DescentBB

tunnelcat wrote:...

Will, I KNOW that both parties are corrupt, it just happens that the Republicans are making the stink right now because they don't like Obama and want to stick it to him at all costs. It's part of their game now, hinder, not support and maybe they'll get into office in 2010 to screw things up in their own indomitable way. ...

Yea that's the way the system works because we join them in their game. Both parties do it because for each Party it is all about scaring enough voters up each cycle to win the popularity contest. Our representatives are presented to us by the parent companys Repubs or Dems and they are put on display each election cycle like the new model cars are each year. No one gets put up for election that isn't deeply in debted to and largely under the control of the parent company.
And your response below illustrates how they are able to continue to thrive!
You acknowledge both parties are corrupt but you let yourself be scared back onto the plantation because you saw the evil Fox News logo on the web page?!?#$$!?
Grow up and use some logic instead of that emotion you have surrendered to the Party manipulation!

GOOOH is a simple process where citizens like you get together and select a candidate from outside the control of the parent company. You and your neighbors will select a liberal or a conservative or whatever you all want, Grassroots at it's purest form. Nothing FoxNews (or any group) does can alter that unless everyone in your area happens to follow that leader in which case you get exactly the candidate you want anyway!

The important thing is the incumbents get flushed down the toilet and a new person gets to replace them, a new person who knows fully well that he got there not because he/she conformed to Party criteria but because the voters in his district were FED UP WITH the Party and wanted to PUNISH the party by sending him/her to replace the inferior corrupt Party's choice. That alone is a major change and will open up both party's to reforming the way they think and do business. They will have to identify the reasons they got flushed out and try to conform to YOUR criteria instead of simply scaring you into supporting theirs!

I was interested in GOOOH for about 2 seconds until I saw that link to Fox and Friends. Nothing but moron birdbrains! GOOOH's premise is noble, but something's off about the backers.....

You have been assimilated. You are like the housewife who see's two guys breaking into her house and she's sure the tall one is a threat but the short one looks kind of nice so she hesitates to call 911. THEY ARE BOTH BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE, MAKE THE DAMN CALL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!

.

Bet51987 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I did answer her...

No, you did not, but keep convincing yourself that you did.

The process outlined by GOOOH is the way you find out who to vote for. That is the answer.
You can also think a little for yourself by asking the question: What kind of candidate would that process point me to? Who fits that description in my district? Exactly where your district is in terms of following that path is unknown to me, I don't know where you are, so you are the one who knows that not me and I never intended or implied that I was telling you which candidate to vote for. I was telling you about a type of candidate to look for and why it was a good thing to do regardless of what your particular political leanings are ie; liberal, conservative, etc.
So In your district you may need to get the ball rolling if no one else has....

I didn't think to consider you might be a special needs person which is made clear by your following comment:

I registered and answered the questions but I expected something to indicate where I stood in some type of graph that may have led me to an answer. I couldn't find anything even when I went to my state's district. However, if makes you feel better to pretend I didn't read the material to avoid having to answer my question then enjoy...

You apparently need to be led by the nose and told what to do so maybe the democrat party is the place for you.

If you would like to get out of the Party shackles and take a look around outside of the plantation you would have to do more than just read the material, you would have to apply the logic behind it and put it to work for you. It may be just as simple as finding out who is running from outside the Party and throwing your support to them if you don't want to take part in the GOOOH movement. I'd suggest trying the GOOOH process because if a candidate wins by way of the GOOOH process it will have more impact on the media pundits as well as the two partys than if a some independent or dark horse party maverick wins.

The process is a revolt, I think you are still looking to have your side win and that is why you can't find what you are looking for. You are looking for someone to tell you how to make the party you already chose the right choice...it can't be, your party (and the other one) is the wrong choice so, instead ask, how can you best wound the party and stake a message to it's chest? That is the goal.

Thanks for the answer tc, but that wasn’t the question…My question was about the “right” to have cheap products.

And being a trick question, I doubt anybody would answer it, because the answer is:

The right to have cheap products, is directly related to the right to get paid low wages. In other words, if someone is unwilling to pay someone else the same thing as they make, then where do you find someone to pay you what you want?

