BS: 2012 Presidential Election

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 08:52 PM

But wait; there's more! You know, at least I am going to make sure to get my entertainment dollar out of the Republican field. Well, we have always known that Sarah Palin was no Einstein, but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oS4C7bvHv2w

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 06:50 PM

The bugger's a mormon. And mormons are living proof that humans will believe anything in the face of all the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 03 Jun 11 - 06:37 PM

Hurry up! Let's not let go of this! There are only...days, er, weeks, er months, er, *years* left until the election.

Many pundits and reporters (or at least, "so-called reporters") often tout Mitt Romney's "business acumen." Well, let's talk about that "acumen." Yeah, yeah, this is from a "union site" and, therefore "suspect." But before you start hammering me, find some reliable primary information that discredits the facts in the piece.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/05/31/romneys-business-experience-firing-workers-hiring-them-back-at-lower-wages/

If he, or any other candidate, for that matter, has some sort of business experience that he is pointing to as part of his CV, then it bears investigation. Hmmm. How about Herman Cain? How was Godfathers Pizza to its employees? What was the quality level of the product? Did the company have any particular concern for its environmental impact?

Yes, these questions are all relevant, if these guys are going to use their business experience as examples of their "success." Or do they want to run from them??

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 11 - 09:06 PM

I'd be willing to bet a great sum of money on the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 May 11 - 08:15 PM

DougR;
You either do not understadn what I meant by *primary sources*, or you don't have any interest in real information. I suspect the former. Look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 11 - 06:06 PM

DOUG: so you agree with John that you are:

... a waste of time and space in a discussion because of [your] inability and/or unwillingness to support what he says. I would say that he is demonstrating his lack of dependence on facts or logic when forming his opinions. I can say that he is wrong, and willfully so, in his interpretations of current events.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 11 - 06:01 PM

OK John, I hereby abjure and withdraw "brain dead" and will not use it in regards to Douggie in future- after all he can type and apparently feed himself.

However I stand by the rest, for example "non-cerebral" (i.e. emotional rather than intellectual,) uncritical, unabkle to distinguish fact from fiction, etc. which I think is a pretty accurate description, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 10 May 11 - 05:49 PM

OK, without ad hominem attacks and name-calling, what am I supposed to do with people like Doug? No, I am *seriously* asking! I just plain do not know!

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 10 May 11 - 04:50 PM

Right, John P., I think you're right.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 10 May 11 - 04:02 PM

Yes, Greg, Doug has confirmed, once again, everyone's opinion of him as a waste of time and space in a discussion because of his inability and/or unwillingness to support what he says. I would say that he is demonstrating his lack of dependence on facts or logic when forming his opinions. I can say that he is wrong, and willfully so, in his interpretations of current events. As I said, he is pretty good at digging his own holes.

Calling him brain-dead just makes you sound like a Republican, especially in a discussion about how the Republicans are ruining our social discourse with insults, lies, and distortions. Sorry.

We can't claim to be on the higher moral ground if we don't stay there.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 11 - 10:32 AM

See, Saul- I tried to tell you. Re-read my 08 May 11 - 08:41 PM Post.

John P- what say you now? Was my description accurate or not?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 10 May 11 - 06:31 AM

Doug,
Um, "laughable?" I took time and energy and found a good site *out of the many I found* with a concise defense of my point. Did you take any time to do any fact-checking of their citations? Or is your best argument just the rhetorical that it is "...laughable?"

The article has many active links to actual articles about actual events. Did you look at any of the links to actual events or trends? Do you deny that the events took place or the trends are taking place?

So I'll put it back on you. Demonstrate that the facts I cited are wrong, and get your information from someone or somewhere that can be fact-checked and does not have a reputation for intentionally distorting the facts.

I am satisfied with my point and my factual defense of it. If all you are going to do is to say that my effort is "laughable" and not cite facts and use reason, then I will not waste my energy responding further.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 10 May 11 - 01:28 AM

That's what you offer as proof of your wild charges, Saul? That's laughable. To progressives, offering "proof" of points of view generally boils down to providing a "progressive website as proof."

