DescentBB

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I agree with callmeslick. Heretic has clearly settled that issue. No need to beat a dead horse.

I believe we were talking about the well-educated public's inability to recognize bankrupt statistical excuses for political monopolies in bed with the media and entertainment industry. Or did you want to go back further?

Does Big Pharma being in bed with Obamacare count?

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/05/obamaca ... ig_pharma/

Woody, do you ever focus on the topic being discussed, or simply randomly toss out odd little bits of your Obama-hate as the mood hits you?

...and yes, CUDA, I used the word hate, in the same hyphenated usage I do on here consistently.

Heretic wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Heretic wrote:Really http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/24/pro- ... onvention/

Did I say I was a Democrat? Not.

However, the Republicans in the House and many Republican Governors are the primary culprits who are going after women's rights in most of the states that have passed recent restrictions on abortions, birth control and Planned Parenthood. The House has wasted more votes than I can count on the subject, much to their detriment in the eyes of most women in this country.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... House.html

And abortions were brought up by?

Doctors, those Gods of medicine we all seem to revere. But if you don't want abortions, don't ban birth control and make sure people are taught comprehensive sex ed, so they don't have accidental pregnancies in the first place.

Heretic wrote:Democrats for Life cited a 2011 Gallup poll, which found the following:

61 percent of Democrats support parental consent for minors.
60 percent support a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion.
Nearly 60 percent support a ban on partial birth abortions.

and of course you didn't say democrat because the would go against your hate towards republicans

I support those too. No rash decisions, definitely parental consent for minors and partial birth abortions are just plain twisted. But women need to have the choice early in the pregnancy and they need access to birth control. It's just that Republicans seem to want to have way more power through legislation over our bodies than we'd like them to have.

still digging:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/02 ... he-uterus/

callmeslick wrote:Woody, do you ever focus on the topic being discussed, or simply randomly toss out odd little bits of your Obama-hate as the mood hits you?

I can answer that for you: no.

callmeslick wrote:still digging:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/02 ... he-uterus/

★■◆●ing hell...

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Woody, do you ever focus on the topic being discussed, or simply randomly toss out odd little bits of your Obama-hate as the mood hits you?

I can answer that for you: no.

Isn't slick tossing out random odd bits of his own at this point?

I think both sides can find plenty of oddball theorists to highlight and play guilt by association with, no matter how tenuous the association is.

Will Robinson wrote:
Isn't slick tossing out random odd bits of his own at this point?

not really, just adding examples to illustrate my initial point. Very much on-topic, most would agree....It's not about finding 'oddball theorists', it becomes a problem if an entire party lets these oddballs spout drivel without very public slapdowns. This stuff will kill the GOP, have no doubts. Well, this stuff, along with the issues about immigration and catering to the wealthy along for the ride to help. Still, my original point was that the GOP is alienating women voters, in an age when women make up an ever-larger chunk of the voting populace. Not a bright strategy.

So in slicks case they are "examples" and mine are "odd bits". As to the GOP destroying itself I'll have to remind you of the worst defeat the Dems ever experienced in the 2010 congressional race. Oops, another odd bit eh?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:
Isn't slick tossing out random odd bits of his own at this point?

not really, just adding examples to illustrate my initial point. Very much on-topic, most would agree....It's not about finding 'oddball theorists', it becomes a problem if an entire party lets these oddballs spout drivel without very public slapdowns. This stuff will kill the GOP, have no doubts. Well, this stuff, along with the issues about immigration and catering to the wealthy along for the ride to help. Still, my original point was that the GOP is alienating women voters, in an age when women make up an ever-larger chunk of the voting populace. Not a bright strategy.

So this latest example is what you would consider a strong enough tie to the repub party to justify blaming them with his theories.
Can we assume then that you hold the dem party equally liable for the comments of wackos on your side? If so I must have missed it?!?

And do you really think you are setting the example of reasonable discourse that you claim is so needed? Or is this another example of you and your party's selective application of 'reasonable'?

woodchip wrote:So in slicks case they are "examples" and mine are "odd bits". As to the GOP destroying itself I'll have to remind you of the worst defeat the Dems ever experienced in the 2010 congressional race. Oops, another odd bit eh?

not at all, but I suspect very much an outlier.

and, Will, my point is that the GOP leadership has to start aggressively debunking these loons, publicly, or risk getting painted with a broad brush.

Well Slick, when you have Dems like Pelosi saying, "We have to pass the health care bill before we can know whats in it" I think the Dems have to clean up their act also.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:So in slicks case they are "examples" and mine are "odd bits". As to the GOP destroying itself I'll have to remind you of the worst defeat the Dems ever experienced in the 2010 congressional race. Oops, another odd bit eh?

not at all, but I suspect very much an outlier.

and, Will, my point is that the GOP leadership has to start aggressively debunking these loons, publicly, or risk getting painted with a broad brush.

As opposed to the Dems who don't have to disown all sorts of loons, some of them in Congress....
By the way, that broad brush has been worn out and replaced númerous times from so much use that it no longer works as a threat.

so, will, a nationwide approval rating of around 26% for the GOP is proof that the brush isn't working? Hmmmm, I'd disagree.

ya the Democrats are SOOOO much more approved of

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?"

quinnipiac pol Approve 26% 2/14-20/12

CBS pol 30% approval

CNN pol 31% approval

YES those are SOOOO much better than the 26% of the No pol that you posted

Gonna have to call "bull****" on your point there, Slick, and I think you need to stop digging on this one. People who paint with a broad brush will paint with a broad brush. It's nobody's responsibility to ensure they don't have any legitimate material, because there is no legitimate material and never has been.