I’ll leave that one rhetorical.

CUDA wrote:]now who's the one assuming. I'm not Naieve like Bee is. I know there are real needs. but the problem is we dont kick those deadbeats out. because we are a "Civilized society" we just make more social programs. our politicians sit in Washington 24/7 drumming up new ways to stay in power. and whats the easiest way? MORE SOCIAL PROGRAMS, they buy votes, we see it every day. how many times when Bush was in office did you hear the dems say the Rep were cutting social programs? I stopped counting. IT WAS A LIE, there were no cuts. they did increase spending just not as much. they just didnt propose as much as the Dems wanted to spend, an educated society is a heathy society. providing for a slacker mentality will collapse the country, just like it did Rome

No, we don't kick the deadbeats out because the system is LAZY, and the system is corrupt because human nature tends towards LAZINESS, so many people don't do their jobs like they should! It's far easier to just bump along and fork over the money than it is to weed out the abusers, which would take WORK. Instead of calls to get rid of the social programs, like throwing out the baby along with the bathwater, we should be working on ways of making it more efficient for those who need it, not for the vampires who like to suck off of it. I'm all for those who really need help getting it and very much for getting rid of those who take what they want because they are greedy and allowed to do so.

Spidey, you could be a philosopher. Yes, cheap products go hand in hand with cheap wages, but is it REALLY cheaper in the long term? By the time you buy some cheap product and throw it out after one or two uses because it breaks, is that any cheaper than buying a more expensive well built and repairable product that lasts longer and can be maintained or upgraded before it ends up in the garbage? American consumers are so short sighted!

Will, anything that Fox and Fox and Friends has their fingers in is probably MANIPULATIVE and MISINFORMED! It'd be no different if George Soros or The Daily KOS were funding the thing! If you want a grassroots movement, there has to be NO media conglomerate or corporate ideology sitting in the background with a hidden agenda for it to be untainted.

tunnelcat wrote:...
Will, anything that Fox and Fox and Friends has their fingers in is probably MANIPULATIVE and MISINFORMED! It'd be no different if George Soros or The Daily KOS were funding the thing! If you want a grassroots movement, there has to be NO media conglomerate or corporate ideology sitting in the background with a hidden agenda for it to be untainted.

Ok, you certainly have made the accusation that GOOOH is really a Fox scam...
Would you mind showing me what has you making these allegations? Or are you just making some ad hominem attack as an excuse?

And for bonus points, explain to me how the GOOOH method of selecting good people to run for office could be corrupted by the evil Fox and Friends...or anyone else?

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:]now who's the one assuming. I'm not Naieve like Bee is. I know there are real needs. but the problem is we dont kick those deadbeats out. because we are a "Civilized society" we just make more social programs. our politicians sit in Washington 24/7 drumming up new ways to stay in power. and whats the easiest way? MORE SOCIAL PROGRAMS, they buy votes, we see it every day. how many times when Bush was in office did you hear the dems say the Rep were cutting social programs? I stopped counting. IT WAS A LIE, there were no cuts. they did increase spending just not as much. they just didnt propose as much as the Dems wanted to spend, an educated society is a heathy society. providing for a slacker mentality will collapse the country, just like it did Rome

No, we don't kick the deadbeats out because the system is LAZY, and the system is corrupt because human nature tends towards LAZINESS, so many people don't do their jobs like they should! It's far easier to just bump along and fork over the money than it is to weed out the abusers, which would take WORK. Instead of calls to get rid of the social programs, like throwing out the baby along with the bathwater, we should be working on ways of making it more efficient for those who need it, not for the vampires who like to suck off of it. I'm all for those who really need help getting it and very much for getting rid of those who take what they want because they are greedy and allowed to do so.

this might shcok you but I agree 100%, but the problem lies in Washington, instead of forcing compliance with those programs what do they do??? they create more programs I mean WTH????

Will Robinson wrote:Ok, you certainly have made the accusation that GOOOH is really a Fox scam...
Would you mind showing me what has you making these allegations? Or are you just making some ad hominem attack as an excuse?

And for bonus points, explain to me how the GOOOH method of selecting good people to run for office could be corrupted by the evil Fox and Friends...or anyone else?

