada. Improved sales of new models are cited as improving the company's cash flow and allowing for the early payments. GM is also investing hundreds of millions in assembly plants in Kansas and Detroit, credited for preserving jobs.[95] A White House report sent to Congress in August 2012 estimated the sale of the remaining G.M. stock acquired by the United States Treasury during the company's bankruptcy will result in a loss of $25.1 billion to the American taxpayer.[96] The total cost to the taxpayer will be determined after the government sells its 26% stake in G.M. and its 74% stake in Ally Financial, formally known as GMAC, G.M.’s financing arm

by ROCKSTEADY69 on September 5, 2012

Chicken Little's Second GM Bankruptcy: The Gold Medal For Silly Op-Ed Pieces

Forbes contributor Louis Woodhill must deserve some sort of special recognition for his thinly-argued op-ed contribution forecasting an early second demise of GM.

As rationale, Mr. Woodhill cites a list of alleged GM ills, from the 2013 Malibu (last reported to be off to a very fast start and winning wide praise from the professional media) to declining market share in the US market.

The fact that he would focus on GM’s admittedly-lower US market share as a harbinger of impending doom demonstrates the most profound lack of understanding of the vehicle business. Product strength is only one component in the market share equation. Other elements affecting share are transaction prices, marketing spend, and propensity to make share-enhancing, low-profit sales to daily rental fleets.

To suggest that a cash-rich, profitable company with these characteristics is about to go under is, to me, “fatuous twaddle”. Mr. Woodhill should have done better.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/08/17/chicken-littles-second-gm-bankruptcy-the-gold-medal-for-silly-op-ed-pieces/


by BOCABABE on September 5, 2012
laughing please share link to major news outlet(s) reporting the GM is in same financial position as right before bailout? 

thanks!

by ROCKSTEADY69 on September 5, 2012

GM will not be TARP and will not be repaid. –LOL

The Neverending Bailout: The U.S. Is Still Owed $133 Billion from Crisis Fund

The special investigator for TARP, the government fund that was created in the wake of the financial crisis, released a report last week that said the government is still owed $133 billion from the fund. In fact, there are 458 companies, most of which are small banks, that have yet to fully pay back the government. And it could be another 5 years before the bailout fund is fully wound down. Worse, we’re probably never going to get all of our money back.

Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/01/30/the-neverending-bailout-the-u-s-is-still-owed-133-billion-from-crisis-fund/#ixzz25XbQNdgA


by LAUGHINGLOVERS on September 5, 2012
I think major financial outlets reporting GM is in the same financial territory they were in before the Obama GM bailout is real news and relevant. Taxpayers are out $27 Billion. It's not play money, it costs families when you tax them. Exploring Obama's stewardship of our tax dollars is important. He made claims and is taking credit, revealing where his projects stand is not biased, he is seeking reelection based on claims of success. The Democrats are touting Obama's handing of the restructuring and yet they are again approaching bankruptcy.

It's inconvenient to the liberal dialogue, and so some claim its not relevant. Bravo, since you made it clear a discussion of relevant news is not welcome if its critical of Obama, then please just enjoy your own voices.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on September 5, 2012
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by BOCABABE on September 5, 2012
trophy, 

And I am sure they will just dismiss this study as coming from a liberal source (code for a source that tells the truth)

by BOCABABE on September 5, 2012
laughinglovers, you were a breath of fresh air, but disappointly you just send out the same old talking points and decry anything that provides facts that dont support what you want to believe a liberal. 

Sad, disappointing, where are the "think for yourself" conservatives gone?



by KATIENBILL on September 5, 2012
I think the rest of the world just looks on and thinks......WTF????

by NIPPY6781 on September 5, 2012
Conservatives aren't just crazy in America. Check out Tory Britain

Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by SPORTFUCKINWIFE on September 5, 2012
Ford leadership believed that a BK would have lead to a total auto industry breakdown, which is why they adovcated for government loans to their competitors.

Don't they know a lot more about this stuff than you or Romney?

by SAPPHOLOVERS on September 4, 2012
LaughingLovers,

     You do make me laugh--or guffaw--about your claims about what I said about the results of a GM bankruptcy.  I never claim that letting GM go bankrupt would lead to a "total auto breakdown."
Those are your words.  If you want to critique my posts, please do me the favor of citing me accurately rather than putting words in my mouth.

       I quickly gather from your post that you have problems reading fairly.

       I did favor the Obama's administration to dealing with GM.   I do not agree with Romney that a managed bankruptcy was the way to go.

       But I am reluctant to claim what would have happened if Romney had his way with GM.  That can only be an opinion, a judgment, an estimate, a prediction.

       We do know what the Obama administration did, and we can judge his actions towards GM by the results: the current condition of GM, the current status of the loan, and the current status of the benefits to the economy of Ohio by Obama's policies.

       Knowing what we know now about what Obama did with regard to GM, I would go along with that.  

       We can not compare it to the results of a managed bankruptcy because that didn't happen.

       We don't know what would have happened to the economy of the USA if Hoover rather than FDR had become president in 1933.

       We don't know what would have happened to the economy if there had been no bailout of Wall Street.

        I generally liked how FDR handled the Depression, and I like how Obama handled GM, and I have a mixed opinion about how he handled Wall Street.

        I do wish Obama could have persuaded Congress to enact a bigger stimulus.  

        I think it is problematical to say that the stimulus was a failure.  Damn, even Paul Ryan sought stimulus money for his Congressional district.

       Again, if you want to critique my posts, please do me the favor of citing accurately and faithfully my words.

        Your way of citing words makes me think you would could have been a good script writer for the Romeny ads that bash Obama and have earned those ads a "pants on fire" status from Politifact. 





by LAUGHINGLOVERS on September 4, 2012
Sappho, you may consider taking your own advice. You claim you want facts and not unsupportable prognostication then go on to say with certainty a GM bankruptcy would have resulted in a total auto breakdown. Unsupportable and not at all evidenced by other bankruptcies. You both claim your opinions are facts and without facts pat each other on the back for owning a truth you can't support. You deride others for stating opinions, while spinning your own opinions. Enjoy yourselves.One point of agreement, too many wars.

by LAUGHINGLOVERS on September 4, 2012
No evidence that GM couldn't have gone through a routine bankruptcy; it is a fact the unions were given a sweetheart deal compared to non-union. Obama car czar said so himself. GM is failing, in part, thanks to the poor administration guided restructuring. You cant take credit for it, then disavow it when it goes badly. The details on these facts are readily available at any non-liberal source, otherwise enjoy living in the spin bubble and be surprised when Obama's GM fails.

by BOCABABE on September 4, 2012
thank you  SAPPHOLOVERS you are abolutely correct. Opinions without supportable facts get us nowhere.  And "facts"from Fox News should be outlawed, but since I am a free speech absolutist, we cant just deny their drivel. Hopefully people will become embarrased and not post their one sided, unbalanced, spins and lies.

We can hope right? 


by BOCABABE on September 4, 2012

Not sure "touting" is the best word, but they certainty derive a large portion of the credit especially since mitt has said he would have let GM die.

  
"GM was not allowed to restructure under a proper arms length bankruptcy." Not exactly true, due o extreme liquidation in the market at that time if the federal government didn’t step in there was no one else to.

Investors are starting to worry that GM will fail again, the numbers don't look good.  Be careful if you're reading the old the original reports of "record breaking" profits  - a myth when you look at the source of the "profits". From what I read the condition of GM is not good and it goes way beyond the VOLT fiasco. GM is still a very large buearcratic company that competes against companies lower healh care/pension costs (provided by Japan, Germany, Sweded, Korea, UK governments)

Anyone else following? I think its time we come up with the movie name.  How bout Eastwood’s “The Good the bad and ugly”? President O would be the good, fox news the bad and rush (ugly) lol

GM 2 - The Failure of Another Obama Plan? I doubt Obama will trust the GOP again, he learned from his mistake
GM 2 - How to Temporarily Employee Unions at a High Cost? – remove company sponsored jhealth care, expand medicare
GM 2 - Do You Remember the Volt? Try to forget
GM 2 - The High Cost of ObamaCar – not true
GM 2 - Comrade, Spare a Few Billion More? Stop sending billions tp fight an unwinnable war(s)

by ROCKSTEADY69 on September 4, 2012
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

Why Obama's Economic Stimulus Worked

Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf told Congress recently, "Our position is that the [2009] Recovery Act was not a failed program. Our position is that it created higher output and employment than would have occurred without it."

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/20/why-the-economic-stimulus-worked


by LAUGHINGLOVERS on September 4, 2012
TARP started at over $700 Billion.  The Fed just reported the total program costs are at about $100 Billion, but some repayments, expenditures, and investments are still expected.  It'll probably be another program that never dies.  I'm not sure I agree, but by government standards it was a successful expenditure.  At least it had tangible gains compared to the "Stimulus".

by SAPPHOLOVERS on September 4, 2012
LaughingLovers,

       You make a number of claims about the future and the consequences of Obama's policies.

        In the spirit of the original post by Bocababe, I would prefer to see a critique of Obama's policies grounded in fact, evidence, statistics rather than speculation about the future.

       Of course, we can also lie with statistics.    We can debate about the wisdom and consequences of the Obama Administration's dealing with GM. 

        Romney says it would have been best to let GM go bankrupt.

        We can debate the current condition of GM, how well it is doing, how many people are employed serving GM now versus what would have happened if it had gone bankrupt.

        What we can not know is what would have happened to GM and the economy in Michigan and Ohio and in the USA if the Romney path was followed.

         I like Bocababe's call in the post to keep debate about politics in this blog grounded in arguments that deal with fact, evidence, statistics rather than demagoguery, lies, paranoia, unsubstantiated fears, hokum, and the mudslinging manipulation of bad political ads.


by LAUGHINGLOVERS on September 4, 2012
http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/

Rattner admitted, "We should have asked the UAW (the United Auto Workers union) to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay." Call it a bankruptcy, but it was just a bail out. Romney was correct, we have a process for business failure, the courts are experienced. Large companies, even Air s go through bankruptcy and the entire sector does not collapse. If its that weak, it need to fail. Good things often rise from ashes. Romney proved that at Bane Capital over and over again.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on September 4, 2012

The Neverending Bailout: The U.S. Is Still Owed $133 Billion from Crisis Fund

January 30, 2012

If you thought the bank bailout that started in late 2008 was long gone, you would be far from wrong. The special investigator for TARP, the government fund that was created in the wake of the financial crisis, released a report last week that said the government is still owed $133 billion from the fund. In fact, there are 458 companies, most of which are small banks, that have yet to fully pay back the government. And it could be another 5 years before the bailout fund is fully wound down. Worse, we’re probably never going to get all of our money back.

Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/01/30/the-neverending-bailout-the-u-s-is-still-owed-133-billion-from-crisis-fund/#ixzz25XbQNdgA

by LAUGHINGLOVERS on September 4, 2012
Unfortunately many of Obama's failures won't be fully realized until he leaves office.

GM will not be TARP and will not be repaid.

The costs of Obamacare will continue to rise, the quality of care will dec , care will be rationed by the the government system.

The national security leaks will impact us for years, perhaps decades.

Iran's nuclear goals will either be realized or no recourse but military conflict will remain since Obama failed to bring China or Russia on board with serious isolation of Iran.  I guess Obama being 'loved' internationally didn't help.

The debt will continue to stifle our economy as the grown ups are forced to come in, take over, and make the hard choices.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on September 4, 2012

Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view 

Mitt Romney says Obama gave away car companies to union

Romney accuses President Barack Obama of mismanagement when GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse in late 2008 and early 2009.

He says the car manufacturers should have been allowed to go bankrupt and that Obama practiced "crony capitalism" in negotiating with union bosses. And in a CNN debate on Feb. 22, 2012, Romney said, "the president gave the companies to the UAW."

Here, we’ll take a look at that last claim.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/


by LAUGHINGLOVERS on September 4, 2012
Obama campaign is touting saving GM.  Yet GM was not allowed to restructure under a proper arms length bankruptcy and it was really just another Corporate/Union Bailout.

Investors are starting to worry that GM will fail again, the numbers don't look good.  Be careful if you're reading the old the original reports of "record breaking" profits  - a myth when you look at the source of the "profits". From what I read the condition of GM is not good and it goes way beyond the VOLT fiasco.

Anyone else following? I think its time we come up with the movie name.

GM 2 - The Failure of Another Obama Plan?
GM 2 - How to Temporarily Employee Unions at a High Cost?
GM 2 - Do You Remember the Volt?
GM 2 - The High Cost of ObamaCar
GM 2 - Comrade, Spare a Few Billion More?

They are all too long, need something better.

by BOCABABE on September 2, 2012
Good post MARGARITAFUN

by LAUGHINGLOVERS on September 2, 2012

It didn't look like much of a compliment toward Eastwood, since he was doing the questioning and part of the room.  Nevertheless, I get from your explanation the spirit you intended was just a swipe at the RNC/Romney.  It was a mistake for the RNC and Romney to have him out, not sure if it was being 82 or bad night, but someone in the campaign, family, or otherwise should have seen he wasn't on game that night.  I hope my friends and family will do better by me when I'm not on game at that age; so point taken.


by LAUGHINGLOVERS on September 2, 2012
 Why, we can only hope as kind of things are said about you when your 82 as you say about Clint Eastwood.

by LAUGHINGLOVERS on September 2, 2012
This Blog has had some legs. The Republican party lost its soul by joining the Democrats in one big spending orgy after another. In big spending binges both parties have been alike over the years - although the Republicans have stood up a few times in defense of sane spending policy. Clinton once rallied a few Democrats, but Obama is undoing what little good he was able to accomplish.

We can no longer ignore deficit spending and the debt. The only vote that matters now is a vote for: entitlement reform, tax reform, and long term fiscal responsibility that must include real structural spending reforms that reduces the national debt.

