recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Version 18247, "Zach"; Copyright © 2013 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.
Comments: 82
This is just more mean-spirited mocking from the Left. There is no humor in it. The only ones laughing are you dark-hearted, bitter Libs who've lost nearly all your steam since the last election cycle. Now you resort to this kind of underhanded teasing - that, incidentally, isn't funny. If it were funny, you wouldn't be the only one in the room laughing.
If that's actually the case, then why couldn't anyone from the Left unseat him in two elections? It says more about you than it does about Mr. Bush.
Back to the topic at hand : Leftist mocking.
Don't you have anything better than this? I mean, if this is it, then the Left should settle in and let the undertaker throw dirt on you guys.
And don't worry, I'm sure the clowns on the right will give us much better material than this, in fact they probably already have. I think I'll take a stroll through cyberspace and see what I can come up with, thanks.
He's been President for 7+ years. No one unseated him.
If Mr. Bush is as bad as Kevin was saying, AND as stupid as you Libs have claimed, then why can't you put up a Leftist candidate that can defeat him in an election? Are you implying that Mr. Bush didn't beat Kerry soundly in 2004? No amount of cheating could have erased the margin that Mr. Bush won by.
Possible reasons :
1) Leftists overvalued their own opinions about Mr. Bush
2) Mr. Bush is actually quite smart, but quiet about it (after all, the guy does have a Harvard MBA).
3) Negative stories about Mr. Bush's past were overblown
4) Lefties are as wrong about this as they were about Welfare, Public ghetto housing, the War on Poverty, Foreign Policy, and virtually every other program they've come out wildly in favor of since 1976.
If Mr. Bush is as bad as Kevin was saying, AND as stupid as you Libs have claimed, then why can't you put up a Leftist candidate that can defeat him in an election?"
A lying cheating Republican election rigging system, obviously.
"Are you implying that Mr. Bush didn't beat Kerry soundly in 2004? No amount of cheating could have erased the margin that Mr. Bush won by."
You're full of prune soup. The mandate bush claimed wasn't a mandate at all. All you have to do to reverse the end result is give Kerry Ohio, and guess what? They already have two convictions in Ohio for election fraud, and 56 out of 88 counties have destroyed the ballots, even though a court order required them to store and protect them. Blackwell orchestrated a statewide campaign to make it almost impossible to register new voters, and then carried out a statewide campaign to throw the election to Bush, including causing ten hour waits to vote in Democratic precincts because of a lack of voting machines, while the average in Republican precincts was minutes, if anything. Machines racked up more votes for Bush in some areas, than there were voters registered, some election boards locked legal election observers out of the count process, and on and on. I won't go into details here, there are more than enough articles on the subject in my archives, but yes, he stole that election too, and there is more than enough proof of that, even without the election boards all dumping the ballots to avoid detection, which is proof positive of culpability. There will be more convictions out of this process as well, you can bank on that.
"Possible reasons :
1) Leftists overvalued their own opinions about Mr. Bush
2) Mr. Bush is actually quite smart, but quiet about it (after all, the guy does have a Harvard MBA).
3) Negative stories about Mr. Bush's past were overblown
4) Lefties are as wrong about this as they were about Welfare, Public ghetto housing, the War on Poverty, Foreign Policy, and virtually every other program they've come out wildly in favor of since 1976."
Conservative talk radio drivel.
Mr. Bush won by 5% in 2004. It wasn't even close. Could it be that we put up a nincompoop as our candidate?
I can tell you this much : as a Conservative Democrat, I didn't support Kerry. His Vietnam record was suspicious, and he hasn't done a damn thing worth remembering, in all his years in Congress. He was weak, and Mr. Bush beat him soundly.
Since I don't listen to talk radio, I can only assume that the listed "Possible Reasons" above, are obvious to just about everyone.
Still, only the numbers matter. Mr. Bush will retire highly successful in his election record. Kerry and Gore..........not so much.
You're not really going to try to foist Kerry on us as a "legitimate war hero", are you?
I think he already disqualified himself from that honorable label during his "Winter Soldier" hearings.
Remember "Jengis Khan"..............?
Yea, that.
Mandate? I don't think I used that word. I just said that Mr. Bush beat Kerry soundly - which he did.
I have nerve from being right - especially where your dubious accusations are concerned. Irregularities, Ron? We've always had a few of those during elections, but not enough to matter (usually less than one-one hundredth of one percent nationwide). Otherwise, why would all 50 Secretaries of State certify their state elections? Wouldn't that be risking jail to do that erroneously, Ron? You know the answer...........