The method has merit, I'll agree. We do need to get the slimeballs out of office one way or another. The Fox and Friends link stinks up the movement a little, but I see it has disappeared from the main page as of today. Now there is a comment by Dennis Miller, another cherished right-winger. If some liberal were to make a good comment, I might just believe it to be a real bipartisan grassroots effort, but I haven't seen one yet, although I will keep watching for it. Would YOU even consider GOOOH if uber-liberal Soros had ONE little link on the main page? You'd probably turn your nose up.

As for corruption, what's to keep the same thing from happening to an average citizen who gets elected to office and then has that same corporate lobbying money waved in their face as a temptation? Won't that infect that person the same as those members of government that are being bribed now? All people have weaknesses and greed is a really big one to overcome. We have a chicken and egg problem at the moment. We need to get rid of corporate influence, which will take a concerted effort by lawmakers that are currently in power, but if we get rid of the current people, the new people will be vulnerable to influence peddling because it's still part of Washington culture because the previous people DIDN'T get rid the problem. And the loop begins again........

tunnelcat wrote:If some liberal were to make a good comment,

MUST









RESIST

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Ok, you certainly have made the accusation that GOOOH is really a Fox scam...
Would you mind showing me what has you making these allegations? Or are you just making some ad hominem attack as an excuse?

And for bonus points, explain to me how the GOOOH method of selecting good people to run for office could be corrupted by the evil Fox and Friends...or anyone else?

The method has merit, I'll agree. We do need to get the slimeballs out of office one way or another. The Fox and Friends link stinks up the movement a little, but I see it has disappeared from the main page as of today. Now there is a comment by Dennis Miller, another cherished right-winger. If some liberal were to make a good comment, I might just believe it to be a real bipartisan grassroots effort, but I haven't seen one yet, although I will keep watching for it. Would YOU even consider GOOOH if uber-liberal Soros had ONE little link on the main page? You'd probably turn your nose up.

As for corruption, what's to keep the same thing from happening to an average citizen who gets elected to office and then has that same corporate lobbying money waved in their face as a temptation? Won't that infect that person the same as those members of government that are being bribed now? All people have weaknesses and greed is a really big one to overcome. We have a chicken and egg problem at the moment. We need to get rid of corporate influence, which will take a concerted effort by lawmakers that are currently in power, but if we get rid of the current people, the new people will be vulnerable to influence peddling because it's still part of Washington culture because the previous people DIDN'T get rid the problem. And the loop begins again........

I've never seen a link on their page to any partisan entity. Maybe your browser is serving you the page with some external frames with ads or something. I've often wondered if you don't filter your news through some kind of DNC or Daily Kos portal, who's your ISP? Huffington.Net?

As for your comment that we need the incumbents to implement anti-lobbyiest legislation because newcomers will be susceptible to influence once they get to Washington ?!?#!?&
That is beyond silly. The best hope we have, short of armed revolt, is send in new people who went in on the platform they are NOT beholding to either party or influence peddlers! Someone elected under that premise will be much more likely to refuse bribes than the people already in there taking bribes! That distinction will be their identity and would be a big story.

You are trying too hard to find a problem....maybe you do need a liberal to present this plan to you before you'll give it an honest consideration but then what does that say about you?

Ha, ha CUDA, veeeeeeeeeeeery funny.

Will, lets just say it doesn't look quite as good as it sounds. Dennis Miller's comment is still on the main page as of today. Anything HE likes must smell right-wing to him! But you know what, I'll humor you and sift through all those links they have posted and see if they pass my more, ick, liberal smell test. Already found a couple of Tea Party links and the Fair Tax links, not looking good yet!

Back to poor little China and those suffering low wage bastards looking for more pay and a small piece of the pie. They're now in competition with the next NEW free-market slave state, Bangladesh! They're screwed!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/busin ... xtile.html

tunnelcat wrote:Ha, ha CUDA, veeeeeeeeeeeery funny.

Geez lighten up TC it was a joke

Back to poor little China

was China even mentioned in this thread??? did I miss it???

tunnelcat wrote:..