That is as legitimate as my pointing out the Fox News (which you progressives obviously fear) or Rush Limbaugh as providing proof of the conservative pov, and my expecting you to accept it.

John P.: Ditto.

TIA: Ditto

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:14 PM

Greg,
I did not mean Doug. I, oh shit! I wasn't going to call names! I just...I thought it was just *self-evident.*

Sorry in advance, Doug, if I stepped on your toes. Let me try that again.

I think it is plain to see that corporations, despite the current "legal definition" are not actually people. And I also think it is also plain that money and speech are equivalent, neither by definition nor by any conversational sense of the words.

Now, "plain to see" and "...nor by any conversational sense of the words" are both subjective. Oh, well. I tried, I really *tried.*

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 11 - 11:58 AM

Any halfwit knows that a corporation is not a person, and that "money" is NOT "speech."

Hmmmmm...... does that mean that Doug is LESS than half-witted? And what does one call such a person?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:22 AM

DougR,

I have been, um, ah, distracted a bit in the last several days. Not that defending my point is not important. But "she" is a bit more important. But here I am, now.

Now, before I post my link, let me assert that the source has reported factually. And the facts can be reliably fact-checked elsewhere on the 'Net. The same *cannot* be said for most of what one hears from the organization that calls itself "Fox News." Nor can it be said of ENTERTAINERS (and not reporters) Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. I am not going to spend many posts proving this. It is common knowledge.

The fact of voter suppression is not mentioned often enough. It is really a huge problem for those of us who truly value the spirit of small "d" democracy. In a democracy, all players put forth their ideas and ideologies honestly, and in good faith, and the voters make "free market" decisions as to who best represents their values.

Those voters are anyone over the age of 18. They are women, men, people living in gated communities, and people living near the dumps. They are people of color, and people of more color. They are people of all religious faiths, and people who do not believe in dieties at all. They are folk musicians, and rap musicians. They are e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e.

Whenever someone or group of someones tries to limit who may vote based on their own narrow views, that is voter suppression. When they institutionalize it, that very effort makes society UNdemocratic. And that is exactly what is happening.

Any halfwit knows that a corporation is not a person, and that "money" is NOT "speech."

Here is one link of many I could have listed that describes just part of the voter suppression going on. There is more, lots more. It is fact, NOT fiction.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/27/report-from-poll-taxes-to-voter-id-laws-a-short-history-of-conservative-voter-suppression/


Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:06 AM

I'm not calling him names. Just trying to explain Doug's behavior.

Plus, I hardly think its my opinion alone.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:43 AM

Greg, we all know your opinion of Doug. Enough already. Can we please try to talk about the topics being discussed? Doug seems to be pretty good at digging his own holes, and his words will speak much louder than yours when it's time for folks to decide whether or not he's a rational human being.

Calling him on failing to respond to points made in discussions is one thing. Calling him names is another.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 May 11 - 08:41 PM

Doug doesn't understand most things - he's a non-cerebral, nonthinking individual, taking his uncritical cue from Faux News and the Republican shock-jocks & tasking heads..

He seems to think there is some "philosophical" difference between lies & bullshit and facts & truth, rather than an absolute difference.

He will dodge & weave & claim that "Mommy, Johnny hit me first" - which might be expected of a two year old, but is inappropriate- to say the least- for an adult.

Another standard tactic of his is the many lies our current president...Yes, I know, you will reply (if at all), "Name them." They are too numerous to mention. which means, translated into English, he has no examples to provide.

No point tryig to reason with the brain dead - beat to ignore Douggie-boy completely..

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 08 May 11 - 08:37 PM

John P: Our political philosophies are so far apart, there is little reason to continue our conversation.

Hmpf. That just sounds like a convenient way to not support the things you say. Maybe we could just start with one at a time. Let's try Death Panels, as promulgated by your party's VP candidate. True or false?

If you don't want to support your statements you have no business nosing into a discussion on the topic. Stand up or go away, please.

By the way, I never said that Democrats don't lie. I don't trust them much farther than Republicans. But the nature and all-pervasive bellowing of the lies is really different between the two.

Death Panels? Your candidate for the second highest office in the land? Seems like a simple question. Do you have an answer?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 11 - 02:59 PM

Chickens LAY eggs.