Since the Democrats have lost all credibility, there is no choice but to trust the Republicans will do as they now promise. Three years under Obama and the Democrats have passed no budget. Two years under complete Democrat control and they gave us ObamaCare and massive new debt. The Democrats have never admitted to their complicity in the housing debt crises and they've squandered the last three years in acting to cure the housing market - since they've never understood the problem its no wonder they haven't tried to solve it. As long as Democrats keep pretending that either ignoring the problem or taxing the 1% is the solution, then they don't deserve a single vote.

Obama talks seriously about the Debt and yet has done nothing - no structural change in his proposed budgets (budgets which have never gotten a single vote by even a Democrat). He promised to reduce the deficit by half, fail. He promised unemployment would be under 8%, never during his entire term.

Obama is touting his American Jobs Act. I think it might be called: Stimulus Fraud 2.0. This sort of spending does not create net jobs. Moving resources from the private sector to the public sector does not create jobs, its ridiculous economic theory that doesn't stand even a few moments of scrutiny.

We can rage against the Republicans, but if you're a fiscal conservative then they are our last best hope. If you're a Democrat, then please hold your nose on social issues, let the Republicans fix the economy again, then you can reward yourselves later by voting in another failed President like Carter or Obama.

by MARGARITAFUN on September 2, 2012
BlackBackhams, while I guess most would lable me liberal, and I too am disgusted by the self serving bias, and complete disregard to integrity, honesty, and simple facts, demonstrated by Fox in general, and many extreme right "leaders", I am just as disappointed by the spirrit of your post. When ever we resort to ugly personal attacks, in vain attempt to make our point, then we are just as guilty as those we are trying to ridicule. Even if Mr. Eastwood would have truely mubled his way to senility, it would still be in bad taste and of no value to attack him, only becuase he supports someone or some view you object.

by BLACKBECKHAMS on September 2, 2012
Thank you BocaBabe for posting this very informative blog that clearly exposes the bullshit. Well....I would like to respond to the comment...Obama is like many other highly educated people...They lack wisdom. I guess you cannot vote for either candidate because they both have bachelor degrees and advanced degrees (Romney has an MBA and Obama has a Jurid Doctorate Degree) and according to your premise...they both lack wisdom. What about Neal Boortz....who talks shit about public eucation (he calls them government schools) when he went to Pensacola High School....a damn government school...lol. He benefited from the it and talks shit about those who go to governemnt schools and the structure of the schools. He has a law degree also and practiced until 1992...Does he lack wisdom? According to increased education=decreased wisdom....yes. 
 Conservatives will continue to attack with baseless information and rumors and not provide any solutions to problems that they highlight. The Republican National Convention was full of shit talking and issue raising with each person highlighting their own accomplisghments with only 1 minunte or two dedicated to the support of Mitt Romney. That shows their true support for him. Most actually believe that Ryan is the true conservative and a better candidate. Conservatives know that Romney sucks and that he flips flops on issues...lol. They have no faith in him...lol...and neither does Clint Eastwood as he rambles his way into senility. I am a moderate Liberal and I can see issues from both sides and I see that the better candidates for President for the Republican side have been defeated.

by NIPPY6781 on July 14, 2012
Bingo! I whistle, he cometh. Twit Twoooo! lol

by PADOC on July 14, 2012
It's pretty clear from his last comments that the Wizard of Nippyland is not one of the Dublin sages who possess such "expertise"!

by NIPPY6781 on July 14, 2012
I wont get into it again but I've said it many times before and I'll say it once more. The moment Iraq was invaded was not only the biggest mistake/fuckup in modern history but also the root of much of the economic problems that the US and the planet suffers today.

by CALLIE on July 14, 2012
 Well Sport, don't know about the demise of the Republican party, but the outlandish apparations of the Progressive left is responsible for the demise of our economy and most of it's problems.

by NIPPY6781 on July 14, 2012
Bandd.. It's that kind of arrogant attitude that made Padoc what he is today. Surely you're not another? I would imagine there are many people in Dublin who have more "expertise" on matters in the US than many of your own citizens.

by WYLDNXTC on June 25, 2012
I'd like to know the answer to that inquiry, too. Why is most older hardcore conservatives that are against "socialism" and "government entitlements" still enrolled in Medicare and Social Security?  They have the choice to withdraw, do they not?

Hypocrisy at its finest, I'd say.

by SPORTFUCKINWIFE on June 25, 2012
So Callie,

Why don't yell us what you think is causing the demise of the Republican Party?

by CALLIE on June 25, 2012
The previous post is by far the most out of touch and clueless so far! Quite entertainig!

by MATINEE77 on June 25, 2012
Grover Norquist is causing the demise of the Republican Party. On top of that,  18% of the elctorate voted in the mid term elections and elected a lot of radical tea party conservatives who have a single motive: Make Obama a one term president.  I see these older folks carrying signs on the street corner about Obama being a socialist.  I like to stop and aask them if they are on social security and medicare.  ALL of them answer yes.  I laugh and keep driving thinking "More hardcore Fox news fans."
With hopes of the women in this countryvoting strong in November we will be spared the corporate raider mentality of the Mittmeister.


by CALLIE on May 20, 2012
 LOL@Nippy!

by LMGDOLL on May 20, 2012
BD,Could be that japanese cars are more reliable, less expensive, more environmentalfriendly; in short BETTER.I will however reccommend Volvo. Eller hva tycker du Boca :)

by NIPPY6781 on May 20, 2012
Welcome back MRS Callie :-)

by CALLIE on May 20, 2012
Gosh, don't you just love such humble, pseudo intellectualism?

by BOCABABE on May 19, 2012
BD, 

If you're imply that all the smart/knowledgeable/educated people are supporters of our president, I think that might be a little unfair. Certainly the vast majority of higher educated and higher intelligence folks are Baracks supporters, but there are likely 1 or 2 exceptions. lol

Seriously, if you look at the demographics of Republicans and domestic car buyers, you'll note that white males over 65 are their best customers/supporters.  

Both GM and Ford are addressing their shortfall by introducing new models designed to appeal to a younger/more educated consumer, yet the GOP keeps moving further to the extreme right? Which will prove to be a more profitable move as their base ages and dies? 

by BOCABABE on May 19, 2012
Has anyone noticed that although the GOP campaigned on JOBs JOBs JOBs, nearly all of their proposed legislation is about restricting our freedom? 

-Making it tougher for women to get abortions

-Making it tougher for couples to get birth-control

-Outlaw Same Sex Unions in North Carolina


-Forcing employees to follow the religious beliefs of their bosses


-Allowing people to be fired for being gay


- Not allowing domestic violence protections to Native American women on reservations, immigrant women, and lesbian/gay/bisexual and transgender people

Why is no one pointing out this hypocrisy? Is hypocrisy no longer news within the GOP? Do we just accept it as part of their platform? 



by NIPPY6781 on May 16, 2012
Apparently at the John Edwards trial Rielle wanted to tell press she was abducted by aliens. Romney said "Don't drag ME into this!"

by STONEMANE on May 15, 2012
Thanks. I am still a bit bummed that there are no Star Trek series still on the air. :( 

by CALLIE on May 15, 2012
 Stoneman, your accuracy of deep space nine is impressive!

by SPORTFUCKINWIFE on May 15, 2012
Weseek,

You are a mster of wishful thinking.  It's almost like you know the way the people participating in the poll will vote better than they do.



by STONEMANE on May 15, 2012
Gul Dukat was a free market guy & ruled over the longest period of economic growth on Cardassia. He also teamed up with the Federation during the imperialist aggression of the Romulans in the third galactic conflict & was a proponent of keeping the Neutral Zone free of colonization.

He was also reported to be a big fan of Ayn Rand.

by NIPPY6781 on May 15, 2012
Uncanny!

Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by SPORTFUCKINWIFE on May 14, 2012
Yet nothing in the remainder or comments to the article changes the main point as posted by me.

Among Military vets, Obama leads Romney by 7 points.




by SPORTFUCKINWIFE on May 14, 2012
Obama holds a significant lead over Romney among US Military Veterans!?!?!?

Man, it looks like the group of people willing to carry water for the GOP just keeps gettung smaller and smaller.

Also, ain't it cute how all those Tea Baggers who call themselves "Patriots" are in disagreement with the majority of those few that actually have the right to that title.

Weary warriors favor Obama over Romney, poll shows

Military concerns lag behind economic and domestic issues, but could jump to fore as presidential race continues

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Mack McDowell likes to spend time at the local knife and gun show "drooling over firearms," as he puts it. Retired after 30 years in the U.S. Army, he has d his study with books on war, framed battalion patches from his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, a John Wayne poster, and an 1861 Springfield rifle from an ancestor who fought in the Civil War.

But when it comes to the 2012 presidential election, Master Sergeant McDowell is no hawk.

In South Carolina's January primary, the one-time Reagan supporter voted for Ron Paul "because of his unchanging stand against overseas involvement." In November, McDowell plans to vote for the candidate least likely to wage "knee-jerk reaction wars."

Disaffection with the politics of shock and awe runs deep among men and women who have served in the military during the past decade of conflict. Only 32 percent think the war in Iraq ended successfully, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. And far more of them would pull out of Afghanistan than continue military operations there.

While the 2012 campaign today is dominated by economic and domestic issues, military concerns could easily jump to the fore. Nearly 90,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan. Israeli politicians and their U.S. supporters debate over whether to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities as partisans bicker over proposed Pentagon budget cuts.

Mitt Romney has accused President Obama of "a dangerous course" in wanting to cut $1 trillion from the defense budget — although the administration's actual proposal is a reduction of $487 billion over the next decade.

"We should not negotiate with the Taliban," the former Massachusetts governor contends. "We should defeat the Taliban." He has blamed Obama for "procrastination toward Iran" and advocates arming Syrian rebels.

Romney, along with his primary rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, had also accused Obama of "appeasement" toward U.S. enemies — a charge that drew a sharp Obama rebuttal. "Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who've been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement," the president shot back. He has reproached GOP candidates: "Now is not the time for bluster."

If the election were held today, Obama would win the veteran vote by as much as seven points over Romney, higher than his margin in the general population, according to the poll.

In 2008, veterans favored Republican presidential hopeful John McCain — a distinguished war veteran and former prisoner of


by SPORTFUCKINWIFE on May 11, 2012
Stone,

I don't think I called him uneducated or Redneck, I just figured him for a Right Wink Monkey.

But you do bring up some good points.

by STONEMANE on May 11, 2012
So anybody who opposes the socialist leanings of the current administration is uneducated, toothless, and a redneck? Guess I better get some dental work done & give back my MBA.



by SPORTFUCKINWIFE on May 11, 2012
Jim sounds like the kind of guy who thinks the only legitimate political discussion involves Kenyan Birth Certificates and some fellow toothless wonder screaming, "I want my Country Back!"


by NIPPY6781 on May 9, 2012
So much anger. Twill all end in tears I tell ya. "Socialist disaster"? You guys are a hoot...lol

by JIM69MICK on May 9, 2012
Maybe I fell down a rabbit hole on the way to Wonderland, but I guess I missed the moment when SDC became part of MSNBC, or the Keith Olberman Blog----- Boca you have done a fantastic job of putting more lies, and half truths in a short message than I have ever seen!---- You are only too quick to want to push the US into the Socialist diaster that is already Europe.  We aren't there yet--- but we are sure headed that way.  You mention Rush, O Reilly and Drudge---- how often do you listen to Rush----- Watch Bill O' Reilly, and read Drudge?   You listen and parrott the nightly bullshit put forth by Ed Schult and Rachael Maddow-------- or yes and that MSNBC poster child for Liberalism---- Rev Al Sharpton-----

You were born about 20 yrs too late, you could have been down in S America drinking Kool Aide served by Rev Jim Jones at Jonesville.

Politics has no fucking place on SDC----- you want to sit in your hot tub babbling political bullshit with your limosine liberal friends, that is fine with me--- but don't infect SDC.


by BOCABABE on March 31, 2012
@whynotbite, 

thanks this simply confirms what we already suspected. I am sure the radicals will dismiss the study, in thier typicall three ways

- will they call it liberal? (which means they dont like the, but I cant argue with analzsis?)
- will they say liberals do it too? (they will make up a study or say they have a friend)
- will they say it is nonsense they dont beleive it (darwin, global warming, reason, science, etc. and just repeat what rush told them to say)

any of these response will only confirm that the study is well done --- maybe by satan! lol


by BOCABABE on February 12, 2012
guys, we all know there are some left-leaning tv/radio shows/newspapers, but nowhere the near the number of right leaning.  And the right has two types: Robert Murdock owned propaganda (lies) and other pro-business/conservative newspapers (e.g., Chicago Tribune, Orange County Register). The later is much akin to the NY Times Washing Post. They have slants but try to tell the truth and try to present both sides.  The Trib and Register (while right leaning) have consistently rejected wingnuts or right wing radicals nutty claims (Barack is Muslim, Socialist, Fascist, or bad for the economy, or is un-American, etc.) 

Now we have the radical right shouting "bill of rights" and religious freedoms, when they previously trampled or ignored these documents/rights... "The Fox Nation is for those opposed to intolerance, excessive government control of our lives, and attempts to monopolize opinion or suppress freedom of thought, expression, and worship" LOL

Either fox doesn’t know what these words mean, have never seen their shows, think their viewers are gullible ignoramuses or suffer from oppositional defiant disorder lol.

But to be clear, to our posters, personally attacking others or calling your fellow posters names does NOT show that you are "opposed to intolerance, excessive government control of our lives, and attempts to monopolize opinion or suppress freedom of thought, expression, and worship". Also saying you are "fair and balanced" when you clearly are not doesn’t mean you are lol. Why do conservatives allow Fox to do this, don’t they understand how that marginalizes their effectives (or at least should)?

by TEXAN on February 6, 2012
 Seemed like a good idea at the time. I just though there needed to be a place where people could confront him and he could respond. I agree with most on here that the profile is more offensive than what was posted here. I think I made a comment to that effect early on.

by NIPPY6781 on February 6, 2012
"Oddly enough, the new blog is just drawing from B and D's Insulted Spouse blog. Oh well."