Will, lets just say it doesn't look quite as good as it sounds. Dennis Miller's comment is still on the main page as of today. Anything HE likes must smell right-wing to him! But you know what, I'll humor you and sift through all those links they have posted and see if they pass my more, ick, liberal smell test. Already found a couple of Tea Party links and the Fair Tax links, not looking good yet! ..

Do me a favor and show me what you are seeing because I'm not seeing it and I looked...
While you're at it lets clear this up.... are you saying if any conservative likes it then you automatically reject it? And if that is not your mindset then why offer that red herring excuse in the first place?!?
And the Fair Tax is the other half of what I'd offer as a solution to neuter congress so what is wrong with the Fair Tax?

How about instead of looking for some excuse you just examine the actual GOOOH process and tell me how Dennis Miller liking it can make it a bad process.
Hell, I liked Obama before he was elected and even voted for him in the primary that doesn't mean it's my fault he's such a trainwreck or a hero depending on your view!

Examine the process and you'll see how it doesn't have a slant, it is whatever it's participants make it as far as leaning liberal or conservative and it will vary from district to district.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Ha, ha CUDA, veeeeeeeeeeeery funny.

Geez lighten up TC it was a joke

That's why I said "veeeeeeeeeery funny"!

CUDA wrote:was China even mentioned in this thread??? did I miss it???

Also, read my first post. It started out about Chinese workers striking over low pay issues in, uuuh, CHINA.

Will, after spending some time perusing GOOOH's related links, I'm still of the opinion it's a stealth NeoCon blueprint for America. Far too many right-wingers (code word: PATRIOT, reads as: RIGHT WING) love this idea and not enough lefties even have a presence to make it bipartisan in my book. The fact you can't see it shows your bias. Don't get me wrong, Tim Cox's idea is obviously from the heart and it's a good one, but it reeks of right-wing conservatism, or at least an appropriation of his idea by conservatives. So I can't buy into it as it stands.

As for the Fair Tax Act, it still doesn't address the fact that corporations are dodging a fair amount of their tax share, which causes the burden to shift to the individual. A national sales tax will still hit the individual. With most of our present problems and job losses caused by corporations leaving our country in the quest of cheap labor and cheap taxes, I think that tariffs need to make a comeback. If these now global-based corporations can't have the decency to pay some of our national taxes and hire Americans, they need to pay up in the form of tariffs and be required to NOT pass it on to the customer. No more free ride. I consider these corporate cheapskates a threat to the autonomy of our nation. Here's some pros and cons on the Fair Tax Act:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Ta ... yFair.aspx

tunnelcat wrote: NeoCon blueprint for America

Get on board, we have 7 meals a day AND shuffleboard.

Which Cuda we talkin about here

tunnelcat wrote:...
Will, after spending some time perusing GOOOH's related links, I'm still of the opinion it's a stealth NeoCon blueprint for America. Far too many right-wingers (code word: PATRIOT, reads as: RIGHT WING) love this idea and not enough lefties even have a presence to make it bipartisan in my book. The fact you can't see it shows your bias. Don't get me wrong, Tim Cox's idea is obviously from the heart and it's a good one, but it reeks of right-wing conservatism, or at least an appropriation of his idea by conservatives. So I can't buy into it as it stands....

You didn't reject it as it stands. You said your self it is a good idea and from the heart! You then reject it anyway because you feel like too many conservatives like the idea!?!#?%?$$!? Conservatives like it why should be your next question instead of doing the good-little-party-member knee jerk. Your reasons to reject it are out of bigotry not that you find fault in the plan!

Of course there will be a lot of conservatives to jump on an idea that is logical since there are great number of incumbant democrats in office right now doing very bad things with their power. You need to think about the goal of the plan, which is to unseat as many incumbents (read: party stooges) as possible and this plan would replace them with...wait for it....citizen representatives who aren't the product of the party machine EITHER PARTY.
Now tell me how that goal is serving the repubs in the black helicopters you feel are hovering behind the scenes in this process?

Face it TC, if a bunch of libs on the Daily Kos decided to start this up you would love it, the difference between you and me is I would still love it because the goal is worthy and I don't care which party takes more losses in Nov. that is simply a product of one party having more power when this thing would hit BUT THE NET RESULT WOULD BE THE SAME regardless of which party held the majority AND THAT IS THE IMPORTANT PART...unless you are more concerned with party politics than flushing the rattbastards out.