One one hundredth of one percent. Which was exactly the same number of election errors we had in 1960. It's just too low a number, Ron. Statistically insignificant, as the pollsters say..........
Says you, the words of an idiot, as opposed to proof of massive voter fraud nationwide. Exit polling also showed clear evidence of machine tampering, once again. Your secretary of state argument is lame in the face of that, alone.
Massive voter fraud would have meant MANY Secretaries of State were thrown in jail. As we both know, none were.
Like I said, one one-hundredth of one percent is not a large enough number to whine and complain for 7+ years the way you sore losers have. Try to MoveOn.org for a change.....lol.
I was unaware that Scooter Libby was in jail for voter fraud. Isn't that the topic we were discussing?
Besides, weren't you sore loser Lefties hunting bigger game?............Like Mr. Cheney or Mr. Bush? Looks like you bagged a squirrel rather than a bull elk. I bet that didn't feed too many hungry Leftists.
Sounds like you can't argue the topic.
I think most watching our debate see you ducking, and me trying to engage you any way I can. I would love to hear the defense you Lefties have. I suspect you have none.........as usual.
In the words of a great American, "If you argue with a fool, you're no better than he is." You're the fool, and I'll just let you prove it in your own inimitable way, by opening your mouth and letting your brain fall out.
Who would that great American be, and what would his correct quote be?
Just a name and a quote, nothing more, Ron.
I think your father was swiping a quote from Frederick Douglass.
I think it's good that a public site like this exists so that you can air your Socialist views in public for the world to see. Foolish? I don't see how communication, even with those that disagree with you on important topics, is a bad thing. Personally, when you go off the deep end with some of your comments, it does more to damage your point of view than if I ever even opened my mouth.
Yet another reason why Socialism is in decline here and elsewhere.
Best line in the thread, Kevin.
Even Mitt Romney, the hair-sprayed flip-flopper, gets a laugh when he describes a sentence from Rudy as "a noun, a verb, and 9-11".
I hope you save all your articles, Ron.
It will be hugely entertaining to read Brett's comments about the "lost all their steam" Democrats after the elections next year.
So if Mr. Bush is so awful, and such a terrible President, then why have you on the other side of the voting spectrum not been able to defeat him? I mean, isn't he just so awful that everyone can see that?
I'm involved with the Democratic party in Illinois, and I get to see the turmoil that goes on internally. There is no way that Hillary can win with this level of discontent in the party. The turmoil now, internally, is far worse than when Kerry split the party in 2004. I worked on the finance committee then, and got to see all the inner workings too.
There is absolutely no question about it, Peter : the truly Leftist folks in our party are going home, with their tails between their legs, defeated. They won't support a Hillary nomination in 2008. Please mark my words on this - I welcome it.
First of all, the name is beyond hilarious. Which one of the Village People are you? lol
I think its humorous that you think I answer to someone, regarding my true feelings about politics. I make no bones about it - I'm a Conservative Democrat. Conservative first, Democrat next.
2000 was a close election, but Mr. Bush legitimately won it. Otherwise, why would Gore have given up without much of a fight, and a quick concession speech? I for one, thought he'd at least drag it out until early January in court. He didn't. Must mean he saw the handwriting on the wall.
2004 was even more clear-cut. Kerry was a poor nomination, plain and simple. We could have done much better.
Unfortunately, we're going down the "Kerry path" again, with a candidate that is eminently beatable. This is our election to lose, and we're doing exactly what this party has become world class in : snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...........in the 11th hour.
Once again, mark my words - it will happen. All the same signs are right there in front of us.
I dare you to choose any topic in the above commentary bubble to El Homo Fabuloso and argue it based on documentable facts. I'm pretty sure you're incapable. It's because you're allergic to logic and reason.
You're politically bankrupt, I think anyone conversing with you realizes that within a comment or two.
I knew you'd behave just like you did and weasel out. I wish there was one good Lefty on Gather worthy of a discussion backed by logic, reason, facts and statistics..........
All you have to do to put me in my place is present a well-written, well-backed-up commentary. I notice that you guys on the Left don't do that very often.
Could be because your arguments are :
1) illegitimate
2) whining/sniveling
3) too costly
4) without merit
5) unsupported by a majority of the American population
6) pushing an unpopular agenda
7) speaking to a very small minority only
8) anti-American
9) unresearched
10) poorly planned/impossible to implement
Hey, that's just from a guy who backs up his numbers with unbiased statistics. For example : did you know that the rich ($87,300 in income yearly) in this country pay 70.8% of all the taxes in this country, while the poor only pay 3% ?