Tex. You deliberatly create an angry blog and you sound surprised? Sweet holy lamb of divine Jaysuz! How long have you been a member here? 5 minutes? Lol

by TEXAN on February 6, 2012
 Oddly enough, the new blog is just drawing from B and D's Insulted Spouse blog. Oh well.

by PADOC on February 6, 2012
In this case, Nippy is correct. Yes! I actually said that! I went into Dub's profile immediately after his initial post appeared and determined that he was more than a few bricks short of a full load and unworthy of further interaction. Im certain that his mailbox is now full of invitations from women throughout the world, and particularly from those in Florida.

VG, since you are relatively new here, let me explain the obvious to you.  I really do not need you to interperet what I say. I have a fair command of the language and am quite capable of expressing myself without your help. I think what I wrote was quite clear and needed no clarification from you. In case you missed it however, here it is again; "In my opinion, the issue was dealt with by others and I saw no need to add anything furthing on the subject. Im not much on playing games and I'll not play yours".

Unlike you, I have no compelling need to(politically) correct anyone. I will disagree and dispute issues with you but should you choose to cling to an erroneous position, well, that is your decision and I'll neither insist that you change nor demand that you conform to my idea of propriety. 

You're welcome!

by NIPPY6781 on February 6, 2012
Ahahaaaa...Folks, you really should go read Doubluque profile. It's littered with an encyclopaedia of deeply conservative creepy shit. Ladies, please form an orderly queue... Lmao

by NIPPY6781 on February 6, 2012
"I received a communique from him earlier. (I don't know why he chose me as an intermediary.)
It seems that he has been blocked from this blog. Wow! Sure didn't see that coming. He wants people to know that he stands by his statement, and does not think it is racist. He also wants you to know that he has lived and worked in Germany and in France and is trilingual. I know. I don't see the relevance either"



I've seen this guy Doubblique post before. It's always the same rant and always the France, Germany blowin his trumpet thing to somehow justify his hatred of anything left of extreme right.
This guy even attacks Boca on HIS OWN profile and then proceeds to bash every woman in Florida. He's just another nutjob with major issues.



"Since I am not so good at being someone's spokesman, I am going to start a new blog where you can "duke it out" directly with him."

Nice one Tex. Forn leaves the site alone for a couple of days to give everyone some peace and you produce a whole new anger blog...and you wonder why he "chose" you? Dear o dear.
It's SDCs site and they call the shots. They know a real bad one when they see one.

by TEXAN on February 5, 2012
 Guys,

I suppose we can stop bashing Doublique on here since he cannot defend himself. I received a communique from him earlier. (I don't know why he chose me as an intermediary.) It seems that he has been blocked from this blog. Wow! Sure didn't see that coming. He wants people to know that he stands by his statement, and does not think it is racist. He also wants you to know that he has lived and worked in Germany and in France and is trilingual. I know. I don't see the relevance either.

Since I am not so good at being someone's spokesman, I am going to start a new blog where you can "duke it out" directly with him. Since no one is on my block list (unless they put themselves there), you can have a direct exchange with him. Or with anyone else with whom you have a beef.

by VG2000 on February 5, 2012
Lots of histrionics there, PADOC, but I think I can paraphrase the substance of your post as follows:

- You agree that the comment at issue was racist.
- You are not going to say so.
- You think that I care too much about rules.

I trust you'll correct me if I got anything wrong or missed anything that matters.

Thanks!

by PADOC on February 5, 2012
Funny thing there VG, the Lefty Protective Association has seen fit to delete the post of mine to which you refer.  It's so nice that Boca has his fellow traveler's back!  I also noted that several other of my posts have disappeared. I also note that you've completely disregarded my comment regarding Doub's initial post, but I guess you can't check that either since the LPA has been at work taking care of either your tender feelings, Rockforbrains's or maybe Nippy's. 

Here is a fact for you, you have no idea whether I care "about a despicable and explicitly racist comment" or not. Not piling on does not necessarily equate with indifference.  In my opinion, the issue was dealt with by others and I saw no need to add anything furthing on the subject. Im not much on playing games and I'll not play yours.

By the way, you actually missed a a more applicable definition of "prissy"...how about, marked by excessive concern for propriety and good form. Kinda like the happy lefty fallback position, political correctness, right? Some associated adjectives are bluenose, priggish, prim and stuffy.
That's a little more literal, wouldn't you say?  Im guessing that the LPA will delete this too but you'll have read it, won't you VG? 

by CALLIE on February 5, 2012
 Boca, I never stoop to name calling, I only do that with friends Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by BOCABABE on February 5, 2012
we didnt mean to double post, we just noticed that our previous post was cropped. sry

by VG2000 on February 5, 2012
SENS: Not looking for any credit. Just wanted you and the other right of center posters here, to acknowledge that DOUBLIQUE's comment about black people was racist and, therefore, should be condemned. It is sort of like asking Bush to condemn David Duke or Obama to condemn, oh I don't know, Castro. It helps define the parameters of a civilized discussion if everyone can agree on what sort of hateful rhetoric should be out of bounds. Thank you for clarifying your position that his racist comment was despicable.
 
PADOC: Maybe I am being too literal, but I am taking your "prissy" comment to be a compliment. My understanding of the term is that it basically means excessive or uncommon politeness. No? Also, I am not trying to dictate the way you post at all. I was just pointing out what a shame it is that you don't apparently care about a despicable and explicitly racist comment when it came from the right. In case you missed it, by the way, here is what DOUBLIQUE said:
 
"take out American blacks who fell for him hook, , and sinker and most of whom are too dumb to ever see their error in spite of the fact that Obama has NO heritage in common with American blacks except skin color. . . "
 
I think that TEXAN's position is pretty clear (he knows it is racist but does not like saying it out loud because he has been sensitized by other people being condemned for racism when it was not deserved). So, what do you think? Acceptable? Racist? Ambiguous? Come on, man. You took the time to post something trivial--your characterization of my (i) personality as overly polite, (ii) size as little, and (iii) cognitive ability as very below average. So, why not give us your observation about an argument that one of your fellow Republicans made on this blog?
 
Thanks!

by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 5, 2012
Where is 25 years in the business? If he is a man then he can debate me on the facts, but he is to busy hiding behind his wife. I told him many times to provide proof, it's not that hard to do but it does take more energy than calling someone names.

As far as LARRY... ahem... PADOC, he always get mad towards the end of the month when his government money runs out.

TEXAN I know it really sucks that you can't vote for your boy Herman Cain in the primary. You should move to Iowa and now you are ready to put your money on Issa? I am going to give you a week to learn everything you can about Fast and Furious and then we can have a debate about it. after the general election it won't even matter anymore when the Democrats take back the house.

by TEXAN on February 5, 2012
 Rock,

Do you have any concept of logic whatsoever? Go after Lanny Breuer for what? All I can see is that he failed to notice a similarity between two programs. Incompetent perhaps, but hardly criminal. It certainly looks to me like his testimony was designed to deflect attention away from Holder. The two programs were similar but there are stark differences as well. Both were probably bad ideas, but it is not the programs that are the main issue right now. The main problem right now is Holder's apparent attempts to mislead and obstruct Congress. You keep trying to blame Bush for the mess Holder is in, but your links don't prove that.

As for me posting on another blog about you; I have never posted on the blog you referenced, but I have noticed it.

If you are refering to VG as a black man pointing out racism, I think you need to check his profile. It does not reflect that.


by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 5, 2012
Still talking about the ROCK I see...

Looks like the definition of bullies is to actually hold licenses and certifications -BANND

spoken like a true imposter!

by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 5, 2012
Resorting to insulting the wife in a blog January 31, 2012
There are a wide variety of opinions expressed on these blogs and things can get heated. But we would maintain that no matter how heated an exchange becomes that there is never any reason for a poster to comment on the looks of a party or more dramatically, that of their innocent spouse, due to a disagreement.

So let's take a poll..is it ok for a poster to insult the looks of a spouse when they disagree with the opinions of someone in the blogs?

What are the "things can get heated" statement all about, and where the fuck are all of these damn rules? Let me insult you 7 or 8 times and if you insult me, I am going to cry like a little baby and create this blog and make a bais poll because I failed to give all of the facts. Do you want your mommy? It's really to bad that you deleted all of the evidence that would prove your case, and you blocked me from your blog. I really, I mean really don't care... ROTFLMAO

by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 5, 2012
Anytime I call a person racist the usual suspects come out to call me a racist. I don't know how SENS can sit there with a straight face because he is usually the one beating the drums. Believe me they love to talk about race behind closed doors where only they and their racist friends can be heard. That is why they will not call out racism when whites do it. It is only racist when a minorities claim something to be racist.

The history here on SDC is this. They can do nothing but call people names because a majority of the time they are proven wrong. Usally when they are proven wrong they will not post for a couple of days waiting in hiding until they read something they can jump on. I have to say that there are only two profiles on here that you can have a conversation with. One would be CALLIE and the other would be WESEEK, but they will test the limits. The others SENS, PADOC, TEXAN and SAVCPL are lost causes.

Look how they run to another blog and post my comments on there instead of addressing them in the original blog where the words can be debate by me. FUCKING COWARDS!!!! You know they email each other words of encouragement... ISN'T THAT SWEET AWWWW

by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 5, 2012
Is this "Fast and Furious" probe like "Pull the Plug on Grandma?" Talk about repeating bullshit over and over again. Issa has had two years to prove his point and they got "nada." What's funny about the whole thing is that none of the haters had a problem with "Wide Receiver." The typical world of a conservative that revolves around hyprocricy. Kind of like they don't have a problem with racism, until a black says that's racist. How can you expect people to have a problem with beliefs they agree with?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3HROpXWoY0 

Issa should be going after Lanny Breuer and not Eric Holder. Have any of you even seen the hearings over the Fast and Furious? I doubt it...

by TEXAN on February 5, 2012
 VG,
You are beating a dead horse. You don't believe that my condemnation of what is now old news went far enough. I get that.

The Bush administration program that was similar to Fast and Furious was a separate and smaller program. It was carried out with the knowledge and cooperation of the Mexican government. It was ended because of "problems". On the other hand, The Obama administration program was a new program that bore some similarity to the former program. It apparently was on a larger scale and was conducted without the knowledge of the Mexican government. The program was a bad idea that was botched. It resulted in deaths. It also resulted in the resignation of some government officials. There were possibly some indictable offenses by government officials of high rank. There seems to be plenty of motivation for a coverup.

Congressman Issa seems to be giving Holder every opportunity to clarify his testimony and make it right. He wants truthful answers. So does Sen Cornyn. So do I.

by NIPPY6781 on February 5, 2012
Padoc.. I'm an observer :-). It's gas but I can guarantee y'all if Doubleque had made some lefty comments, the officer would have been first to crucify, condemn & insult him beyond belief. A scary amount of convervatives really do disappoint and worry us lowly Euros. Twill all end in tears I tell ya.

Oh. hold on. VG is gettin the full Padoc treament now. Never disappoints Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

So, anyone else care to explain why no conservative types have come forward to condemn Doubleques pathetic post?

by VG2000 on February 5, 2012
TEXAN, PADOC and SENS: Wow. I am both surprised and disappointed that you will not explicitly acknowledge the racism in an explicitly racist statement. Oh well. Sorry for that digression.

Regarding the Holder discussion, I think ROCKWELL's point is different than the one that you guys keep responding to. ROCKWELL is saying that there is no proof of a coverup at this point and also not even a motive, since it would have been a Bush administration mistake that was supposedly "covered up." The anti-Obama gang seems to be responding to that by focusing only on the motive part as if it were an excuse. It isn't. If Holder really was involved in some sort of improper coverup, then of course he should be blamed and perhaps should have to leave his job. Personally, I suspect that, in addition to being quite a bit brighter than Alberto Gonzalez, he is also quite a bit more ethical and would not get stuck in a pointless coverup and immediately resign if he did.


by PADOC on February 5, 2012
Mr Wizard, if you find US politics so unhealthy and tribal, why is it that you continue to comment upon them? You obviously have no stake in our process and thus can change nothing. I have to ask, just exactly where DO you vote? If you do vote somewhere, why aren't you commenting upon that process, one in which you may have an impact or where your opinions may actually have relevance? Seems kind of pointless for you to complain about a subject about which you have limited knowledge and zero influence. 

by TEXAN on February 5, 2012
 VG,

I am sorry that my condemnation of Doublique's post was not satisfactory. After taking another look, I found that the part in the parentheses was the most objectionable. The rest of it seemed to make a valid point. He hasn't made a post since, that I know of. I don't know if that is because he was blocked or if his was just a one time hit. The more objectionable part was found in the body of his profile and it is still there. I have admonished him on that as well (on this blog). I am not the sherriff of the blogs. I expressed an opinion that someone was out of bounds. I can't do much more than that. You seem to be making too much of an issue over my response to one in the post of someone we have never seen before.

by NIPPY6781 on February 5, 2012
Funny how none of the obvious conservatives here havn't stepped up to criticise Doubleques statement. This is one of the main reasons I find US politics unhealthy and bordering on tribal. Twill all end in tears I tell ya.

by BOCABABE on February 5, 2012

Callie, 

Please re-read my post.

Do you really believe the difference:

1. between biological and nuclear weapons is "splitting hairs:?
2. 
between attacking an innocent country and not is "splitting hairs?"
3. between 5,000 and zero Americans dying is "splitting hairs?"

thank you for apologizing for name calling :)

 

 

 

 


by BOCABABE on February 5, 2012

 

 

 

 

Please do not add any further name calling posts. It adds nothing to the discussion we are thinking that deleting these may result in people feeling less of a need to respond in kind. 

