OCinBuffalo

Voting '= going on TV and "bearing false witness". Neither is starting a website and making money off saying one thing then saying another. You can vote however you want. Then, you can go home and play tiddly winks for all I care. A vote is a point in time activity. But, if you are taking people's money, specifically for the purpose of advocating for women, and/or running your mouth on message boards and/or running around the bars in Philly/Cleveland/Columbia SC(where I was at the time...literally 50 political consultants/activists in various bars talking smack) telling everyone that men are problematic in the workplace, which are all done over time.... ....and then, all of a sudden, acting like there's nothing wrong with what Clinton did, and refusing to back up your mouth with action, then don't expect anyone to take you seriously. "No Reply...There's no reply at all."

Absolutely. We are already on the slippery slope. It's tough...because it pits my/your right to life against my/your right to liberty. It's a lose/lose bargain. That's why I support taking these turds out where they live, before they get chance to come to this country and force us into that trap. Whether we like it or not, that may include invading states, because that's where they live. We can't just let them train, communicate, resupply and keep coming at us. That's folly. That's Viet Nam. We have to take the battle to the enemy. That's how we win. We can F about, and try to pretend that isn't the case. Whenever we get done talking, it will still be the case.

Precisely. Ever since the "rules" changed...with Clinton/Lewinsky and then the Bush/Gore stuff...the Democrats have lost their way. Instead of keeping the far-left visceral people in check, they have been overrun by them, and now they are in charge. Now its a competition for who can be the most banal, and propaganda has taken the place of insight and intellectual excellence. It's striking, for me, to see the "thinking" now coming from Michael Moore, or Barack Obama, and no longer people like Daniel Moynihan. In contrast, look at this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/24/paul_ryan_delivers_speech_on_poverty_in_this_war_on_poverty_poverty_is_winning.html That is perhaps the finest policy speech I've ever seen. Reagan/Clinton have nothing on him at their relative ages/positions. For the fist time in my lifetime, ALL of the REAL intellect is coming from the Republicans.

Ask yourself: Why didn't you have a problem with Bill Clinton, doing the same thing as Romney in 1992? Do we need to go back in history? Look, if most posters on the right here are anything, they are pragmatists/problem-solvers first. Most of us see the same thing in Romney. Many of us are leaders, and as such, we know that sometimes we have to break with what "we said", and do something else, out of necessity. In fact, I just got done doing that 5 mins ago: I had to tell a client something that isn't accurate, not because I want to deceive him, but, he just can't process it now. He will when he can see it. It's just too much abstraction for him to handle today. I know that what I am saying today, and what I will be saying 3 months from now, are not the same. I don't give a F, and 3 months from now, nobody else will either. (Even bet if anybody cares today ) But, I don't have half the country hanging on my every word, trying to F me over. (All I have is this corporate IT nitwit underling who is hanging on my every word, because he wants free training, and is making me explain how each piece of our architecture works..."to be convinced that it will". I could probably "convince" him that magic is involved at this point.) Couple that with the fact that Romney had Rick Santorum, and all his nonsense to overcome, and it's not hard to see why we wouldn't have a problem with it. Now, ask yourself again: Why didn't you have a problem with Bill Clinton, doing the same thing as Romney in 1992?

Not with this. This is actually the anti-"thing I was talking about" Donald Trump proves yet again why he has his money. You guys may yell at me...but wait until you hear me out. I actually see the approach in Trump's "Deal" here. Consider the takeaway cases: 1. Obama ignores...then Trump has found a way to get the "Manchurian Candidate" and "birther" stories back into the news, but, in such away that the left can't do anything about it...because "it's for the charity". 2. Obama engages...(like an idiot) and while I don't see much in terms of the birther thing, I know Obama's college transcript has holes, because everybody's does. Now we are talking about a story that has no chance being anything other than an embarrassment, and Obama is losing campaign air days over nothing. 3. Obama denies...and now doubt is created. In all cases, Trump wins. Obama's best bet is go with #1, which is what he seems to be doing. But, Trump still wins, because he's successfully posited the stories once again in people's minds, and he didn't have to pay a nickel. You can call him evil , or a massive troll, but you can't call him dumb.