Yep, it's true..........and here's the unbiased research :
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14434
El Homo Fabuloso - try something like that for a change, and you guys on the Left might be taken seriously, instead of being ridiculed.
It's the National Center for Policy Analysis in Washington, DC. They're a non-profit that gathers economic and policy data. They are unaligned with any political party.
Ron, I thought you said you knew something about this topic? And you haven't heard of the NCPA before? What kind of a rank amateur are you?
Yes, this organization is about as unbiased as they get.
It's not like I'm sourcing The DailyKos or HuffyPost.............is it?
Read & learn :
http://www.ncpa.org/
They are a non-partisan organization. That's why their statistics are so good. You really don't know who they are, do you?
I guess unless someone is reading straight out of the Communist Manifesto, they just aren't believable to you, Ron.
The truth is, the NCPA is only one of a few organizations (the IRS, Congressional Budget Office, and the Treasury Department, for instance) also publish this kind of data. I've quoted all to you in the past, and you just poo-poo them all. Is the truth so repelent to you that you just can't believe anything? Or is Left Wing cynicism just embedded into your DNA?
The I.R.S. :
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html
The Congressional Budget Office :
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=1545&type=0&sequence=0
The U.S. Treasury Department :
http://www.treasury.gov/education/faq/taxes/taxes-economy.shtml
National Taxpayers' Union :
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Go ahead, Ron, try to refute the overwhelming data. The rich ($103k and up) in this country pay 70% of all the taxes paid. The poor pay 3%.
The rich also account for over 70% of the jobs in this country. The poor.........less than 1%.
When 96+% of (Forbes May 2007) of all "rich" people are first generation rich, and not from inheritance, that means their parents were not in the rich category. They made the money on their own!
These are exactly the kind of people I want running America - and they do. You can complain about them all you want, but this is capitalism at its best, and I love it. Do you really think your whining is going to change such a fantastic meritocracy?
You have just realized the whole essence of the Bret boy experience, lol
When Liberals ridicule Conservatives, its as though the St. Mary's 4th grade football team is ridiculing the 2007 New England Patriots football team. It's laughable. But feel free to do so, if you like.
We think of you as small children - mainly because you are. Conservatives don't give Liberals a lot of bandwidth because you guys haven't earned it. In fact, the very word "Liberal" is still thought of as a joke. We just move forward, sometimes over the top of you. Hey, when you organize a sit-in right in front of a moving tank, what did you think would happen? lol
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Reagan is beloved, and your heroes are reviled. By the way, who are the Leftist heroes in this country?
Can't refute Reagan's quote with any level of decent conversation, can you? It's OK, neither could all the other Lefties of his time.
He sure left behind a pile of gem quotations about the evils of Liberalism. You have to give him props for that. The revulsion he had for Leftist thinking was so legendary that Reagan's great quotes could fill a book all by itself.
I suppose you're right, the only guy you Lefties can point to proudly is Roosevelt. Socialism made a 12 year visit to the White House with Roosevelt, didn't it? At the time, the world could swallow the idea of huge government..............but today no one wants bigger government. So in the larger sense, Roosevelt's experiments with the economy and politics backfired. You really can't say that about the aims of Reagan.
I don't like big government - even Reagan's version. But given the choice between his vision and Jimmy Carter's, I'll take the high price tag of Reagan's. You get more meat for your money. Carter's vision was a dwindling, atrophying America.
At least you understand that there is no real way to shrink government. That's a start. It just so happens that Republicans have been in power for most of the past 30 years. In that time, Entitlements and the Interest Paid on those Entitlements have grown far faster than inflation or the American population. So Republicans get the blame. However, I don't see anything different happening for any Democrat in the future, either.
Why is it that you Socialists always try to boil down a "gray" situation into a black & white argument? When has this ever been true? You're such simplistic little children.
Usually in politics, its the choice between someone you can tolerate vs. someone you really like. In the Reagan vs. Carter 1980 election, there really was no choice - and that's why Reagan won in a landslide. Carter's Liberal ideals were repudiated, just as those same Lefty ideals have been rejected so many other times in so many other Presidential elections.
God vs. the devil? LMAO!
You're always good for a laugh, Ron.
