2012 Poll

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

He's probably a 1TP, but are any of those retreads really better alternatives? Palin? Really? And I'm supposed to take this poll seriously?

Gingrich, much better alternative. Romney, a better alternative.

Huckabee, eh. I'd just stay home and let others decide.

Palin, my dog Bugsy is a better alternative than her. I will vote for Obama if Palin is the nom.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Palin, my dog Bugsy is a better alternative than her. I will vote for Obama if Palin is the nom.

Good lord, at least there is still SOME sanity left in the world.

While I disagree, I understand why some people would vote for a Republican against Obama next time around, though at this point I'm really starting to consider just voting for a small party and letting everyone else decide because I'm getting sick of him too. Two years after getting to know Palin, it scares the hell out of me that there is even ONE person in this country who would vote for her, let alone enough to elect her potentially.

Argue Obama's inexperience all you want, but at least he has SOME grasp of the issues. Sarah Palin has exhibited not one ounce of depth or understanding of complexities on even one single issue in two years in the public eye. And how that is not terrifying to people is absolutely beyond me.

[Antitrust32]

Her and Jesus are tight... thats why the tea party people love her.

I dont think there is any way she will be on the republican ticket.

After quitting her post as govener, she basically surrendered any possibility of holding a public office again, IMO. No way a quitter should even be allowed on the ticket.

She should stick to her current job of Fox News Entertainer and Twitter Reporter.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Good lord, at least there is still SOME sanity left in the world.

While I disagree, I understand why some people would vote for a Republican against Obama next time around, though at this point I'm really starting to consider just voting for a small party and letting everyone else decide because I'm getting sick of him too. Two years after getting to know Palin, it scares the hell out of me that there is even ONE person in this country who would vote for her, let alone enough to elect her potentially.

Argue Obama's inexperience all you want, but at least he has SOME grasp of the issues. Sarah Palin has exhibited not one ounce of depth or understanding of complexities on even one single issue in two years in the public eye. And how that is not terrifying to people is absolutely beyond me.

What is terrifying is having Eric Holder as AG. It is terifying to have an Attorney General who doesn't care about the law and just does whatever he feels like doing. He has no problem with sanctuary cities. He thinks it's fine for cities to snub their nose at federal law and ignore immigration laws. That is fine with Holder. But when states try to enforce federal law, Holder sues them and has the gall to say these states are "interfering with federal law".

And then there is the case of the guys intimidating voters in what a long-time civil rights activist called the "worst case of voter intimidation he had ever seen". But Holder dropped the charges simply because of the color of the defendants skin. If that's not terrifying to you then I don't know what is.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What is terrifying is having Eric Holder as AG. It is terifying to have an Attorney General who doesn't care about the law and just does whatever he feels like doing. He has no problem with sanctuary cities. He thinks it's fine for cities to snub their nose at federal law and ignore immigration laws. That is fine with Holder. But when states try to enforce federal law, Holder sues them and has the gall to say these states are "interfering with federal law".

And then there is the case of the guys intimidating voters in what a long-time civil rights activist called the "worst case of voter intimidation he had ever seen". But Holder dropped the charges simply because of the color of the defendants skin. If that's not terrifying to you then I don't know what is.

While Holder may certainly have problems to worry about, the Black Panther thing being one of them, this post is just too rich top to bottom.

When "states" try to enforce federal law he sues "them?" Them and states are both plural. Examples please. Or are you just trying to make it sound worse than it is to try to score a point? I bet the house on the latter. It's what you guys do.

And who was the last attorney general? And you're worried about an AG who doesn't follow the law and just does whatever he feels like doing?

Consistency will surely never accidentally be listed in the "plus" column when discussing the conservative mindset.

Thanks for a good laugh, Rupert.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Consistency will surely never accidentally be listed in the "plus" column when discussing the conservative mindset.

Thanks for a good laugh, Rupert.

The liberal mindset is short on the logic necessary to analyze the conservative mindset. Quite a conundrum there.

And the laughter always echoes from the asylum, though they don't sound too happy. Wait until November -- then the real fun begins.