Dogs LIE down.

Politicians just lie.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 May 11 - 02:08 PM

Don't know where Saul is, but you've got some reading to do Doug.
The evidence is in the links in this article. Please follow the links to see the primary sources. We will patiently await your reasoned assessment (after you've done the reading I am sure).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Voter_suppression

follow the links to the primary sources

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 May 11 - 02:00 PM

DougR why do you think they call them "Po-lie-ticians?" It's a job description.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 08 May 11 - 01:53 PM

Ebbie: my remarks were not intended to be "snarky". I merely was agreeing with what Fortunato said.

John P: Our political philosophies are so far apart, there is little reason to continue our conversation. Nothing will be gained either way.

If you are of the opinion that Democrats do not lie, start with the many lies our current president has uttered since he took office. Yes, I know, you will reply (if at all), "Name them." They are too numerous to mention.

Saul, are you still with us?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 May 11 - 12:52 PM

Remember that Obama's alliance with Wall Street will tap into that billion dollars that he needs to get re-elected. Why else Geithner, Summers, Goldman Sachs, et. al.?

Robert Reich, Joeseph Stieglitz and Paul Krugman have been blowing the whistle on the misguided economic policies of both the White House and the Paul Ryan/Ayn Rand polemicists but who's listening?

Wall Street is pulling the strings on the government, now.

I saw a movie once about the "Werewolves of Wall Street". How 'bout one now called
"The Whores of Wall Street"? They're bi-partisan.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 11 - 11:56 AM

sheesh I don't mean this to be jumping on a DR day but I really am curious, Doug. Look at Fortunato's post, stripped of identifiers, and then your snarky response. Surely the positives he listed are things that you also want?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Fortunato - PM
Date: 06 May 11 - 09:12 AM

If possible, I will likely be voting again. There may be an opponent who is intelligent and capable, but in order to be heard by the opposing party, the platform of such a person must apparently include the shrewish, negative, and in some cases, air-headed, message that is now over arching.
    I still respond to progressive views of America. I still respond to social programs that feed the hungry, educate the disadvantaged, and train the underemployed. I still look to space exploration, medical and scientific research to advance human endeavor and enlightenment.
    I do not respond to the tired old criticisms of democracy and our capitalist system. I do not respond to the manure mouthed by talk radio and tv media whose only motive is self-aggrandizement and salary. I do not respond to 'leaders' who build their notoriety on the backs of those who strive for progress.
    The one I vote for, I believe, still carries hope of progress as a nation in his heart.
*********************************************************************
and Doug says:
Yep, it sure seems to me, Fortunato, that you will be voting for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 08 May 11 - 10:54 AM

I'm sorry Doug, but you don't seem to be understanding the point of what I'm saying. Here it is again:

Given that the Republicans are willing to tell massive, obvious lies to try to do anything possible to hurt their political opponents and to distract everyone from the real issues, why would we not believe they are willing to do other things to win at all costs? Unless you can justify the Republican lie machine with supporting evidence, anything anyone chooses to believe about the nefariousness of the GOP is unsurprising.

I don't really care about Saul's accusations. My feeling is that there is not enough evidence to prove it, but circumstantial evidence enough to give it serious thought, and plenty of evidence that you (as in you, personally, if you ever give any money to or vote for any of the liars) are responsible for any number of equally reprehensible actions. Once someone is over the line, it's impossible to tell how far over the line they are or are willing to go.

And death panels, socialism, birthers, swift boaters, corporate taxes and all the rest are lies, are over the line, and haven't been supported by any evidence whatsoever, circumstantial or otherwise.

Please stop trying to distract the conversation with Saul's accusations. Why do you believe the things I listed above? My question was: Are you really that stupid, or do you really have no honor? I suppose a third possibility is that all the lies are really true, but with no supporting evidence, it's hard to take that one seriously.

How can you live with yourself, supporting people who do this stuff?

Lastly, if you really believe the Democrats do anything like this as a matter of top-level policy, you need to supply some examples. Is there anything at all of the scope of the the birthers, the death panels, the socialism, or the 24-7 hate talk that you can point to?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 May 11 - 09:59 AM

Greg F. is just being Greg F.