PS: your guy in the link who tried to dis the FairTax is really lame, he contradicts his own warnings sometimes within the same paragraph! He links to the explanation of the difference between inclusive and exclusive AND STILL gets it wrong! It's like textbook moron journalism!! Did you even think through what he was saying and check to see if it made sense or just Google for something that challenged the FairTax?!?!

Here: Get this and then take another look at the detractors of the FairTax.

Oh that's rich! Neal Boortz, the author who also penned a nice little book titled 'The Terrible Truth About Liberals' (1998). So I'm supposed to believe HE'S unbiased about the Fair Tax Act? BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA! Here's another look at the pros and cons of the Fair Tax Act, since you didn't like my first link.

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/national_sales_tax.htm

Like I said, the idea of throwing the bums out is valid, but when it's backed mostly by liberal-idea-hating wackos, it ain't bipartisan, \"it's my way or the highway\" partisan! Don't give me crap about Democrats doing \"bad\" things in office right now. Both parties have been doing \"bad\" things in office, the Dems don't have the monopoly.

tunnelcat wrote:Oh that's rich! Neal Boortz, the author who also penned a nice little book titled 'The Terrible Truth About Liberals' (1998). So I'm supposed to believe HE'S unbiased about the Fair Tax Act? BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA! Here's another look at the pros and cons of the Fair Tax Act, since you didn't like my first link.

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/national_sales_tax.htm

You are just googling for anti-fairtax stuff and not even reading it because this example is worse than the first and even you are not so stupid to think this refutes the FairTax....not if you actually read any of either...

Like I said, the idea of throwing the bums out is valid, but when it's backed mostly by liberal-idea-hating wackos, it ain't bipartisan, "it's my way or the highway" partisan!...

throwing the bums out is as bipartisan as it gets! You have yet to show how the GOOOH can be used to work to the advantage of either party. You are hopelessly stuck on your party's rhetoric and flounder miserably when presented with something outside the template. The only thing you have left out is claiming GOOOH is racist..that will earn you a gold star from your party and pretty much complete the talking points on this issue.

Obama is going to lose re-election and the polar opposite will take his place and you'll be responsible for 4 to 8 years of that mess as much as you are the Obama mess because you're to stubborn or lazy to think for yourself.

You are so predictably partisan that I bet I can make your skin crawl:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BOO!!!

Will Robinson wrote:BOO!!!

LOL

With Congress at a all time low of 11% approval rating, Reagan's waggling of moose horn symbolism is appropriate. Look for a lot of shed antlers come this November.

Will Robinson wrote:throwing the bums out is as bipartisan as it gets! You have yet to show how the GOOOH can be used to work to the advantage of either party. You are hopelessly stuck on your party's rhetoric and flounder miserably when presented with something outside the template. The only thing you have left out is claiming GOOOH is racist..that will earn you a gold star from your party and pretty much complete the talking points on this issue.

Obama is going to lose re-election and the polar opposite will take his place and you'll be responsible for 4 to 8 years of that mess as much as you are the Obama mess because you're to stubborn or lazy to think for yourself.

You are so predictably partisan that I bet I can make your skin crawl:

Yeah, Reagan does make my skin crawl. Not only was he a BAD actor, he's mostly responsible (along with Nixon's Southern Strategy and the Gingrich Revolution) for ushering in the beginning of the destruction of our Republic, along with it's democractic ideals and large middle class, and promoting it to be replaced by a Corporatocracy and Oligarchy. He ended up poisoning BOTH parties in the process.

The libs aren't happy with the status quo Obama's brought in either. The Sherry Sherrod debacle perfectly illustrates what happens when someone is YELLOW, then knee-jerk reacts like a little scared child to his opponents whenever they even sneeze, and then to top it off, disrespects his base by not following through on his campaign promises. So how come all these unhappy libs aren't joining GOOOH? Probably because it's supported by Tea Party and right-wing interests. No lib worth his/her salt is even going to consider a Tea Party Candidate, so you're right, Obama's going to lose because the libs will just sit this one out and we'll get a bunch of crazy Tea Party shlubs or end up back with the same old Republican tripe we had before.