But we likely will keep Doublique's 
post as an example of the worst of the worst.  Among other things, we can't believe that anyone could hurl "European" as an insult, with a straight face! lol 

Please try not to continue to personally attack people, we understand people are passionate about these issues, but we are more interested in determining the root cause of our differences (not what the differences are).

We understand that Doubulique is not representative of the conservatives on this site, (thank God! lol) but understanding how conservatives come to these or similare conclusions is of interest to us. It can’t be a simple as being very good at memorizing the worst of fox news, yet unable to recall anything from high school history. Also, although he may indeed be racist, that also feels like an incomplete/ unsatisfying  answer.  

Thank you for participating without name calling


by CALLIE on February 5, 2012
Yeah Sport, I can agree with you.

Boca: Callie, There is so much wrong about what you wrote.

With all due respect Boca, there was nothing wrong with what I posted other than to prove you, and those who repeat the same party loyalty rhetoric, to be wrong on this issue, which you brought up and continue. I think Tex paraphrased what I said quite nicely and gentlemanly like as always.

If you want to split hairs on deflecting issues, feel free. I have a bad habit of sticking to the issue. Also, if you felt like I was attacking you personally, I was not.

I have however, learned how to use humor to be arrogantly smug from my good friend Nippy, who is always on the wrong side of every issue. However, he loves to create discord when he finds someone who he thinks is his intellectual inferior. In any event, he is only somewhat accurate at that. I do get insulted when he picks on my banjo playing. Heaven knows all us rednecks play a damn good banjo! I just can't beleive he likes a 4 string over some fast pickin 5 string.

However Nippy, Bush was commander and chief, but both the house and congress voted yes to go to war on the many issues other than wmd.

Nippy with friens and his going to town best wardrobe!
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

Your right Sens, set em up, I'm a byin!


by VG2000 on February 5, 2012
TEXAN: I understand why you don't want to condemn your fellow Texan's character just for making one statement.  Fair enough.  Believe, me.  I really do understand.  But can you agree with me that that statement crosses the because it is a racist statement?  Again, I'm not asking to draw any conclusions about his character only the statement that he made.

SENS and PADOC:  You two seem determined to ridicule and marginalize ROCK because he and you have a difference of opinion.  Why no venom for Doubulique for his racism and bigotry?  Or perhaps I missed it.  

Thanks guys.

by TEXAN on February 5, 2012
 It is clear that  there was a program under the Bush administration that was smaller and more controlled than this one, and which the Mexican government was cooperating with. There is nothing in anything you have linked that indicates that the guns found at Agetnt Terry's murder were from the Bush administration program. On the contrary. All of the evidence points to these guns being from the Obama administration program. You claim that Congressman Issa is lying, but in the link you provided and in the other videos I have found, he appears to be trying to give Holder every opportunity to redeem himself. Holder is the one who is saying things that are less than factual. I don't think that the operation will bring Holder down, but the coverup of the operation may.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 5, 2012
Darrell Issa is lying, and what do you have to say for that. 

TEXAN: You know the two guns found where let go before Obama, right? Why does Eric Holder need to lie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEZpKP_Cvs8 

by TEXAN on February 5, 2012
 My link has nothing to do with when those guns went across the border. It has to do with the Attorney General lying to Congress. That is the same thing Roger Clemmons was on trial for.

The story in your link is not new information to me. That program was done with the knowledge and cooperation of the Mexican government and was cancelled because it failed. The program within the Obama administration intentionally left the Mexican government out. There is nothing in your link that I saw which indicates that those guns went across during the Bush years.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 5, 2012
I do not know why conservatives continue to bring up the Fast and Furious when it has been proven that these guns were sold during the Bush Adminstration. Just more Republican shit Obama is cleaning up, and conservatives are trying to pin on him.

 

Documents Highlight
Bush-Era Incident
Pre-Dating
‘Fast and Furious’

Newly surfaced emails reveal problems going back to 2007 with the ATF office in Phoenix and guns ”walking” across the U.S.-Mexico border.

The emails about the Bush-era problems were given to Congress by the Justice Department as part of the congressional investigation into the ATF’s botched Obama-era firearms trafficking case, dubbed “Fast and Furious.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/new-documents-reveal-previous-problems-with-atf-phoenix-cases/ 

Darrell Issa is a douchebag!!!

http://youtu.be/tEZpKP_Cvs8


by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 5, 2012
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

Blacks vote over 80% democrat since the 60's and color has nothing to do with it. Those who continue to bring up this point about Obama and blacks are playing the race card. Now I know most of you are going to come back about blacks playing the race card, but you are missing the point. It's OK for whites to do it, but blacks who are actually effected by racism are criticized for doing the same thing.

by TEXAN on February 4, 2012
 Mr Holder, What did you know?

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S24YTsT_5VM&list=UUyQwLQavlOaJ64YuY_VMtiQ&index=2&feature=plcp 


It was not the Watergate burglary that brought down Nixon. It was the cover up of that burglary that did him in. Mr. Holder; Mr. Obama, take note.
.

by TEXAN on February 4, 2012
 VG,

The racist label has been inappropriately placed on so many conservatives for any opposition they may have against the policies of any member of any minority. Since I have been the target of such inappropriate use of that term, I am hesitant to use it to describe the behavior of someone else. I will just say that he crossed a and leave it at that.

by PADOC on February 4, 2012
I'm not surprised that when faced with a question or concept that requires more than a flippant remark, the Wizard of Nip reveals himself to be nothing more than a hallow vessel.

by VG2000 on February 4, 2012
TEXAN:  "Out of "?  Is that a polite way to say he is a racist?  Surely you agree that his statement was flatly racist, right?

By the way, I know this has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.  This is an unfortunate digression.

Thanks.

by TEXAN on February 4, 2012

VG,

While I agree with you that the part you under d is out of , I agree with the that follows where he asserts that Obama has no heritage in common with most American blacks other than skin color. Obama is not the decendant of slaves and he did not grow up in the inner city in a typical U.S. city.

Doublique,

I have been on these blogs for a while now and I have serious disagreements with many of those on here. I do occasionally use a term like Fleabagger or Obamabot, but for the most part, directly insulting and denegrating another SDC member is generally frowned upon here. Some of it does go on and is generally over looked, but to debut in the blogs with such vicious attacks will not likely gain you many points. I just had dinner with an SDC member with whom I have many political differences, and we had a very respectful and enjoyable evening.

Just keep in mind that being liberal loons does not make people monsters.


by VG2000 on February 4, 2012
TEXAN: First, can we both agree that this Doubulique chap is just a racist bigot that should (i) not be taken seriously by anyone and (ii) banned from posting on SDC?

Doubulique said:


(take out American blacks who fell for him hook, , and sinker and most of whom are too dumb to ever see their error in spite of the fact that Obama has NO heritage in common with American blacks except skin color, then take out the committed Left..)

(Emphasis added.)


Everything that I have seen from you on these boards suggests to me that we can at least agree that this type of bigotry should not be tolerated in a civilized discourse.

Regarding your (I'm sure rhetorical) question to me, I take your point about how many of us on the left can be quite vitriolic as well. However, I don't think that really gets to the point I was making about how misleading Bush was in leading us to war. There were lots of people who were critical of the Iraq War when it was getting started--in particular saying that he had not proven his WMD argument. And when you are proposing to engage in a war knowing that it would result in the butchering of thousands (it turned out to be hundreds of thousands) innocent people--many of them women and children--then the burden of proof should have been pretty high. Don't you think?

Thanks.

by NIPPY6781 on February 4, 2012
I just got off the phone to Callie. He was very excited. Apparently he's cheerleading at the Superbowl tomorrow directly after his banjo class. Gimme a U! Gimme an S!! Gimme an A!!...

Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by NIPPY6781 on February 4, 2012
Angry lad. If I had a dollar for every time you yelled something to the effect 'he hates the US' or 'He's anti-Amercain' etc etc, I'd be a rich Mick. I learned long time ago that debating with you is a waste of good energy.

Why not have a chat with Doubulique as I'm guessin he'll give you all the answers you want to hear. Then, when or if you ever calm down, I'll grant you the pleasure of a discussion.
I'd imagine that's probably "when hell freezes over" Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

Stay on those toes :-)


by PADOC on February 4, 2012
Nipshit, I really don't need you to keep me on my toes.  As for being predictable, your anti US crap is as predictable as your smug certainty that your wit overcomes your basic ignorance of anything that does not revolve around the venerable Wizard of Nip. I ask you again, please explain how you think that a nuclear armed Iran is a good thing for the US or the world? Also, would you please point out where I started screaming "he hates america"? I merely pointed out the obvious when I said referred to your thoughtless, kneejerk anti US bullshit. That hardly constitutes screaming unless the recipient of the remark is deep in his cups or is perhaps suffering from the DT's.  Bottoms up, old sod!

by NIPPY6781 on February 4, 2012
@Doubulique

I thought you were possibly joking with that rant but then I remembered we've got a scary amount of chest beater members with the same mentality.
Then I curiously read your profile ...

Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view


WTF!!!
   Are you for real??? To be fair though, can I just thank you by saying that you really do put all us pagan Europeans to shame and are a credit to your nation.




*oh holy sweet lamb of divine jaysuzzzzzzz*


by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 4, 2012
Holy Crap where do I begin. If unemployment falls below 8% this November. Then what will Romney's excuse be? Can't wait to hear that doosy. 23 months of private sector job creation 3 million jobs is not too bad in your first term when you where handed a recession. Bitch, cry, moan all you want but the numbers don't lie.

As far as Blacks falling in love with Obama hook and sinker. 80% of Blacks have voted Democrat for the last 50 years. Do you really think that was going to change once the guy was black. It's that same navie way of thinking when you thought Herman Cain had a chance. Are you F'N' kidding me? HERMAN CAIN....
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view LMAO

by NIPPY6781 on February 4, 2012
Ever predictable Angry Officer. I was wondering when you'd start screaming.."He hates America"...lol. I think most have learnred that debating with an arrogant embarrassment to his country like you is a futile exercise. We're all well aware of the drill. You talk, we talk, you shout, we talk, you insult, we talk...etc etc. You're not worth it. Too many suckers here get caught up in your poisonous net and waste far too much time accepting your insults and arrogance. I'll be keeping it brief :-)

Stay tuned big boy. I'll be here to keep you on your toes, nip your shit in the bud, remind you of your neanderthal political shortcomings and prevent your star spangled chest from bruising for the foreseeable future Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view


by TEXAN on February 4, 2012
 VG,
Do you mean much like Obama's dissenters and skeptics are ridiculed and marginalized?

by TEXAN on February 4, 2012
 Doubulique,

Quit holding back. Tell us how you REALLY feel.

by NIPPY6781 on February 4, 2012
Lmao....We've got us another live one!! Yeeeehawww!

by VG2000 on February 4, 2012
TEXAN: I think your point is well taken about whether Bush provably lied about WMD. It is not clear that he did based on your strict, although not altogether unreasonable, definition. It is only clear that he could not have cared less about whether there were WMD when he asserted that they were his primary justification for invading. The reason it is clear that he could not have cared less is that there were lots of reasons to believe that there were NOT WMD, but it is obvious now that those reasons were ignored, and most certainly not communicated to the American public other than by dissenters and skeptics who were ridiculed and marginalized by Bush and his followers. That might not make Bush a liar based on a very strict definition of the term, but it does make him no better than a slimy used car salesman--except way, way, WAY more dangerous.

by VG2000 on February 4, 2012
TEXAN: I think your point is well taken about whether Bush provably lied about WMD. It is not clear that he did based on your strict, although not altogether unreasonable, definition. It is only clear that he could not have cared less about whether there were WMD when he asserted that they were his primary justification for invading. The reason it is clear that he could not have cared less is that there were lots of reasons to believe that there were NOT WMD, but it is obvious now that those reasons were ignored, and most certainly not communicated to the American public other than by dissenters and skeptics who were ridiculed and marginalized by Bush and his followers. That might not make Bush a liar based on a very strict definition of the term, but it does make him no better than a slimy used car salesman--except way, way, WAY more dangerous.

by NIPPY6781 on February 4, 2012
Good Lad Padoc. Now that's more like the good ol' familiar arrogance we've become accustomed to.

by BOCABABE on February 4, 2012

Callie,

There is so much wrong about what you wrote.

While factual true many people believed (falsely) that Iraq had WMD. Only a select few believed:

o    Iraq received “52 metric tons of yellow cake uranium from Niger”

o    Iraq had “nuclear capabilities” or a “mushroom cloud was imminent”

o    Iraq was responsible for 9/11

o    Iraq was working with Al Queada

o    It was worth a war costing thousands of America lives and billions of dollars

o    That it was a 100% certainty

o    That we shouldn’t get some independent confirmation

Not “Everyone” believed Iraq was an imminent threat

o    Remember Hans Blix?                    

o    Remember how few NATO allies joined the coalition?

o    Remember how pissed Colin Powell was that he was used?

o    Remember Ambassador Joe Wilson?

o    Remember CIA George Tenet?

o    Remember the UN? 

You saying “that grieving families is not the issue” is wrong. The lies wouldn’t matter (as much) if they didn’t serve as justification for attacking the wrong country resulting in killing more Americans than the 9/11 terrorists.