On top of that, in my opinion, it is disingenuous for anyone to call on opponent parties (not "political parties") they disagree with to take on other, similar parties they disagree with more, because ultimately they won't be satisfied until the first party also concedes defeat. I would be a fool to take on other conservatives on any terms other than my own, because we are largely in agreement on certain issues, and people like you, slick, would never really be happy with the conclusion anyway. So stop the crocodile tears, and just engage your opponents equally (or go after these "loony" conservatives first and foremost, if you see them as being such a big problem). At least you'll have honesty on your side.

callmeslick wrote:so, will, a nationwide approval rating of around 26% for the GOP is proof that the brush isn't working? Hmmmm, I'd disagree.

No, what isn't working is during the decades long beating you threaten to beat them if they don't deliver....
It's too late to suggest 'or else'.

And isn't the Dem approval rating at or below 30% depending on where you look?

CUDA wrote:ya the Democrats are SOOOO much more approved of

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?"

quinnipiac pol Approve 26% 2/14-20/12

CBS pol 30% approval

CNN pol 31% approval

YES those are SOOOO much better than the 26% of the No pol that you posted

apples v oranges. GOP numbers are far lower still.Polls for Positive view of party--GOP 26% Dem 47%

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:ya the Democrats are SOOOO much more approved of

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?"

quinnipiac pol Approve 26% 2/14-20/12

CBS pol 30% approval

CNN pol 31% approval

YES those are SOOOO much better than the 26% of the No pol that you posted

apples v oranges. GOP numbers are far lower still.Polls for Positive view of party--GOP 26% Dem 47%

Lets assume your numbers are correct and your theory too, that the repubs need to disown the loons. What loons has your party disowned if that is the way to do it?

Perhaps there is a correlation between the amount of disavowing that has been going on with the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Muslims (Islamic Terrorism). Maybe disavowing people with whom you are 50% in agreement for the sake of people with whom you are 10% in agreement just isn't a popular strategy.

Will Robinson wrote:
Isn't slick tossing out random odd bits of his own at this point?

Not really, they seem pretty reasonable to me so far...

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:ya the Democrats are SOOOO much more approved of

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?"

quinnipiac pol Approve 26% 2/14-20/12

CBS pol 30% approval

CNN pol 31% approval

YES those are SOOOO much better than the 26% of the No pol that you posted

apples v oranges. GOP numbers are far lower still.Polls for Positive view of party--GOP 26% Dem 47%

I suggest you rethink Slick as Real Clear Politics has a approval for all of congress at 15%. Thats for both Dems and Reps. in case you haven't noticed.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:
Isn't slick tossing out random odd bits of his own at this point?

Not really, they seem pretty reasonable to me so far...

You do know Ferny, you're something of a "odd bit" in your own right

another trip to woody-world, where things are never quite real.....

callmeslick wrote:another trip to woody-world, where things are never quite real.....

Ah, another slick ★■◆● reply with no substance. Of course when you can't argue the post you fall back to denigrating the poster ala Alinski rule number 13:

RULE 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

sorry, woody, but Congressional approval doesn't equate to anything but......hold on now.....CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. I clearly cited polling for individual Party approval ratings, not congress, nor governors, nor mayors, but overall view of the party. Cherry picking works in woody world, because you can take solace that my premise in this thread is wrong, but the general public doesn't live in woody-world.

Looks to me like your wrong

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 11-15, 2013. N=1,110 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?"


.

Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %


1/11-15/13 30 60 9



1/12-17/12 26 65 9



11/6-10/11 22 66 12



9/10-15/11 28 63 9



9/10-14/10 30 58 12

still can't read simple English, huh?

callmeslick wrote:still can't read simple English, huh?

Dunno, what part of 60% disapproval for dems in congress did I not read right?

Because several times, I have clearly, in Plain English, cited recent polling on the overall perception of the parties, NOT THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION. Sorry for the caps, but what part of reading comprehension is failing you?

Sorry if you are conceptually incompetent, but it is the 2014 congressional elections that are important now. Dems will have improve their CONGRESSIONAL image if they want to retake the House. Sorry for caps but it's the only way I can slap you upside yo punkin head so you understand better.

woodchip wrote:Sorry if you are conceptually incompetent, but it is the 2014 congressional elections that are important now.

nice dodge. Maybe to you, but governing the country in the next two years is sort of more important to me, and further, will influence those polls when it matters.

Dems will have improve their CONGRESSIONAL image if they want to retake the House. Sorry for caps but it's the only way I can slap you upside yo punkin head so you understand better.

sorry to inform you but you are wrong. No caps necessary. All they have to do is retain the massive lead in favorable to unfavorable, have the demographic shifts continue, and keep doing stuff that most of the nation wants them to do, or at least try. Kind of odd that you would turn a statement about the overall view of the GOP, as a whole, into your ill-informed speculation on 2014 Congressional races. Sort of off the topic of the thread, huh?

No, what the Dems have to do is reign in the president and at least appear to be trying to reduce the deficit by controlling spending and improving the economy. The GOP has to get their message out that helping business grow so they can hire more people so they can get off food stamps is better than making ever more of our population dependent on govt. So yes time will tell and I'm sure we will discuss this further.

the gift that keeps on giving....now this seems reasonable, rational and sane......NOT!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/07/i ... g.facebook