Wait, where was the "complain" in that? All I wrote about was saying little, and taking action. In 2010, did the TEA party...complain? Or, did they kick ass? Conversely, has Acorn, OWS and all of the rest of the lowest common denominator accomplished anything...or have they merely complained? about being victims? Who basically makes their living by complaining? Democrats/Unions...or everybody else? Again, this is projection. Look up the psychological definition of projection, and come back when you are done. .................................................. Yeah, that is you, is it not?. That is what you are doing here, and pretty much everywhere else. When you lie, it's: "no Mitt Romney is lying". When you distort your own record, it's: "no Mitt said he wanted to liquidate GM and he's distorting that". Take anything Obama or Democrats have legitimately been stupid about/executed poorly in the last 4 years, and you will find a story about them trying to project that onto Romeny/Ryan/Rs. Many are so obtuse it's Yes, but...HOW is it false? If is has nothing to do with it, then explain why. You don't see a ----> here? You really don't see that: IF the government has authority for all, then it has responsibility for all. Therefore, those that work for the government are held personally responsible, by those who who have ceded all of their personal responsibility to that government. And, therefore, the government has the responsibility to, and must, jail those that work for it who fail, because all personal responsibility has been ceded to it. must be true? The above is not a stretch...rather, it is a simple exercise in basic logic. Both the contrapositive and premise are = and therefore, true. Show us if your critical thinking skills are any better than your proof-reading skills.

I don't even have to read this to know it's going to be: "you can care about women's issues, and still support Clinton, because Clinton got results, for millions of women, and the Lewinsky thing was minor by comparison" and whatevertheF. so I won't read it until after I'm done.(we'll see how close I was at the bottom) I think I can pretty much do your posts blind at this point. The problem is: unwillingness to stand by your values when it gets tough to do so. Values are not principles. We all have the same principles(10 commandments, etc). Where we differ is values. As soon as NOW, etc. decided that Clinton = it doesn't matter, after preaching over and over about workplace sexual harassment, the plight of women who work for powerful men, etc: 2 things happened. 1. Since their values were a matter of convenience, the rest of us listening to them also became a matter of convenience. NOW, Emily's List, all of it has nowhere near the power they had prior to the Clinton fiasco. Proof in the pudding: look at how they've been unable to stop Romney gains with women this fall. Look how poorly the "war on women" went. Proof in the pudding #2: how come they couldn't get Hillary elected? 2. Not only were values broken...but, even worse, principles were as well. That is why this is so bad. "Thou shalt not bear false witness"...yeah, yet night after night, on show after show, that's precisely what Democrats did. Like I said, it wasn't ALL. It was MOST. Ever since that fiasco, the Democratic party has been unable to claim morality over anyone else, when that used to be easy for them. Value breakers like Global Warming scandal after scandal have made it worse. So has one story after the next about Obama pay-offs to unions(see: GM)...and there's a new one now, crony capitalism and all the rest. The first thing Democrats need to do after this election is STFU, go spend 2 months doing some introspection. All of these events are related. They all form a pattern. Clinton was so...good, and they just didn't want to let it get away. But, they compromised values and then principles, to keep him, and no one is worth that. Once they were willing to act without principle, it's been far too easy to keep repeating that mistake ever since. They got on McCain, for a divorce, but not Clinton for sex in the office with a junior employee? (Accuracy Check: I missed the angle of attack, but still captured the meaning. My response is still on target regardless)

Unmitigated moron. I was specifically using it to modify "Democrats", and even explained why in the post above. Care to learn how to read? Look...don't try to be acute with me, that's not a game you are going to win. Much better for you to stick to your light humor, don't really know WTF you are talking about thing....

Jefferson...moseying down the street with his cane(and pearl-handled pistol )..."Hey! Adams! Where's my money? Oh hell no, don't you tell me you ain't seen nobody, I've seen plenty of carriages and Hamilton's been by here 5 times already."

Or, rehearsed, tired old jokes from the 90s. Yeah, let's have a unit, who is unelected, that determines how health care works for everyone...what can go wrong?

This is the kind of small ball, Chicago crap that Axelrod has been running. It has killed Obama's favorables. Romney has been running +2 ever since. If I was the Romney campaign, I wouldn't touch this. I wouldn't let any PAC touch it either. It's beneath him. He's headed towards being POTUS, not Alderman in Chicago. Rather, let Rush Limbaugh start it, and let the media report on it, interview the guy etc. Hell let TMZ lead the way on this. This is the kind of celebrity nonsense they are good at. They won't be able to help themselves. It will get out just fine on its own.

Why I said "most". And, I said it, because just like apparently there were 600k Bills fans at the Bills/Oilers comeback game...there are millions of Democrats who didn't vote for Clinton, or support him during his idiocy. Yes, and MoveOn.org wasn't created based on supporting Clinton during that either. How hysterical is it when they talk about "the war on women" on that site?