This blog is supposed to be why some conservatives believe crazy things, now that you have used Fox’s talking points, I am sure you are out of “facts”, and now of three things will happen:

1.        You will attack us: call us names, question our intelligence, call us etc.

2.        Attack our sources as “liberal” (code for accurate)

3.        Dismiss our facts, “you can believe what you” state your beliefs/opinion as support for your position, or simply repeat your position, or provide more inaccurate or incomplete facts

I hope you agree that would be unproductive. Perhaps you could provide a perspective as to why you believe Fox News (as an example) and dismiss other sources as being liberal/ inaccurate? How did you come to the conclusion that many (not all) other sources are unreliable?


by PADOC on February 4, 2012
Nipshit, to paraphrase Ambassador Stephenson in 1962, "when hell freezes over"!

by NIPPY6781 on February 4, 2012
What a pile of irresponsible ignorant primitive bullshit. I wonder when the apology to both Iraq and the world will be put in writing.

by TEXAN on February 4, 2012
 It is quite clear to me that if you predict the future, and your prediction misses the mark, that is not a lie. In that regard, Obama was not lying when he said unemployment would not go above 8%, but he was definitely wrong.

It is also clear that when you base your decisions on the best info that you have, and you honestly believe what you say is true, it is not a lie even if it turns out to be wrong. For this reason, it can be concluded that Bush did not lie about WMD's. It can't even be concluded with absolute certainty that he was wrong about that. It is known that at one time Hussein did have the WMDs. And it is not known what ever became of them.

by SPORTFUCKINWIFE on February 4, 2012
Callie,

I think you would have to agree there is adifference between calling for regime change in Iraq and executing a full fledged invasion to make it happen.

Think of Libya, regime change was achieved, but no Americans lives and very little American money was spent on the endeavor.

The invasion of Iraq was a Neo-Con agenda item and would not have occurred under a Dem administration.

by NIPPY6781 on February 4, 2012
Paranoia, it's more American than apple pie. Methinks I'd be more concerned with people like Padoc close to a nuke switch than a Mullah.

by PADOC on February 4, 2012
Why, do you honestly believe that a nuclear Iran is a good thing for anybody? If the choice is allowing the Mullah's and Revolutionary Guards to have nukes or the US taking military action, I'm in favor of action! If the choice is allowing Iran to bottle up the Persian Gulf or taking military action, I'm in favor of action.  Sometimes, you have to do something distasteful or dangerous to prevent a big disaster.  Certainly, there are risks involved in confronting Iran on the Straits or on the nuke issue but clearly, not confronting them risks something catestrophic. Imagine a nuclear Iran and  Israel lobbing megatonnage back and forth across a huge percentage of the worlds oil reserve. Even if all they do is kill a bunch of Jews and Persians, the resulting economic fallout would be catastrophic to the entire world. If we can prevent that, shouldn't we? Even if we have to engage in another war? 

by NIPPY6781 on February 4, 2012
Boca...Callie obviously was at banjo class the day the memo arrived regarding who was Commander in charge the day Iraq was invaded.

by CALLIE on February 4, 2012

 Boca: A video showing that many people believed Bush's lies doesnt make the lies any less egregious and certainily is of no use to all the families still grieving.

Well Boca, nice of you to chime in and I didn't mean to confuse you with the facts of history. Besides, when looking at your wife, I forget what it is I'm talking about anyway!

 However, if you look at that video again ( I know it would be displeasing to you), you will notice that the Dems. believed in the wmd and that Saddam had to go, long before Bush became President. How about that? Kind of makes it hard to stick with that doesn't it? Not defending Bush, but pointing out history right from the source. It does kind of suck when some bodies own misleading accusations come back to bite them, even though it's what they want to believe.

So let me get this straight, if the Democrats said Saddam had wmd, it was great intuitive planning we could believe. When Bush and most of the world believed it, it was a lie and forget the Democrats beleived it too?

I can appreciate you grieving over families, however, that wasn't the issue. It was the issue of lies. Those lies, as you put it,  came out of the mouths of the  never wrong Democrats, who don't give out bad information? I for one, felt there was nothing wrong in the wmd belief. Both parties believed in the wmd, as Saddam had everyone, including his own generals, convinced he had them and would use them. However, isn't it peculiar that both said it, but when Saddams lie wasn't true, one side calls the other a liar and people believe it and repeat it? Sort of like conveniently forgetting or incapable of understanding facts, just to make a point. Isn't that zombie like?

How about those gas prices? I for one am so happy we are told it's a wonderful thing now. Just shows the great energy policy we have. However, if it was Bush's fault, as made clear by the Democrats, shouldn't Bush get the credit for the high prices now? Like food stamps and high unemployment, wouldn't high gas prices be good for the economy too? Thanks to Bush? Ok, now I confused myself.

I do beleive that we developed language because of our deep inner need to complain.

Hope you all have a great Saturday.
 


by BANDBEA on February 4, 2012
The Amino Acids are something entirely different to the Subgenius....


Cheers
Bill....

"Without 'Frop I would go mad with ambition. I would beat my wife and kids. I believe in Salvation through 'Frop. If I 'Frop, it is so that others may live."
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs


by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 4, 2012
If everybody lies... is like me saying everyone does drugs? Everybody doesn't lie and everybody doesn't do drugs. Just becuase you may be wrong about something doesn't make you a liar.

President Obama said if Congress passed the economic stimulus bill, "we would have unemployment at 8 percent and no higher. And it went higher." -George Will Fox News Pundit


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/13/george-will/will-obama-said-stimulus-would-cap-unemployment-8-/ 


by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 4, 2012
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by NIPPY6781 on February 4, 2012
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 4, 2012
It's funny how profiles accuse people of voting in certain blogs. Is that like complaining about people deleting comments while you delete comments in your own blog. I love how people connect to those who live by a different set of rules they expect everyone esle to follow.

"cheerio"

by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 4, 2012
I love when people create blogs in my honnor, of course you will never see me try to drum up support this way. I swear it's hillarious to see certain people criticize insults in general no matter who it is directed too. I want to apologize to all of the other wives and girlfriends I didn't insult on SDC for my comments. I hope you realize that some are taking my comments out of context to excuse their bahavior. Sometimes you can only deal with a certain class of people a certain way. I make no apologizes to standing up to the real bullies here on SDC.

Getting back to politics, it must feel awesome to know that you went and cast a vote for a repeated liar.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46260255#46260255 

Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view 



by NIPPY6781 on February 4, 2012
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by TEXAN on February 4, 2012
 Now you are beginning to sound like Rush (who happens to be right about this). Many conservatives believe that Obama is bypassing Congress and the Constitution on many issues, and I agree. In this instance, I believe that it was input from more than the executive that went into the decision.

I don't know about 45% zombies, but a significant number are Obamabots.

by BOCABABE on February 4, 2012
Callie, 

A video showing that many people believed Bush's lies doesnt make the lies any less egregious and certainily is of no use to all the families still grieving.  





by TEXAN on February 3, 2012
 What irony! Padoc and I are defending Obama, and the Obamabots are condemning him.

by PADOC on February 3, 2012
I'll be damned if I'll condemn the President for acting Presidential once in awhile.  He took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the US and ordering an attack against a country, a group, or an enemy combatant (no matter what his citizenship) who represents a threat, is in keeping with that oath. The guy wasn't killed in the US. Had he been, there may have some issue about due process or constitutional rights but instead, he was in a hostile portion of a foerign country and made it clear that he planned to continue to make war on the United States.  I seldom say this, but Mr Obama was right in this case.

by TEXAN on February 3, 2012
 I don't often defend anything that Obama does, but that "American citizen" was determined by competent authority to be an enemy combatant. If you take up arms against this country, and then seek refuge in a hostile foreign land, all the while posing a continuing threat to this country, I don't give a fuck what your citizenship is. You are to be hunted down and targeted like any other ememy combatant.

by NIPPY6781 on February 3, 2012
"Anyone who still brings up the Bush lied about the Iraq war or wmd, must get tired of chasing their own tail!'


Yeah, cant we all just brush that liitle affair under the carpet please and conveniently pretend it didnt happen Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view. Newsflash!! The fallout from the invasion of Iraq has only just begun. Everyone who thought that whole charade a good idea should be reminded every single day of their lives so that it never happens again....just sayin

Callie, please return soon and patronise Boca and anyone else who touches your delicate political nerve Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by CALLIE on February 3, 2012
Oh please, anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that Boca, is either a great satire humorist, or is for sure blinded by the good side bad side paradoxical conundrum.

Anyone who still brings up the Bush lied about the Iraq war or wmd, must get tired of chasing their own tail! Get it?????? Well, I thought it was pretty funny.

Been so busy I haven't had time to participate and I am sure some are happy about that. I made one post quite awhile ago and this blog has caught fire ever since.

However, let me ease your mind on this issue and legitimacy of this blog once again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

Further hypocrisy that will make your eyes roll or make you mind work harder to come up with further excuses to stay loyal to Bush gas prices bad, Obama high gas prices good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdScVerrBU

But I admit, Boca, your showing you do have a good sense of humor. I am prepared for the trip over the tongue and flimsy reprisals that will follow. However, my beliefs are good and all that disagree are bad and inconceivable to me. But I do have an open mind and can back it with great comedians from which I intelligently get all my iformation from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4

Ok, back to work for this guy.

by NICOLEANDJON on February 3, 2012
 Not TOO polarized, are you? You belong in the "Democrat - Good, Republican - bad" club. We are registered independent. And tired of all the hate by both parties.

by BOCABABE on February 3, 2012
Weseek, 

this is for you... but we are sure you'll say is it all fabrications.... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE2SdF1fN4s 

It is very old, but still resonates.. very sad 





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZTpLvsYYHw  (not important, but listen to the words)
 

by BANDBEA on February 3, 2012

Another blog gave what I think might be a better example of the difference of perception between conservatives and liberals.


Here are the two links….

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-31-2012/indecision-2012---bain-man

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/14/was-romneysturnaround-ofdade-a-triumph-or-a-smoking-gun/

 

The forbes article was a bit more objective, in the sense that they put out the information in a way for the reader to decide personal ethics, as opposed to the Daily Show which, well, it's the Daily Show :)

 

 Senshuus said:

 

"Many times comedy/satire falls short of the whole story just to keep it funny. At the same time, bias op/ed commentators fall short for their own reasons too."

 

Did you feel the same way about the last set of links you put up in this blog?

 

Did you feel that Jon Stewart left something out of the story? or embellished something he found negative more than you felt necessary?  The way I perceived the Daily Show segment as opposed to the Forbes article was that Forbes didn't make a moral judgment... Forbes basically said Romney dealt with it like a Type A or B manager.

My next question would be, by your own standards of ethics/morality do you feel that what Bain did to Dade was righteous?  Or do you accept it as business as usual?

 

 

Cheers

Bill….

 

"Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them"

Dalai Lama


by BOCABABE on February 3, 2012
Weseek,

if you call Obama a liar after one mistake, we would likely shutter at mountain of the four letter words you would hurl at bush for lying repeatedly about serious issues like WMD's resulting in   5,000 americans dead.

 "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush issued this triumphant remark in late May 2003, while being interviewed by a Polish television reporter. He was referring to two tractor-trailers obtained by U.S. forces in Iraq. The CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded these vehicles were mobile bio-weapons plants. Yet they had found not a trace of biological agents on either. (And no bio-weapon facility could be scrubbed completely clean.) In subsequent weeks, it turned out that State Department analysts and even DIA engineering experts—as well as outside experts—did not accept the CIA and DIA conclusion, and some of these doubters believed the explanation of Iraqis who claimed the trucks were built to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. Whichever side might be ultimately right about the trailers, this all-important piece of evidence was hotly contested. It was hardly solid enough to support Bush’s we-found-them declaration or to justify a war. 

 "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." These two Bush remarks go hand in hand, even though the first was said on March 17, 2003, two days before Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, and the other came during a November 7, 2002, press conference. Together they represented his argument for war: Hussein possessed actual weapons of mass destruction and at any moment could hand them to his supposed partners in al Qaeda. That is why Hussein was an immediate threat to the United States and had to be taken out quickly. But neither of these assertions were truthful. There has been much media debate over all this. But the postwar statements of Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of the CIA, provide the most compelling proof. He has been conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, and he has told reporters that the intelligence on Hussein’s WMDs was full of caveats and qualifiers and based mostly on inferential or circumstantial evidence. In other words, it was not no-doubt material. He also has said that prewar intelligence reports did not contain evidence of links between Hussein and al Qaeda. The best information to date indicates that the prewar intelligence did not leave "no doubt" about WMDs and did not support Bush’s claim that Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda. Bush’s primary reason for war was founded on falsehoods

"This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research." That was what Bush said during an August 9, 2001, speech, announcing his decision to permit the federal funding of stem cell research that only used stem cells s that existed before his speech. Bush was presenting his policy as a Solomon-like compromise. Religious right leaders and the Catholic Church were opposed to all stem cell research because it uses cells extracted from five-day old blastocysts (or embryos) in a process that destroys the embryos. (These embryos usually are leftovers created by in vitro fertilization at fertility cli

by BOCABABE on February 3, 2012

 

Sens! 

Thanks for bringing some humor to the debate, youre imagination is amazing! Didn’t know you had it in ya! We laughed out loud at nearly every one. thx


by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 3, 2012
Reagan's Greatest achievements...

Reagan backed taking your guns away from you

Why I'm for the Brady Billhttp://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html 

Reagan believe in a path to citizenship

Twenty-Five Years After Reagan's 'Amnesty' Bill
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/07/twenty-five-years-after-reagans-amnesty-bill-conservatives-should-support/ 

Reagan like rasing taxes

Ronald Reagan's Legacy Clouds Tax Recordhttp://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record 


by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 3, 2012
"There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it" - Donald Rumsfield

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs&feature=related 

This is how narrow the conversation for Republicans has become, because the debate for them is whether or not Obama was truthful about oil production. What point are you trying to make when you continue to believe those who have lie to you for monetary gain. My question to those who believe Obama is lying, WHY DOES HE NEED TO LIE?

by WONDERING454 on February 2, 2012
Lets be honest, Obama only does what he feels will get him re-elected. Rush and Orielly and they only say what will get them listerners. Does aybody really think that this president or the last one really cares about doing the right thing? Does anybody think that the talk show hosts regardless of Dem or Rep really care about what is best for the country or what is going to get them rating and more cash. i dont blame anyof them that is there job do what ever it takes to make more money, isnt that why we all work?