Left Wingers are children in both thought and deed. Simplistic answers, then picketing - those are your side's "solutions". It's pathetic.
Thankfully, it's just a phase, much like adolescence............and the country is done with that now. The 2008 elections will be interesting, if for no other reason than the Left will have very few hard targets.............like they do with the Bush administration now. I wonder if they have the brains or the persistence to think outside their little "I hate W" box? Should be fun to watch.
Carter screwed up, Ron. That's why he got ousted in such an awful, humiliating way. He ran the country into the ground.
Carter was the President, and he had less pull with the Iranians than a mere candidate for President. That says more about Carter's incompetence than almost anything else.
If you're thinking that the term 'conservative' = 'evil', then you're really behind the times, Ron. The only word that politicians never want to be tagged with is the word "Liberal". Reagan made it the kiss of death.............and it is.
Yeah, Carter really screwed up, he didn't offer the Iranians any munitions and helicopter parts for their Hueys, even though they were illegal, at the time, to sell to them, period, like Reagan did. Whoda thunk Bretboy would consider not breaking the law was stupid and clueless? What morals Bretboy, what a way to support your country. Talk about subverting US policy. Well, that got us Iran-Contra, as a bonus. Great thing, having an ex CIA man as vice president. Got us that mess, Iran Contra, and good old Saddam, and a lot more that Clinton closed the book on, when he entered office, luckily for old George, well both, actually. Sorta paved the road to today's Iraq war with bad intentions. Yes we should vilify Carter, he was so lame, he didn't do any of those things, he just tried to negotiate in good faith, and was an honest man. Conservatives just hate that, I notice.
It is not only my opinion that being tagged with the word "Liberal" is the kiss of death, but it is also the opinion of the front-runner for the Democratic nomination - Hillary Clinton. She prefers the term "progressive". Even she doesn't want to be tagged with a nasty term :
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/
2007/07/24/hillary%E2%80%99s_progressivism_sounds_liberal
Carter screwed up the economy, that's what got him unceremoniously bounced.
Reagan, as a candidate for President did not have the power to promise the Iranians anything. Only Congress could promise munitions and parts..............not a President. If Reagan lied to the Iranians, that's just an added feather in his cap. The Iranian revolutionary government was not reputable then, and is not reputable now. Kudos to Reagan if he did what you accuse him of doing......lol.
Conservatives dislike Liberal policies, because we know what they lead to. But you Libs just keep going down that same old rabbit-hole...........then miraculously lose the White House. Gee Ron, it doesn't take a detective to figure out why.
"Neither side is perfect, neither side has all the answers. And that, if nothing else, is the difference between conservatives and liberals: We understand it takes all sides, you only care about your own."
I truly believe you're right, Democrats (especially the Centrist ones) understand that it takes all sides. But that is the end of the understanding. What makes Republicans more appealing, more times since 1980, is that they take action............we don't. We complain and whine, then we picket when we don't get our way. The Republicans almost never try that tactic, because they know it's highly ineffective.
I admire them for examining the facts and adopting tactics that work, and abandoning tactics that don't work. We should try it.
And Homo, Mr. Bush and his administration are not running in the next election. We have to re-target. The Republicans seem to have a new aim now that a new President is going to be elected. We're still focused on attacking Mr. Bush. Seems a little idiotic nowadays, don't you think?
I mean, a big chunk of the wacko Left in our party are still sniveling about how Mr. Bush "stole" the 2000 election........lol. It's time to dump that thinking and move forward.
Carter was probably the most intelligent President we ever had. The guy had a degree in nuclear physics. However, he did not know how to run a country. He was a buffoon from almost Day One.
When he refused to light the National Christmas Tree in 1977, because he thought it took up too much energy, I knew right then and there that he wouldn't be President in 1980. He just didn't have his finger on the pulse of an America that was dying for leadership. He just didn't offer any.
Reagan's leadership crushed Carter a few years later.
Here's the difference, and you tell me what you see :
There are many on the extreme Left that still think that 2000 and 2004 were "stolen" elections by Mr. Bush............even though all 50 Secretaries of State certified all the elections. 2000 was 7+ years ago. Even if you're 100% correct - its too late now.
Conservatives were upset when the economy tanked in 99-2000, because Clinton's economic policies were so far offline. It was inevitable. We blamed Clinton. By the time the election was over and George Bush had won, we forgot all about Clinton and were excited for the future with Mr. Bush as the President. Vindication was ours, so we had no reason to linger on over Clinton and his shenanigans.