However, I'm not going to give a blanket vote to someone because they're an incumbent. I will give far more support and scrutiny to outsiders willing to give their all to fix the system. But we'll STILL probably get burned, new faces don't always mean change because Obama promised HE'D change things and look what we got.

tunnelcat wrote:
Yeah, Reagan does make my skin crawl. Not only was he a BAD actor, he's mostly responsible (along with Nixon's Southern Strategy and the Gingrich Revolution) for ushering in the beginning of the destruction of our Republic, along with it's democractic ideals and large middle class, and promoting it to be replaced by a Corporatocracy and Oligarchy. He ended up poisoning BOTH parties in the process.

AHAHAHAHAHAH! That's just so funny. IF you really want to know what started this country down that path you need to look farther back than that. Hint: Woodrow Wilson and the progressive movement. Now go read some history.

Agreed, Mostly Wilson, and some FDR

Carter created the need for the two income family…I mean if we are blaming and stuff.

tunnelcat wrote:...
Yeah, Reagan does make my skin crawl. Not only was he a BAD actor, he's mostly responsible (along with Nixon's Southern Strategy and the Gingrich Revolution) for ushering in the beginning of the destruction of our Republic..

Wow! Classic denial and true party loyalist on display there! You have been been assimilated. It would be a waste of time to challenge that, not that a challenge would be without substance but truly a waste of time. Does the Party distribute the pajama uniforms to you guys when you hit that level?

Spidey wrote:Carter created the need for the two income family…I mean if we are blaming and stuff.

Carter?? Study up on your economics/political histories a bit. Two income families were common place well before Carter came along.

Will Robinson wrote:Wow! Classic denial and true party loyalist on display there! You have been been assimilated. It would be a waste of time to challenge that, not that a challenge would be without substance but truly a waste of time. Does the Party distribute the pajama uniforms to you guys when you hit that level?

Does your God Reagan demand your subservience and obedience in perpetuity? He may have beat double-digit inflation, but he sold our country's soul to do it in the long run. Since you're so fond of recommending books to read, here's one for you:

Tear Down This Myth

TechPro…

It was a joke, not a history lesson.

But, I do like how you wasted your time to correct only me…

Will Bunch wrote:
Get Breaking News Alerts
never spam

*
Share
*
Print
*
Comments

Jan. 20, 2009, was such a transformative day in American politics that it was easy to forget it also marked a 20th anniversary as well. The inauguration of President Barack Obama also meant it was two decades to the exact day since Ronald Reagan last sat in the Oval Office. When he and his wife Nancy boarded the Air Force One jetliner -- the one that was later decommissioned, de-assembled and reassembled at the Ronald Reagan Library (and mostly paid for by oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens) -- for the long trip back to California, it wasn't clear how the world would remember Reagan's presidency.

For the majority of his second term, Americans told pollsters that the nation was on a wrong track, and in 1987 a 55-percent majority said we needed a new direction away from Reagan's often divisive policies. But in little more than five years after leaving Washington, the Great Communicator would be silenced by Alzheimer's -- and a new generation of neoconservatives would construct a mythologized, iconic version of the 40th president that increasingly bore little resemblance to the flesh-and-blood Ronald Reagan.

It is that modern version -- and warped policies that could be collectively called Reaganism -- that has given us an unfathomable national debt, a wide gulf between the nation's rich and poor, the denial of basic science on energy and the environment, and which was even used to justify an unjustifiable war in Iraq that the real Gipper himself would never undertaken.

Twenty years gone -- but Reagan still matters. About this time one year ago, unceasing Reagan idolatry hijacked the race for the White House. Sometimes it was voiced in the name of policies on immigration or toward Iran that were the exact opposite of what really happened a generation ago. The power of this political fantasy -- expressed mainly, of course, on the GOP side but occasionally even spilling over to the Democrats -- inspired me to begin work on a book about the Ronald Reagan myth.

BLAH BLAH BLAH!

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Wow! Classic denial and true party loyalist on display there! You have been been assimilated. It would be a waste of time to challenge that, not that a challenge would be without substance but truly a waste of time. Does the Party distribute the pajama uniforms to you guys when you hit that level?