Why is it that anybody would spend 100 of millions of dollars for a Job that pays so little?
President Salary $400,000
Congress Salary $174,000 Average
Senator $194,000

Because they are all crooks they have there best intersts in mind not ours. 

I dont like Obama and it scare the hell out of me that we will have him for another 4 years but the Rep. canidates are not any better. If you think about this country has  not had a true leader in many years. I liked Clinton he was a good president but not a true leader. My Opinion Reagan was the last true leader a good President not a great one,but a true leader.

by TEXAN on February 2, 2012
 Democrats keep telling us that drilling would not help our current energy problem because it takes ten years to develop new sources of oil. If oil production is increasing, could it be from sources that we started developing a few years ago? (Like maybe around 2003?) I'm trying to blame Bush here.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 2, 2012
Goldman Sachs has estimated the U.S. could move from being the No. 3 oil producer behind Saudi Arabia and Russia to the No. 1 spot by 2017.

http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/N-American-oil-output-could-top-40-year-old-peak-2193837.php 

U.S. Oil Production To Speed Up, Obama Announces>>> 05/14/11 05:02 PM ET<<<  Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view 

WASHINGTON — Amid growing public unhappiness over gas prices, President Barack Obama is directing his administration to ramp up U.S. oil production by extending existing leases in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska's coast and holding more frequent lease sales in a federal petroleum reserve in Alaska. But the moves won't calm spiraling prices at the pump any time soon. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/14/us-oil-production-to-obama_n_861962.html 


by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 2, 2012
How long does it take Mitt Romney to lie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wysQFI3jlsY 

by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 2, 2012

The NFL Commissioner: Roger GoodellExplicit image available, join sdc.com to view 
"It is a form of socialism. And it's worked quite well for us. So we try to combine socialism and capitalism. How can we socialize by sharing our revenue in a way that will allow every team the ability to compete." -Roger Goodell

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57367998/the-nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell/ 

Well the business this guy runs says that socialism works and they have affirmative action too...
 Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view Go Figure?


by BOCABABE on February 2, 2012
Sens, 

Is this your best example? I suppose you are technically correct, but in context of the sentence before, I think you can see that perhaps it was perhaps a unintended mistake, doubtless a premediated lie.  Agreed?

"Now, in the short term, we still need to do everything we can to encourage safe and responsible oil production here at home.  In fact, last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003.  So I want everybody to remember that if people ask -- because sometimes I get letters from constituencies saying, why aren’t we just drilling more here?  We’re actually producing more oil here than ever.  But the challenge is we’ve only got about 2 to 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world’s oil.  So we can’t just drill our way out of the problem."  

Also, the chart, presented with the speech, clearly states "since 2003"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/06/president-jobs-gas-prices-read-his-remarks-download-graphic 


by BOCABABE on February 2, 2012
WESEEK, 

We are confused. You wanted to give me an example of where he lied but you provide two tables that show that 2010 oil production was at its highest level since 2003??? Which, according to you, is what he said. Did we misread something?? 

Here is the part of your post that was cropped. 

"On 3/11/11 President Obama said, and he would be correct on this particular statement.

"Last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. Let me repeat that. Our oil production reached its highest level in seven years. Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high. For the first time in more than a decade, imports accounted for less than half of what we consumed. So any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn’t match up with reality,"

the Energy Information Administration, the federal government’s official office for energy statistics. Since Obama said "oil production," we will only look at oil removed from U.S. territory, rather than natural gas or other petroleum products.

Here are the annual totals, in barrels produced, going back to 2003:

2003: 2,073,453,000
2004: 1,983,302,000
2005: 1,890,106,000
2006: 1,862,259,000
by STONEMANE on February 2, 2012
I posted the link because I was lazy. I skimmed it & found many things I agreed with so I threw it out there when I should have just typed some examples. I wont make that mistake again although I have seen links to biased blogs on here before.

Besides being a rabid Fox News & Rush fan, I also watch MSNBC (in small doses), the network news, and watch great liberal thinkers like Jon Stewart & Bill Maher. Point is, I formulate my opinions my from several avenues, not just baised blogs.

by BOCABABE on February 2, 2012
Sens, 

"There are so many lies that are told from both sides and many by Obama himself."  

Can you please provide some examples? 

Thank you

by VG2000 on February 2, 2012
STONE said:

I ha
ve a question for the liberals/progressives: Why do you CARE if some of us think he is a socialist? If we are gullible, have low IQ, and are easily swayed by propaganda then why try to understand us? Just dismiss us.


I think that BOCABABE was just trying to get a better understanding of where people who think like you are coming from. And you kindly obliged with a link that explained your view. Then BB and others questioned the information in the link you provided and here we are. So far, I think this has been a sort of classic ar dialectic although maybe we hit a sort of dead end.

Anyway, in answer to your question, I hope that I never give up on trying to improve the state of our union. I think this dialectic process is one important way to get that done. Sometimes I adjust my view. Sometimes others adjust theirs. Sometimes both adjust.  Either way, there is real dignity in participating in the process and I think it is great that you decided to do so.

by NIPPY6781 on February 2, 2012
Edit...

"Why do you CARE if some of us think he is a socialist?"..... Its almost if you think the term socialist is an insult, rather than a label."



As an outsider looking in, here's the way I see it. Most of those righties who like to label him a socialist are the same ones who want it to be taken as an insult. I see the same haters wheel out the same label regularly playing it like it's their trump card insult.

It seems to me that they "care" every bit as much about what the lefties think as the righties do about what they think. It's the good ol' unhealthy 'us versus them' politics. It's bound to end in tears I tell ya!

by BOCABABE on February 2, 2012
WBP,

Perhaps we have a different definition of "evidence".  We don't think someone's opinion is "evidence" whether they be democrat or republican.  

Cheers

by WPBCOUPLE6865 on February 2, 2012
Your question was:

"Why do (some/many, not all) conservatives believe some crazy things (e.g., Obama is a terrorist, Marxist, socialist, fascist, Maoist, racist, Muslim, Kenyan, anti-capitalist, alien, liar, the anti-Christ, a cactus, anti-business, an idiot, anti-work, anti-border control, anti-defense, anti-rich, anti-American, etc.) with absolutely no evidence other than Rush or O'Reilly or a blogger (Drudge et al) or a chain email said they know someone who knows someone who knows someone that… (e.g., saw Barack in a Mosque or beheading babies)...?"

Answer:

I have plenty of evidence directly from people in business.  Have you listened to a Wynn Resorts conference call lately?  Steve Wynn, who is a Democrat, who has supported Democrats including Harry Reid for decades (repeat: decades) can give you a list.

Don't like that evidence?  Call me anytime and I'll go through many industries that are being regulated out of existence.  Student loan servicing for example.  Everyone is out of business.  There were thousands upon thousands employees in the industry.  What another one? Farming here in the USA.  The Administration has made the documentation/regulation requirements so onerous that growers no longer bring in workers thru the H-2B Temporary Work Visa Program.  Growers have tried to hire Americans, but they don't last 2 days doing the work.  So as a result, the produce doesn't get picked.  The Farmers are literally plowing their crop into the ground, waiting for next year/next administration and not bringing it to market.  Of course, this contributes to food price inflation which every American sees in their grocery bill.

I'm a 20 year Investment Analyst who has worked for some of the largest Hedge Funds in the world.  I'm a flexible thinker in that I can make money by being both long and short stocks.  My long-term record is within the top 1% of all investment managers worldwide.

You may have a different opinion, which you are completely entitled to, but please don't again say that critics have "absolutely no evidence".  I have excellent contacts into huge Obama supporters from Chicago who can't believe how anti-business he is.  These are people who were early supporters.  They are billionaires.  You'd recognize their name and business instantly.  Let me guess, they formed their opinion by listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading a chain email too.

Now I don't care if you support Obama and I really don't enjoy arguments like this.  I have family and friends who support him.  We disagree.  Good friends and family relationships don't dwell on any of this.

Care for a drink sometime?  Perhaps we can talk about another non-controversial topic ..... like religion!  Seriously, we hope to meet you one day and hope you can be as open-minded in partying with a conservative, as we can be in partying with a liberal.

Enjoy your day.  




by STONEMANE on February 2, 2012
I have a question for the liberals/progressives: Why do you CARE if some of us think he is a socialist? If we are gullible, have low IQ, and are easily swayed by propoganda then why try to understand us? Just dismiss us.

Its almost if you think the term socialist is an insult, rather than a label. And I get this feeling that this blog was never really about trying to understand anything but rather just to reinforce what you already believe - something both sides do too much.

by VG2000 on February 2, 2012
ROCK said:

Here is my rule, don't insult me! When you learn to follow my rules then I will follow your rules. 

Translation:  "If you insult me then I will insult your wife."

Observation: Concocting arbitrary "rules" and then enforcing them using any means necessary is really just bullying.

by PADOC on February 2, 2012
I agree with Bandd on this point.  Most Americans are center to slightly center right. The hard rs on either end of the spectrum and in the media do not reflect the mainstream but they do accrue viewers (Matthews/Beck).

Rockforbrains, your lame excuses for crass and classless behavior do not justify it. You are a coward, a fool and a reflection of some piss poor parenting. Maybe while you're spending someone elses money, you could go and purchase some good sense and perhaps a personality.....oh, and a few spelling lessons too!



by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 2, 2012
Here is my rule, don't insult me! When you learn to follow my rules then I will follow your rules. You don't like that I attack your profile then don't attack my profile. Could it not be more simpler then that. I care as much for you as you do for me. If your wife doesn't like what I have to say and she sits there while you post insult after insult... TOO BAD!

Instead of having you take down her pictures maybe she should have you take down your rude commets. Aren't you a couple? Don't you represent each other? I am giving profiles on here fair warning. If you don't want me to insult your profile then don't insult my profile. I play by my own rules...

The fact that you can't let it go, and need to create a blog to gain sympathy from other profiles only shows one thing, that I am...  

Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view  Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view 

If you can't respect my wishes then don't expect me to respect yours... ENOUGH SAID!



by VG2000 on February 1, 2012
Very interesting insights, JUSTSAYIN.  There must be a lot of people like you who favor conservative fiscal policies and liberal social policies and are, therefore, frustrated with the orthodoxy of both major parties.  

I also think it is interesting how in your opening two sentences you concede that "socialism" is really ubiquitous anyway in Western Civilized countries.  It is just a question of degree.

by VG2000 on February 1, 2012
Funny how that WND (formerly "WorldNetDaily.com"--yikes!) article never mentions any policy that Obama actually enacted. Hint: Whenever you see a commentator attacks someone's intentions, as opposed to their ideas or policies, it is probably because they don't have anything persuasive to talk about.

This is from the last paragraph of the article:

Private property, the accumulation of personal prosperity and individual achievement are anathema to socialism. Socialism sees the individual as nothing more than a cog in a government-run machine designed to ensure equity for all.

So, that Obama has never advanced, much less enacted, any policies that prevent private property, accumulation of personal prosperity or personal achievement must then be pretty strong evidence that he is not a socialist. No?


by BOCABABE on February 1, 2012

Stonemane,  

Thank you for your post. Your link is a perfect example of what we are talking about. We  think you might be kidding that this blogger’s article is why you or any other person concluded that Obama is a Socialist.  

Perhaps we missed your sarcasm, but we think this article (full of half-truths, lies, innuendo, and utter nonsense) is why you think Barack is a Socialist. 

Example 1: The Socialist Party USA calls for the “unconditional disarmament” by the United States. Obama has promised to dramatically reduce defense spending.

 

Unconditional disarmament and reducing defense spending 1.6% are not remotely related.

by VG2000 on February 1, 2012

ROCKSTEADY is right about ACORN. I did volunteer work for them in Miami in the mid 80s. I helped to raise some money for them and they used it to lobby the county to build public housing in Northwest Miami-Dade. A really great group of people operating on a shoestring and making no money at all for themselves aside from subsistence.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 1, 2012
Do you mean Obama worked for Acorn? Let me remind you that Acorn was around way before Obama worked there. Acorn was defunded after 40 years of helping low income families, because of a lie. Where is that guy, he should be in jail. I know you know his name,

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/o2012-two-term-fund?source=20120201_BO_FB&utm_medium=fb&utm_source=bo_fb&utm_campaign=20120201_bo_fb_two_term_fund

by STONEMANE on February 1, 2012
That is why I used the term "much" and not "all".

by STONEMANE on February 1, 2012
In your long list of "crazy things", the only things I believe about our President is that he is a socialist and therefore somewhat anti-capitalist. I think if he had more of his own party in Congress then we would see more Western European type reforms. Im not saying there is anything wrong with Socialist tenets, it is just not my cup of tea.

I know he is an American, very intelligent, and very charismatic. And even though I didnt vote for him, he is still MY President and our Commander in Chief. I could care less about his religion, but he claims to be a Christian and that is fine for me.

Why is Obama a socialist? The link below sums up much of what I believe. Yes, it comes from a conservative source, but most of what we read has some type of bias.

http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/78330/

by BOCABABE on February 1, 2012
We deleted some unproductive older posts that resorted to name calling, in an effort to free more space for newer posts. Sorry if we deleted yours!

Also if this blog offends, we aplogize and undestand your POV.

We were hoping for a different kind of poltical discourse, getting to the root cause, not the old liberal vs conservative, but rather, greater understanding of why it seems that some/ many (not all) conservatives (of which we are somewhat algined with the traditional fiscal kind) are seemingly more concerned with the source of the data rather than the actual data and seemingly discount all information not provided by a fellow conservative as "liberal bias". 

by BANDBEA on February 1, 2012
Weseek said:

"I think I get it now


the opposite of dumbass is smartass"


Give this man a cigar :)


Cheers
Bill....