Douggie is absolutely correct: I'm asking him for facts & documentation instead of rumor, lies & delusions.

and his comments are of no significance at all...

And Douggie thinks HIS puerile and fact-free comments ARE of significance?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 08 May 11 - 01:15 AM

John P.: Read again what you wrote. It matters not whether you are, or not good with big words, what we should be concerned with is the truth. I am not familiar with the validity of circumstantial evidence being anything other than that ...circumstantial. The fact that it is reported by the "mainstream media" does not make it more valid. After all, isn't it the responsibility of the "mainstream press" to report, not opine? The majority of the "mainstream media", again IMO, are in the Democrats camp. And charges that the Republicans are wlling to do whatever it takes to win, win, win, can be said, also, of the Democrat party.

Now, since I addressed my request for back-up to Saul, who posted the charge, and not to you, why doesn't Saul back up his claims instead of relying on others to do it (not that you did)

Greg F. is just being Greg F., and his comments are of no significance at all ...again IMO.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 07 May 11 - 08:04 PM

Actually, Doug, I'm pretty good with big words. Do you have any evidence for any of the things commonly spoken by Republicans that I mentioned above?

Doug, whether or not the Republicans have been involved in vote tampering, there has been enough circumstantial evidence of it reported by the mainstream media that the question naturally comes up. The list of stuff I gave earlier in one of the reasons people might be willing to believe that Republicans are willing to do whatever it takes to win, win, win. Cut the crap, or don't be surprised if no one can tell what is crap and what isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 May 11 - 06:56 PM

As I suspected Doug- despite your rather pitiful attempt at humor, you have no answer.

As per Saul's "back-up" where do you come off asking for his, when you won't provide any yourself, as usual??

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:00 PM

Perhaps I could, Greg F., but the language would of necessity have to be so simple that even you could understand it, and I just haven't the time.

Still want to see some back-up to Saul's assertions though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 May 11 - 08:01 AM

Apparently quite easily. Perhaps Doug can explain it to us.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 06 May 11 - 07:45 PM

Why do people believe this stuff? Are they really that stupid, or are they so focused on winning that they are willing to set aside honor?

- Death panels in the health care plan.
- Obama is a socialist.
- The health care plan is socialism (but the military is not???)
- George Bush is owed thanks for the finding of bin Laden!!!???
- George Bush was elected.
- Birthers.
- Swift boat attacks.
- Tax cuts will fix the economy.
- Rich people aren't rich enough.
- Rich people will create jobs out of their personal income (as
   opposed to corporate earnings).
- Unions should just go away.
- Rape is only rape if the woman gets beat up.
- Men get to decide whether or not a woman should have a baby.
- The United States is a Christian country.
- Our government gets to decide who we sleep with.
- "Pro Life" doesn't extend to capital punishment or war.
and on and on and on.

How can they live with themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:53 PM

Saul, you forgot to mention to Douggie-Boy that in addition to the dirty tricks, the Repub TeaBagger schills on hate radio and Faux News and theRepub TeaBagger Senators and Representatives in congress continue with the distortions and outright falsehoods that daily comprise The Republican River Of Bullshit.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of folks - like "Death-Panel Douggie"
who seem to actually BELIEVE these lies despite conclusive evidence to the contrary.

The election, in large part, will be a referendum on the intelligence of the U.S. voter, and if Douggie is a representative sample, God Help America.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:33 PM

Yep, it sure seems to me, Fortunato, that you will be voting for Obama.
DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Fortunato
Date: 06 May 11 - 09:12 AM

If possible, I will likely be voting for President Obama again. There may be an opponent who is intelligent and capable, but in order to be heard by the Republican party, the platform of such a person must apparently include the shrewish, negative, and in some cases, air-headed, message that is now over arching.
    I still respond to progressive views of America. I still respond to social programs that feed the hungry, educate the disadvantaged, and train the underemployed. I still look to space exploration, medical and scientific research to advance human endeavor and enlightenment.
    I do not respond to the tired old criticisms of democracy and our capitalist system. I do not respond to the manure mouthed by talk radio and tv media whose only motive is self-aggrandizement and salary. I do not respond to 'leaders' who build their notoriety on the backs of those who strive for progress.
    President Obama, I believe, still carries hope of progress as a nation in his heart.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 05 May 11 - 06:36 PM

That's a pretty serious charge there, Saul. You can provide proof of your accusations I assume. If so, be my guest.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 May 11 - 06:25 PM

I've long been disgusted by this claim that both parties are run by the oligarchy, with the implication being that there's no use in even trying to change things. That is DEFEATIST, and an invitation to just give up, lay down, and die.