Most people in the country have now correctly sized up this administration as socialist. They don't like it. They prefer freedom. And, wow, are you liberals going to get a rude awakening. I personally can't wait -- I'll be watching the big TV with some popcorn and a cold beer, smiling from ear to ear as America sends this joke of a Congress packing.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The liberal mindset is short on the logic necessary to analyze the conservative mindset. Quite a conundrum there.

And the laughter always echoes from the asylum, though they don't sound too happy. Wait until November -- then the real fun begins.

Most people in the country have now correctly sized up this administration as socialist. They don't like it. They prefer freedom. And, wow, are you liberals going to get a rude awakening. I personally can't wait -- I'll be watching the big TV with some popcorn and a cold beer, smiling from ear to ear as America sends this joke of a Congress packing.

The opposition party does that at every midterm. Glad you will get the enjoyment out of thinking you discovered some new political creature that has been invented and will happen for the first time ever because of Obama. Good for you.

And a conservative making fun of a liberal for being short on logic. Talk about a smile from ear to ear as I can't stop laughing at a total lack of self-awareness on your part.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The opposition party does that at every midterm. Glad you will get the enjoyment out of thinking you discovered some new political creature that has been invented and will happen for the first time ever because of Obama. Good for you.

Yeah but odds were strong in 2008 that the Dems would hold 2010. Not too many times in history has the winning party replaced a disaster like Dubya.

It's kind of frightening how bad both sides of the aisle are.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

While Holder may certainly have problems to worry about, the Black Panther thing being one of them, this post is just too rich top to bottom.

When "states" try to enforce federal law he sues "them?" Them and states are both plural. Examples please. Or are you just trying to make it sound worse than it is to try to score a point? I bet the house on the latter. It's what you guys do.

And who was the last attorney general? And you're worried about an AG who doesn't follow the law and just does whatever he feels like doing?

Consistency will surely never accidentally be listed in the "plus" column when discussing the conservative mindset.

Thanks for a good laugh, Rupert.

Examples please? Huh? Have you ever heard of Arizona? I said "states" rather than "state" because Holder's policy is obviously to sue states that pass this type of legislation and there will be more to follow. Other states are already in the planning stages of coming up with similar laws to Arizona. Are you suggesting that Holder doesn't sue states that try to enforce immigration laws?

You are just arguing over semantics. Here is an analogy. Let's say a guy is prejudice against black people and this guy is about to open a business. He needs to hire employees and he starts interviewing people. He interviews a black woman who is well-qualified but he doesn't hire her because she is black. Would it be incorrect for me to say he won't hire "black people"? Would you say, "Hey Rupert. Why did you say "black people" plural? It should not have been plural. So far there was only one black person (the only one interviewed so far) that he didn't hire. Why are you making it plural? Are you trying to make it sound worse?"

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Examples please? Huh? Have you ever heard of Arizona? I said "states" rather than "state" because Holder's policy is obviously to sue states that pass this type of legislation and there will be more to follow. Other states are already in the planning stages of coming up with similar laws to Arizona. Are you suggesting that Holder doesn't sue states that try to enforce immigration laws?

You are just arguing over semantics. Here is an analogy. Let's say a guy is prejudice against black people and this guy is about to open a business. He needs to hire employees and he starts interviewing people. He interviews a black woman who is well-qualified but he doesn't hire her because she is black. Would it be incorrect for me to say he won't hire "black people"? Would you say, "Hey Rupert. Why did you say "black people" plural? It should not have been plural. So far there was only one black person (the only one interviewed so far) that he didn't hire. Why are you making it plural? Are you trying to make it sound worse?"

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing your words. You wrote them. Own them.

Obviously I have heard of Arizona, and that is one, so I was right about you trying to make it sound worse than it was. It's not like it was all that surprising to see it coming. When there is a "them" and when there are "states," then you can feel free to talk about it like it's some kind of epidemic. When there is only one example, talk about that one example. If it's so shockingly horrific, you shouldn't need to try to make it sound worse than it is.

Until then, though I know this isn't high on your list of priorities, a little intellectual honesty would be a good addition to your repertoire.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing your words. You wrote them. Own them.