How many people here have telekenetic powers? Raise my hand

Emo Philips


by BANDBEA on February 1, 2012
Weseek asked:

"So perhaps you can help SAV and the rest of the world, Is female ejaculation real or not?"

In the past I have ejaculated and generated a female.. However there is no documentation to prove an occurance of females just being ejaculated.... Hope that clears it up for you...


Cheers
Bill....

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

Mark Twain


by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 1, 2012
Marxist by definition... Geezzz see what I mean! In no way am I saying that Honest Abe followed the writings of Karl Marx, but his policies were in with them.

Your judgement of Obama has to do with the policies you believe are Marxist. Do you know if he follows the writings of Karl Marx? 

by TEXAN on February 1, 2012
 I think it is unlikely that the first Republican President was a Marxist. Karl Marx was only 42 (almost 43) when the first Repubublican President took office, and he only wrote the Communist Manifesto a little more than a decade prior to that. The terms Marxism, socialism and communism are often used interchangeably, although they are not exactly alike, A Marxist is simply a person who adheres to the writings and philosophy of Karl (not Groucho) Marx. Communism is a type socialist philosophy laid out by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels in the Communist Manisto.

I think it is strange that the article in that link would offer up Larry the Cable Guy as an example of a "dumb conservative redneck". You don't do comedy that well if you are stupid. That goes for any of them Ron White, Chris Rock, Rodney Dangerfield, Eddie Murphy. Thes guys all have to have (Past tense for Rodney) some smarts because stupid guys can't be successful comedialns.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 1, 2012
what would be a suitable source of information that would not be that of a "dumbass"?"

Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view  Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view 

by ROCKSTEADY69 on February 1, 2012
I guess the first Republican President was a Marxist too. That's what "wanna be" conservatives do, they label terms as evil and everyone hops along for the ride without even understanding what the term really means. If you speak to a person who throws these terms out like garbage because that is basically what they are saying. You will see many of them don't understand the difference between Marxist, Socialist, Communist, etc.

That seems to be the problem with most of the "wanna be's". When you fracture their sence of reality, they get defensive like a fourth grader and start name dropping. They find it hard to explain themselves because many of them don't conprehend the meaning of what they say or what they represent. I can not say real conservatives are like this because I know many that are friends. You have to ask yourself how one could consider themselves a conservative on a swingers site? What are the traditional values they are holding on too?

by GRINGONLATINA on February 1, 2012
Maybe this explains a little?

http://blog.timesunion.com/hottopics/low-iq-behind-some-conservative-beliefs/7498/#.TyQdZ_npPWE.facebook



by BANDBEA on February 1, 2012
Weseek asked:

"if the conservatives of the country are "dumbasses" with some part of that logic pointing to the source, and justification, of information, what would be a suitable source of information that would not be that of a "dumbass"?"

I've been right here all along.... a simple Q and A session will fix everything..... Just try not to be too uncomfortable with the truth.... (I suppose everyone can say the same thing though)


Cheers
Bill....

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." 
John Keats


by WYLDNXTC on January 31, 2012
"I personally think that some of the assertions about Obama are crazy. The birther issue, for example...."

Thank you, Tex. Although the rest of your post kinda lost me..lol...at least you can even admit some of the bullshit flyin' around out there about Obama are completely ludicrous.
 

by TEXAN on January 31, 2012
I am glad to see that Rock is not engaging in "sophomoric/unproductive name calling". 

It is obvious that people trust different sources of information. I personally think that some of the assertions about Obama are crazy. The birther issue, for example. But when a crazy issue like this comes up, it needs to be addressed. By ignoring issues like these, Obama is giving them an appearance of credibility they probably don't deserve. Such is the case right now with his college records. Some questions have been raised which may just be crazy talk. But by refusing to address the questions, Obama is giving them credibility by making people wonder what he has to hide.

While some of the assertions about Obama may be crazy, others are based on things that are easily observable. These would be things like his ineptness and his Marxist tendencies. I have heard the term "fact based" used on this blog. The fact is that some people don't trust my sources of facts and I don't trust some peoples sources of facts.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on January 31, 2012
WYLD - They have a pack like mentality and can not function on a one on one basis. They feed off of each others anger and blame everyone else for their problems but themselves. You will never get a straight answer because they don't know the answer. They make it up as they go along!

by WYLDNXTC on January 31, 2012
Actually, Badd, I've been watching this blog wanting to know the same answers as Bo does. I haven't seen one legitimate answer yet. Go figure. 

Call it biased or whatever it is you want to call it. Fact is you're blowin' off the question to avoid answering legitimately.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on January 31, 2012
The problem with most "dumbasses" is that they not only think they know everything but they know what is best for everyone. They talk about liberty for themselves but not for anyone else. Half of them are liars because they are a custom to being lied too. You will know in minutes that you are talking to a misinformed "dumbass". They promote opinions as facts and ignore facts as the truth.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on January 31, 2012
The problem with most conservatives is that they not only think they know everything but they know what is best for everyone. They talk about liberty for themselves but not for anyone else. Half of them are liars because they are a custom to being lied too. You will know in minutes that you are talking to a misinformed conservative. They promote opinions as facts and ignore facts as the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM 

by WYLDNXTC on January 31, 2012
"typical response of a weak mind...nothing in my post was "an attack"...."

Hate to point this out to ya, Badd, but the first part of this sentence most certainly can be defined as "attacking." 

I love how you Pubbies "evade" perfectly honest questions when you have no legitimate answers....Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by TEXAN on January 31, 2012
 B and D does have a point. I got into this blog early on and it was much like walking into an ambush.

by BOCABABE on January 31, 2012
VS, appreciate your comments, but we were trying to stay away from comparing/contrasting liberals and conservatives. People are entrenched (on both sides), and trying to get ppl to change their minds is (in our opinion) friutless and typically results in name calling, anger, irrationality, personal attacks and any hope of seeing things from the other's perspective is lost.

our question was entirely about some (not all) conservatives.  Debating the merits of liberal vs. conservative (we believe) is unproductive. Conservatives seem to reject certain information unless presented from a source they trust (for example Rush, Fox, Beck) and anything else is "liberal" and therefore (in their mind) wrong. Facts/Science/opposing viewpoints often quickly rejected. Our question was - why is the source (rather than other things) is seemingly so important to many conservatives.




by WYLDNXTC on January 31, 2012
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

"Well that is true, making Obama a one-term President is my single most important political goal along with every active Republican in the country."

Does this answer your questions, Bo? Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by BOCABABE on January 31, 2012
BANDD2, 

Everyone of your assumptions/inconclusions are incorrect.  And that is exactly what we wanted to avoid - personal attacks.  

If you can't help us answer the question, I understand. 

by VG2000 on January 31, 2012
CALLIE: I am wondering what "MSNBC" has said about one or another conservative that you think was unfair.

Also, I think this business of comparing MSNBC to Fox News is not accurate. MSNBC's prime time up is certainly left of center, but that is not true of the network otherwise. Fox News, on the other hand, is all right-wing all the time. Their supposedly straight ("fair and balanced") news programs are consistently laced with Republican propaganda.  MSNBC, again other than the opinion programs at night, plays it pretty straight down the middle.  

Also, what does Fox News have to compare to Morning Joe?

by BOCABABE on January 31, 2012
Callie, 

I was looking for a serious answer, not a cop out like liberals do the same thing. But thanks for your participation.  :)

by CALLIE on January 31, 2012
You know, the answer to this blogs questions can be answered as simply as:

Why do liberals believe everything they read about conservatives from email chains, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, MSNBC, NBC and my new personal favorite, Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

When it comes to attempted and obnoxious character assassinations, liberals are king.

Oh, sorry, I broke a rule, using common sense and facts never goes over well in these sort of blogs.

However, the entertainment value of a persons mind or lack of is incalculable. I for one am thankful we can all entertain each other, besides just having perverted sex.


by VG2000 on January 31, 2012
BARBIE:  Here is the first and last sentences of the opening paragraph of how Miami-Mensa describes itself:

Mensa is an international organization that has only one requirement for membership -- an IQ (on a standard test) in the top two percent nationally. . . . Most are interested in a vast range of subject matter, but all are interesting.

In other words, "we are objectively superior and always interesting."  IMHO "smug" is a charitable description of what Mensa thinks of itself.  

Also, are you sure the comparison to swing clubs such as SDC is apt?  You might make that comparison with certain "looksist" sub-cultures or exclusive socities within SDC, but certainly not SDC or other similar venues.

by CALLIE on January 31, 2012
 LOL@ Barbie!

by TEXAN on January 31, 2012
 I wonder if those dissenters take turns showing up on blogs they don't appreove of. When I look at the blog list, I often see blogs that I don't think I would be interested in. So I don't even look at them. I can name several long standing blogs that I have never been on. I guess there are just some people who would be miserable if they didn't have something to bitch about.

by BANDBEA on January 31, 2012
Sport said:

"Now, sure, Budweiser is owned by a foreign country, but does anybody thing of Bud as an "not American" or "foreign?"

Actually................. Budweiser or Budvar is from Czecheslovakia originally and was first imported into the U.S during the 1800's... and I have to say the Czech version is monumentally superior to the American version.... (I seriously doubt if Obama requested the Czech version by the way)

Not trying to take away from your post... I just loves me some beer...


Cheers
Bill....

"Relax, don't worry."
Charlie Papazian


by SPORTFUCKINWIFE on January 31, 2012
Remember when Fox news criticized President Obama for drinking Budweiser at the Beer Summit?

Their morning crew actually thought it was important to point out that "Budweiser," the beer the President had chosen was "not American" and questioned why he would have chosen it.

Now, sure, Budweiser is owned by a foreign country, but does anybody thing of Bud as an "not American" or "foreign?"

It's little examples like this one that let you see the almost fanatical mindset of the Fox News writers.

Fox news is profitable for some of the same reasons child porn makes money, if you have no scruples and figure out a way to distribute content that mental deficients cannot easily access anywhere else, you will develop a loyal following.

by BOCABABE on January 30, 2012

paddoc you’re right morning Joe and Chris Matthews, to name a few, have similar reporting styles as fox. Is it your belief or contention that they are just as influential? Do you hear, for example, someone start a conversation with “did hear what Joe or Chris said today?” as often as “did hear what Rush or Sean said today?”


by BOCABABE on January 30, 2012
well said VG2000

Weseekyou, do you think that liberals think that if the truth is reported by fox they wont believe   it? how did you come to this conclusion? you are exactly the person we want to hear from?

please understand i am not interested in a discussion of whether fox is true or false, but rather why do many conservatives (I am not accusing you) seemingly lose much of their (healthy) scepticism of media when the source is considered friendly (e.g., fox, hannity, rush, etc.)

by PADOC on January 30, 2012
Like MSNBC is an honest disseminate of non-biased information! VG, you are a hoot!

by VG2000 on January 30, 2012
BOCABABE: A few Republicans will admit (after a few beers anyway--and honest people like BANDD even when sober) that Fox really is yellow journalism. But most of them feel so completely under siege by most of the rest of the media (i.e., the truth based type) that they are (as Newt would say) profoundly and fundamentally thankful to Fox for giving them a not-so-reality-based refuge to feel at peace with their world view. Make no mistake about it. Fox's mission has nothing whatsoever to do with dissemination of information. Its mission, at best, is to make its viewers feel good about themselves by validating their resentment and fears, no matter how irrational. Its mission, at worst, is to be a propaganda machine for monied elites. Judging from the loyalty of its viewers, it is accomplishing its mission pretty well, albeit to the detriment of our Union.

BARBIEBUNNY: I am guessing that most swingers have neither the time nor inclination to affiliate themselves with elitist societies with no particular mission other than to give their members a thinly based sense of superiority.  IMHO, swingers tend to view life as something that should be lived more so than bragged about. And their precious time and spirit as something that should be shared generously with the kind, not selfishly horded with the smug.  The nice ones, anyway.


by TEXAN on January 30, 2012
 With the actual news content, I think that Fox is unbiased as any of the others. They all have some bias. It is just that Fox is biased in a different direction than the others. That is just the opinion of someone who does not watch much television.

by BOCABABE on January 30, 2012

We have received a number of emails regarding this subject and have been given plenty of suggestions on how to better phase the question.

Differences of opinion are fine, and expected, no one can expect everyone in a democracy to agree. We support everyone’s right to their opinion and the freedom to express it.  We don’t think a democracy where everyone thinks the same would be a utopia. Moreover, we are not trying to discuss/debate/prove whether Barack is a Muslim, Terrorist, Racist, Kenyan, Socialist, Communist, Marxist, Maoist, or any other “ist”, or whether he is good or bad for the country. We understand we will not have unanimity on this or anything political and this is not the purpose of this blog.

Our question is why do so many (not all) republicans seemingly believe much of what is presented as fact by conservative sources (e.g., fox news?) even if facts to support their position are not provided? Why do fox viewers (as an example) stand for incomplete, seemingly one-sided analysis of issues? Or to put it another way, why do these intelligent, critical thinking people leave their healthy skepticism of media at the door, when reading, listening to, or watching right wing media (especially some of the more radical right wing - e.g., Beck, Insanity, Savage)? Why does Fox News (as an example) get a pass from (most) Republicans? Why dont they make the same demands of Fox as they do of other sources? 


by BANDBEA on January 30, 2012
Hello Barbie

Been there done that, can't find anything that would support your statement.....and unfortunately, you can't hyperlink to individual surverys...(I couldn't anway)  Just as well, a highjacking has been circumvented :)

http://www3.norc.org/GSS+Website/     (In case anyone wants some fodder for another blog....)



Cheers
Bill....

"If you think you have it tough, read history books." 