Both parties are STRONGLY INFLUENCED by the oligarchy. But not totally. And not irrevocably.

Okay, set your stop-watches. See how long it takes for someone to haughtily and smugly tell me how naive I am.

Naive? Not bloody likely! I've been around awhile and I've SEEN how things CAN be changed when people get up off their butts. It ain't easy, but it's impossible with the attitude that some people are trying to peddle. If you just sigh and say "Let George do it," just remember--George DID it! How do you like it?

Do you know who started the old adage, "You can't fight City Hall?"

City Hall!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: saulgoldie
Date: 05 May 11 - 05:41 PM

Beg to differ, DougR. It will be a bit of a referendum on his first term. But Republicans have been very busy purging voter rolls, enacting new (and not-so-new) regulations to disenfranchise voters who would likely vote the "other party" and devising and implementing ways to hack voting machines.

The votes that actually happen and are not hacked will be the referendum. And poll after relatively reliable poll shows that the American public does not like what the Republicans are doing. But that is not the whole story. Bush was installed, not elected. And it will happen again.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 May 11 - 01:28 PM

Chongo is already angling for the cutest ad, so Obama better watch out.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 01:05 PM

Juneau, it was cute.

Sure Obama will win but first the gas price issue is looming along with people willing to ruuin America by playing with the debt ceiling.

The UN dynamic Republican candidates like Sanctorum and Polenty will shower the nation with Koch Bros ads.

Since people do not read it will be the battle of the best commercial.

Citizens United and Americans for Prosperity will make multi billion dollar ads. Will the cutest ad win the presidency?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:56 PM

Obama has certainly increased his rating.
The Republicans have not yet shown any credible candidates, although there are some in the bushes. Trump, Palin and etc. are mere side shows as they are losing favor or never had it.

Wesley may be right, but there is a lot of time left before decision time. If Obama continues to be strong in the face of House opposition, he could well prevail.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:26 PM

Cute.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 11 - 08:06 AM

It will be the dark horse against the half black horse.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 May 11 - 02:53 AM

An aside here: I listened to Bill O'Reilly the other night (on his website) and he calls 2012 "Two Twelve". Is that what we're going to call it, do you suppose?

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 May 11 - 11:15 PM

Yeah, naturally, it will be a referendum on Obama. That's what always happens when an incumbent president runs for a 2nd term.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: John P
Date: 04 May 11 - 05:26 PM

I agree with Doug. It seems like that's usually the case when a president runs for reelection. More so this time, since President Obama is an unusually galvanizing force for both major parties.

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: DougR
Date: 04 May 11 - 01:24 PM

The 2012 election will be a referendum on Obama. He had no record prior to 2008. He does now. If the majority of the folks like what he has done, he will be re-elected, if they don't he won't.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2012 Presidential Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 May 11 - 12:27 AM

Man Can Make Anything
                                           Buddy Tabor, Juneau Alaska
God made Man and Man made the rest
Man can make anything good to the best
He can turn the desert to the color of the flowers
He knows all the numbers, the days, years and hours
He walks into a dark room and turns on the light
He can walk back out, turn the day to night

He can transplant the heart from one man to another
But he can't sit down and make peace with his brother
His hands are bloody, it never will cease
Man can make anything. Anything but peace.

From Cain to Abel the killing never stops
From the Mafioso hitman to the trigger-happy cops
A river of blood runs through our history books
He's got death in his eyes, he's got a mortuary look

He can transplant the heart from one man to another
But he can't sit down and make peace with his brother
His hands are bloody, it never will cease
Man can make anything. Anything but peace.