Obviously I have heard of Arizona, and that is one, so I was right about you trying to make it sound worse than it was. It's not like it was all that surprising to see it coming. When there is a "them" and when there are "states," then you can feel free to talk about it like it's some kind of epidemic. When there is only one example, talk about that one example. If it's so shockingly horrific, you shouldn't need to try to make it sound worse than it is.

Until then, though I know this isn't high on your list of priorities, a little intellectual honesty would be a good addition to your repertoire.

That is ridiculous. If I beat up an old lady and stole her purse, would it be incorrect for you to say, "Rupert beats up old ladies and steal their purses."?

I guess technically it shouldn't be plural if I only beat up one old lady and stole her purse. However, I would still consider the statment correct and I don't think too many would argue the semantics. I think people would get the point.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Good lord, at least there is still SOME sanity left in the world.

While I disagree, I understand why some people would vote for a Republican against Obama next time around, though at this point I'm really starting to consider just voting for a small party and letting everyone else decide because I'm getting sick of him too. Two years after getting to know Palin, it scares the hell out of me that there is even ONE person in this country who would vote for her, let alone enough to elect her potentially.

Argue Obama's inexperience all you want, but at least he has SOME grasp of the issues. Sarah Palin has exhibited not one ounce of depth or understanding of complexities on even one single issue in two years in the public eye. And how that is not terrifying to people is absolutely beyond me.

then why did the stimulus make the unemployment rate go up when he said if it was passed would keep unemployment from going abve 8%

tell me what Palin did specifically to make Alaska worse off , what did she screw up up there , she had executive experience , obama had none

the american people are waking up to the fact that we have a person in the white house who has no experience ....obama is a smart guy , knows a lot of things , but if you don't think he is in over his head you're dead wrong. the media did a great job of this during the election peroid , the convinced the american people that obama would be a messiah and that palin would have no clue

he's had 18 months and tell me how we are better off today than we were 18 months ago , i don't see it anywhere

tell me what palin would have done that would have made us worse off today if she had been elected , she couldn't have been any worse than obama to this point

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by gales0678

then why did the stimulus make the unemployment rate go up when he said if it was passed would keep unemployment from going abve 8%

That doesn't make a lot of sense here Gales. The stimulus made unemployment go up???

Interesting.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

That doesn't make a lot of sense here Gales. The stimulus made unemployment go up???

Interesting.

and this guy didn't even need Sighty's Magic 8-Ball

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487425,00.html

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by geeker2

and this guy didn't even need Sighty's Magic 8-Ball

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487425,00.html

And you can find a million economists who will say the stimulus lowers unemployment.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And you can find a million economists who will say the stimulus lowers unemployment.

Yeah, but you said it "doesn't make a lot of sense " and what this guy pointed out was a logical possible senerio.

and I don't see unemployment lower.....

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

That doesn't make a lot of sense here Gales. The stimulus made unemployment go up???

Interesting.

well it did , they said if it got passed unemployment wouldn't go above 8% , after it went through we went straight up to 10% , guess it worked , just the opposite of what they thought

[dalakhani]

[quote=gales0678;671145]well it did , they said if it got passed unemployment wouldn't go above 8% , after it went through we went straight up to 10% , guess it worked , just the opposite of what they thought[/QUOT

surely you took logic classes in college. This would be a logical fallacy unless of course you can show how the stimulus caused unemployment to go up.

[gales0678]

[quote=dalakhani;671272]

Originally Posted by gales0678

well it did , they said if it got passed unemployment wouldn't go above 8% , after it went through we went straight up to 10% , guess it worked , just the opposite of what they thought[/QUOT

surely you took logic classes in college. This would be a logical fallacy unless of course you can show how the stimulus caused unemployment to go up.

it's really black and white , bush left office in jan , we were told in early feb that the stimulus had to get passed immediatly in order for unemployment to not go above 8% , it went to 10%+ after it was passed

no one will ever no what would have happened to unemployment if it didn't get passed

but in the real world not in your fantasy little world inside the beltway dala
it didn't work


if palin guaranteed something like this and it didn't happen the media would be killing her every day , obama and his team get a pass, but , they obviously have made things worse since Bush headed back to Texas