Does your God Reagan demand your subservience and obedience in perpetuity? He may have beat double-digit inflation, but he sold our country's soul to do it in the long run. Since you're so fond of recommending books to read, here's one for you:

Tear Down This Myth

You are so frikkin thick headed!
I simply used his picture to make a funny, mocking your dogmatical expression of democrat/liberal loyalty. The reaction that produced was both predictable and saddening.

I don't hold Reagan up to be any kind of god, never did. He had some things right and some wrong.
I also don't exclude him and other conservatives from any list of politicians who have screwed things up!!

You, on the other hand, do selectively (or foolishly) exclude all your democrats from your master list of 'who screwed up the republic'! And that is pathetic.

Your loyalty to your party mirrors battered wife syndrome.
You'll throw out a few negatives about them to try and gain some appearance of objectivity in a premeditated posting but when the spontaneous rant rolls off your keyboard the true TC is exposed and that TC is a fingers-in-her-ears 2 year old refusing to listen to anything that wasn't scripted by the DNC talking points department.

tunnelcat wrote:
He may have beat double-digit inflation, but he sold our country's soul to do it in the long run. Since you're so fond of recommending books to read, here's one for you:

Tear Down This Myth

Some may say after the Carter years, Reagan gave our country's soul back. Years later we again have a liberal flamer in office doing his best to put America in "Its Place". Perhaps it will be Palin who will reverse this.

Oh and TC, sad to see Bill the Cat has been replaced. Gaack!

You are so predictably partisan that I bet I can make your skin crawl:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BOO!!!

TC wrote:Does your God Reagan demand your subservience and obedience in perpetuity? He may have beat double-digit inflation, but he sold our country's soul to do it in the long run.

I think it worked Wood

Heh

Will Robinson wrote:You are so frikkin thick headed!
I simply used his picture to make a funny, mocking your dogmatical expression of democrat/liberal loyalty. The reaction that produced was both predictable and saddening.

I don't hold Reagan up to be any kind of god, never did. He had some things right and some wrong.
I also don't exclude him and other conservatives from any list of politicians who have screwed things up!!

You, on the other hand, do selectively (or foolishly) exclude all your democrats from your master list of 'who screwed up the republic'! And that is pathetic.

Your loyalty to your party mirrors battered wife syndrome.
You'll throw out a few negatives about them to try and gain some appearance of objectivity in a premeditated posting but when the spontaneous rant rolls off your keyboard the true TC is exposed and that TC is a fingers-in-her-ears 2 year old refusing to listen to anything that wasn't scripted by the DNC talking points department.

Oh for crying out loud! I'm not anymore loyal to the Dems than you seem to be loyal to the Republicans. In fact, most of what the majority of Dems are doing right now is yellow-bellied a$$ kissing in my mind! I've voted for Repubs as well as independents in the past, not just Democrats. I voted for someone whenever they fought for the people, not the corporations. I just happen to agree with a more liberal side of the political spectrum and the Dems are no longer following their own mantra or ethics, so I'm certainly not going to follow them like a puppy. All they seem to do now is line their pockets with lobbyist cash and vote for corporate interests, not the people's interests. However, I wouldn't vote for anyone in the Tea Party AT ALL!

By the way, Carter may have been a moron of a president and I personally think he did a lousy job, but at least he followed his own words, ethics and personal beliefs, even after he left office. Clinton was just a spoiled brat playboy while in office and was a disgrace to the presidency and still grates on me whenever I see him out in the press blithering one thing or another.

woodchip wrote:Oh and TC, sad to see Bill the Cat has been replaced. Gaack!

Sorry woodchip. Just changing the scenery. The new Jerry Garcia kitty is more colorful though.

TC you give lip service to being independent but you refuse to consider a voting out the incumbents plan because some conservatives have also taken a liking to the plan! That is not independent, there is no logic behind that knee-jerk reaction only partisan paranoia instincts!!

That's precisely why I'm more of an independent, although I admit with slightly a more liberal tilt, than you think. Anytime some idea comes along and ONE side of the political spectrum jumps all over it with gusto, it tends to not pass my smell test. Finis.