Bill Maher



by BANDBEA on January 30, 2012
Bocababe said:

"And why, as more facts provided, the less likely the person will consider even rethinking their beliefs, or be open to the possibility that Rush or Beck or a blogger could have given them inaccurate or incomplete information."

When pressed about said information Texan said:

"OK. So I did overlook part of the link. If you will notice, I never actually claimed that he never attended Columbia but that there are certain troubling questions about his time there. I am not going to make any specific allegations about his time at Columbia, but it would be nice to have some answers."

This would appear to be the phenomenon that Bocababe was referring to in some/many, not all, conservatives.... Obama should provide his, birth certificate, college transcripts and tax records.. (yawn) And as of late...that motherfucker needs to be taken down...by any means necessary... and with extreme prejudice (we want our country back)

Barbie said:

"Data points to there being a higher percentage of mensans in the lifestyle. Is that suprising?" 

I can't speak for anyone else but it would be pretty surprising to me... I know of only two Mensans(?) in the lifestyle.. One of them is the guy who actually coined the term "The Lifestyle," Dr Robert McGinley.. I would be quite fascinated to see your data that points to the higher percentage...


Cheers
Bill....

"I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, natural, wholesome things that money can buy."
Steve Martin



 

 


by NIPPY6781 on January 30, 2012
"BTW Nippy, are you proclaiming today a holiday, given it was a 1-2 European finish in Dubai?"

Abu Dhabi even? Dubai is week after next. Its almost always a Euro 1-2 on the European tour. Were I to take a holiday every time a Euro won a Euro tour event, I would have to work a 4 day week.....although I like the concept.

by NIPPY6781 on January 30, 2012
Bill also referred to me once as an ornery fuck too and and I just took it with a pinch of salt. I like barbary duck, particularly with lentils and cream......just sayin

by NIPPY6781 on January 30, 2012
"...much like self promotion, which I am not real comfortable with."

Yea, God forbid you appearing to blow your own trumpet...



*snicker*


by TEXAN on January 30, 2012
 Somehow this whole blog seems to have turned into one big assault on me, and I am at a loss to understand why. Defending myself feels too much like self promotion, which I am not real comfortable with.

by NIPPY6781 on January 30, 2012
Yes indeed and incredibly interesting too no doubt...
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by TEXAN on January 30, 2012
 Gee, And I haven't fucked someone elses wife in at least a couple of weeks.

by TEXAN on January 30, 2012
 Bill,

My Mother was involved with the organization when she was alive. She grew up in doubt of her own inteligence and when she discovered to her surprise that she was qualified, she joined. I suppose it was a form of validation for her. After I returned home from the military, she pointed out that my military entrance test scores qualified me. She invited me to attend some meetings and I did for her. Since I did not grow up doubting my own intelligence, I did not find the group as interesting as she did. I only attended a few of the monthly meetings.

by BANDBEA on January 30, 2012
Weseek........... (shakes head) You are indeed an ornery fuck....incorrigible even, tsk tsk....

Texan said:

"The main reason that I no longer attend Mensa meetings is that I found the other members uninteresting."

I've heard that myself about Mensa members, that they were uninteresting and what not.. How many meetings did you attend before you came to this realization?  Many people might be surpised about the people who are in the lifestyle and are/were involved with Mensa... Any insight you could offer would be greatly appreciated.


Cheers
Bill....
 

"That marvelous filet mignon I had for dinner, was it still a filet mignon as it finished its journey the next day?"
Weseek


 

 


by TEXAN on January 29, 2012
 OK. So I did overlook part of the link. If you will notice, I never actually claimed that he never attended Columbia but that there are certain troubling questions about his time there. I am not going to make any specific allegations about his time at Columbia, but it would be nice to have some answers.

And why is it that people continually assume that I am a Republican? I am a member of and financial supporter of the Libertarian Party. In many political races, I do align myself with the Republicans in order to defeat a greater evil. I know of no one in the Republican Party that I fear will curtail my sexual freedom, but I do know of many in the Democrat Party that are a threat to many of my freedoms, the foremost of which is economic freedom.

Some on here seem to attack all Texans based on their opinions of Bush and Perry. For your information, I have never been a Perry supporter. I have mentioned that on other blogs before. I also don't consider Bush to be the greatest of Presidents, although he was better than we have now. For you to characterize me as dumb because I am proud of my Texas citizenship, just shows you don't know much about me. The main reason that I no longer attend Mensa meetings is that I found the other members uninteresting.

You want oposition to Obama to be based on factual information.

Fact- The U.S. government has expanded and continues to expand under his administration, far beyond it's proper role.

Fact- Obama was less qualified (in terms of actual accomplishments) than any President in recent memory.

Fact- He is the only President ever that has not had 4% GDP growth in at least one quarter since they started keeping track in 1947.

There are others, but I am doing this from memory and I can't think of others right now.

by ROCKSTEADY69 on January 29, 2012
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view

by VG2000 on January 29, 2012
BOCABABE: Interesting blog.

My hypothesis is that Republicans who are also SDC members probably tend to be even more irrational in their fear/hatred of Democrats than Republicans generally.

Especially since lifestylers are hated by the vast majority of Republicans, Republican lifestylers must be FAR more fearful of fiscal liberalism than they are of social conservatism. Sort of like log cabin Republicans. They are not just right of center, fiscally speaking, they tend to be market purists who (mistakenly, in my opinion) view any departure from market purity to be even more dangerous to the fabric of civilization than religious fanaticism that would rob them of their beloved personal freedoms.

Indeed, I think that Texan is actually emblematic of a lot of Republicans on this website. He so hates Democratic fiscal policies (he even equates it to Marxism, for goodness sake), that he is willing to tolerate having his sexual freedom curtailed in order to minimize them. Along those s, my guess is that crazy birther types are more heavily concentrated among lifestyle Republicans than Republicans generally.


by BOCABABE on January 29, 2012
Texan, 

Good grief lol

I guess I blame the overall global economic situation than so called "liberal politics".  These country’s economic bases and joblessness is more susceptible to economic downturns. 

Moreover just as more people are unemployed in the US and thus on food stamps or other governmental assistance when the economy goes south, tax revenues simultaneously dec , exacerbating deficits. 

The countries you mentioned, due to over reliance on cyclical, recession sensitive industries (like tourism), inferior diversification, less innovation, weak adoption of technology, poor coordination of public policy and private industry (e.g., encourage investment in selected industries via targeted tax breaks like the Koreans or Japanese), less valuable national  resources, limited understanding of the competitive advantage of nations, poor upper level education, lower educated workforce, etc. I doubt you would seriously believe that their perceived liberal politics is the cause of all of this??

For example, Sweden, Norway, Finland are far more “liberal” or more “socialist” to be more accurate, but their economies are thriving! I know what you’re thinking, damn there is that fact thing again!  Facts are your friend! ;))

Seriously, I am simply trying to understand why the source of the information trumps (I know bad word lol) reason, logic and fact based information.

 

Original Email:

Oh good grief. Just take a look at what liberal politics and dependence on government is doing to countries like Greece and Portugal and Italy, and Ireland. Try to tell me how states like California and Illinois and New York aren’t headed in the same direction. And Obama wants to take this country down the same road.
by BANDBEA on January 29, 2012

Perhaps Texan missed this part of the snopes article:

"Although Barack Obama may not have been particularly social or memorable during his years at Columbia, it isn't true that "no one ever came forward from Obama's past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc." Those who have attested to having daily personal experience with him during his time at that school include: 


  •   • Friend and roommate Sohale Siddiqi, whom the Associated Press located and interviewed in May 2008.
  •  
  • Roommate Phil Boerner, who provided his recollections of sharing a New York City apartment with classmate Barack Obama to the Columbia College Today alumni publication and the New York Times in early 2009.
  •  
  • Michael L. Baron, who taught the year-long honors seminar in American Foreign Policy that Barack Obama took during his senior year at Columbia and recalled in an NBC interview Obama's "easily acing" the class and receiving an A for his senior paper on the topic of nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union.

Likewise, other external evidence documents Barack Obama's presence at Columbia from 1981-83, including: 

  • An article by Barack Obama published in the 10 March 1983 edition of Columbia's Sundial school magazine.
  •  
  • A January 2005 Columbia College Today profile of Barack Obama as a Columbia alumnus.
  •  
  • A Columbia College press release from November 2008 identifying him as "the first College alumnus to be elected President of the United States."
Finally, the fatal flaw in the "Obama didn't go to Columbia" theory is that he couldn't have been admitted to Harvard Law School in 1988 without having received an undergraduate degree. 

 If he wasn't attending Columbia from 1981-83, he would have had to complete two full years' worth of coursework at (and graduate from) some other accredited college — yet his time between the end of his Columbia days in 1983 and his entering Harvard Law in 1988 is accounted for (working at the Business International Corporation and the New York Public Interest Research Group, then serving as director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago), and no other school claims him as an alumnus, nor does anyone purport to have encountered him as a classmate or student at any other college or university during that period. 

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/columbia.asp


Cheers
Bill...

 

"Before we try to explain something, we should be sure it actually happened."
Ray Hyman


by BOCABABE on January 29, 2012

Texan, 

It seems we have a different definition of facts or evidence? You sent a link from a politician/blogger that said he never saw Barack. What is that evidence of? That he didn’t attend? That he never introduced himself to Wayne? That Wayne's memory is bad? That Wayne has a political agenda? 

Back to original question, why are you or others so quick to believe this stuff or even pass it on? If there was something "mysterious" about his Columbian attendance and/or Wayne's poor memory or Obama's poor attendance at Wayne Root's social gatherings (perhaps), why are so ready to accept this "hearsay"? If there was something “suspicious” wouldn’t hundreds of real journalists (from across the globe) be fighting over each other to “break” the story or want to become famous / rich for publishing real information with facts that would damage Barack’s reputation? 



by ROCKSTEADY69 on January 29, 2012
How many of us remember every classmate from 20 years ago? For you to base your opinion that Obama didn't go to Columbia when he has a diploma from the school becuase someone didn't remember him is laughable. Are you accusing Columbia of giving out fake diplomas?

by TEXAN on January 29, 2012
 You keep mentioning what you call an absence of facts or evidence, when you simply ignore any evidence that is presented. All you have to do is compare the writings of Marx and Engle to the liberal's talking points of today and marvel at the similarity. I give you a link to a classmate of Barack Obama who claims that he doesn't recall him being at Columbia. You email me a Snopes link that says his class mate is telling the truth but the logical conclusions from this information are false because they run counter to "Common knowledge".

by BOCABABE on January 29, 2012
nice post ROCKSTEADY69!


by BOCABABE on January 29, 2012

Texan, 

I appreciate your viewpoints, but you are missing my question (perhaps I not communicating well).  I am not as interested in your opinion of Barack or Liberals or Marxists or Socialists, as I am more interested in how you or other conservatives came to believe these things, given the lack of facts or evidence from muliple sources? 

To put it another way, why do you trust a blogger or internet gossiper more than respected journalists or newspapers that typically have independent fact checkers and don't normally just report their opinion?

Do you believe that all the newspapers or news sources around the world (not just in the US) are colluding to hide this or other damaging information about Barack?  If yes, how did you or others come to this highly improbable and nearly impossible conclusion? I can understand not trusting a few but to have no trust in thousands of reporters around the world seems unwarranted, to say the least.

I think trying to argue opinion of what Barack is or isnt won't be productive and likely won't sway anyone, but I trying to understand why or how your or other conservative's opinions have been determined (seemingly) without facts or evidence from an independent source or sources?  Why reject all information, data, facts is the source has been labeled liberal, but accept most everything/anything if provided by that is perceived to be a fellow conservative? 








by ROCKSTEADY69 on January 29, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tMxsYqaFwA0#!

by NIPPY6781 on January 29, 2012
Tex... 1965 just called and they want their shirt collection and political mentality back.

by BANDBEA on January 29, 2012
Weseek said:

"So, do you hope to see Sulu or Uhura as part of what has to be a fantastic road trip?"

Comicon is not a full on Star Trek convention but there are a fair share of Trekkies running around.  One might call it the single largest gathering of Dorks, Nerds and Geeks on the west coast, I would be curious to see what the swinger contingency of the event might be like..


Cheers
Bill....

 

"I love nerds. Comic-Con junkies are the tastemakers of tomorrow. Isn't that funny? The tables have turned." 

Kristen Bell
 

by BANDBEA on January 29, 2012

Texan said:

"I tried twice to post the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, but I could not get the entire thing to post. Some parts are somewhat benign and others are quite egregious, but most of it has at some time been promoted by liberals including Obama. And some of it has been implemented at least  partially in this country."

How much effort do you think it would require for a "liberal" to post a gigantic list of negative conservative ideals and actions??  If you're trying to justify your allegiance to conservatism you are going to lose any semblence of credibility by constantly comparing anything left of center as communism or socialism.  Same concept applies for liberals who think that anything right of center is fascism....

Do you think Eisenhower was a liberal? or that he had an agenda to circumvent the Constitution?  By current conservative logic he would be considered the anti-christ and his term as President would have been the most bleak period in all of American history (90% tax rate for the top 1%)  Ike was a REPUBLICAN, plain and simple... If as a value, conservatism was tied to being a republican, then it was just a value, not the party itself.  

Alot of people feel (myself included) that the Neo Conservative movement has hijacked the Republican party and it's proponents are the loudest people in the room and.... It's destroying the party itself.  If you really want an opportunity to bring more Republican values to the forefront (which I wouldn't mind) I think a person would be better off supporting some more moderate voices in their party.  Unfortunately those guys are getting fewer and further in between because.... The neo con's are running the show... (Catch-22)


Cheers
Bill....

"One of the great attractions of patriotism - it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous."  

Aldous Huxley


by NIPPY6781 on January 29, 2012
The 'Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice' blog posted a few days back may be of some help.

Create comment