I'm curious...what makes any of the above analysis a stretch, and why? See this is where you need to listen, because you really don't know. The average conservative/libertarian doesn't think he/she is a victim, of anyone. No. They think the poor and middle class, the elderly, and African Americans, are victimized by your stupid ideas, and, they are tired of providing the $ for your F ups. They aren't afraid of you the way a victim would be. In fact, like most of this board, they think you, and most of the big government people, are morons. Conservatives think the media have it in for them, because there are 10 examples a week. But, unlike liberals, they don't start suing people. Instead: Fox News now exists, so does 100s of other new media outlets that have been more competitive in the marketplace. I don't want to sue the media, or put them in jail, like a victim does. No. I want them exposed and ridiculed. Just like Dan Rather! What do you know about the Fed? Not going to waste my time with yet another ignorant liberal. Hollywood better stop victimizing themselves. They used to have a lot more power than they do now, when it came to influencing the culture. But, now, they are mostly running around the mall looking for what is cool , rather than defining it. And the PC thing is a whole other story. I don't see how anyone is a victim of Hollywood, other than perhaps those conservatives who work there, their shareholders, or anybody who has to listen to Sean Penn for longer than 5 minutes. (That doesn't mean I will refrain from harassing them. There's just too much hilarity there. ) The last victim of the UN was Slobadan Milosevich. The UN has been an embarrassment since. So there you have it. In each instance, conservatives/libertarians 99% of the time, don't go looking to blame other people. When they are wrong, they fix it. When they are right, they take on those who are messing with them, and kick their ass. That's not "victim/whine to the courts because you can't get it done at the ballot box" behavior. That's what the weak, like you, do.

Speaking of big words....I guess you need to look up segue? The moral high ground, and you, became incompatible the day you supported Clinton, but, want to keep telling us you "care about women". That made most Democrats into phonies. Either you never cared about "women's issues"(in the parlance of that time yes! lebowski reference), or, you decided to ignore them for convenience. You don't get to talk about other people's shifting values, until your aren't shifting. There was a time when Democrats had an advantage with sound, moral arguments to make, on many issues. Those days are over. It's like everything else with you guys: living in the past. The Republicans are now making sound, moral arguments, like the debt being immoral.

Ah. Now, you've stated it. The poster that inspired the approach.

Once again, it's behavior, not polls, that tell the story. Romney has hit him hard on not having a plan. If it wasn't working...we wouldn't see these booklets. Now, I don't blame them for their booklets. What else are they supposed to do? They have take a whole lot of money from Hollywood. They better do something. The "positive Obama ads" are an unknown qty. The booklet is a tangible deliverable...always a smart thing to give a nervous client. But, I do stuff like this when I'm jumping into somebody's crisis mode, or all out panic.

Why should I have a problem with that? Do you know the difference between $90 Billion(amount we can get /yr from raising tax rates on the wealthy) and $1.2 Trillion(amount of Federal Deficit this year)? If so, can you subtract those 2 values, and realize that raising taxes won't even come close, and in fact is silly to even talk about, given that we have another $930 Billion to account for? Who is talking about raising taxes...and more spending? Who is talking about lowering rates, growing the economy, fixing entitlements and cutting a lot of that $1.2 trillion in spending? If you understood so far, you know who is silly, and who is serious. Therefore, why should I worry? The only thing I'm worried about? If you can't do basic subtraction, or tell the difference between a billion and a trillion. Then...we have bigger problems.

But remember, the reason I do it is either expediency, or, trolling. I can't fix the level of discourse here, since so many intellectually dishonest posters come and go. There's no point in going one point at a time with them...might as well throw 10 points at them and crush them immediately. If you want to improve it, talk to the people who won't even concede the obvious, if it means the right did something right, like NewBills here. What I can do: troll the clowns, while at the same time writing things that you may like. But remember, most of the time it's designed to make somebody do a lot of reading...looking for a mistake. The best is when I put them in on purpose, and they don't find them. And, when they cry about long posts...but quote things I left in the middle for them, it's all lulz.

The funny part is: now the trolls are loose, and talking about bayonets and that the Marines still have them. It will be interesting to see if, in a week, NewBills still doesn't have a clue why nobody cares about his point, and why nobody will take it seriously.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20025626 There's a lot of ways to look at this. The first, and obvious way is: WTF? Yeah, we know that part. However, a deeper analysis might be: this is what happens when "everyone is a victim of somebody" is allowed to run it's full course. Rather than being victims of the earthquake, these people are victims of these scientists? Another? Perhaps this is what we should expect from a culture who has placed ALL its faith in the government? "All glory to the state" means...if ANYTHING bad happens, it's the government's fault. Perhaps it's time for you big government people to re-evaluate your position...or do you like the idea of "success or prison"? I though Il Duce was dead. Yeah....tell us again how letting "progressives" run wild....doesn't end in fascism.

Yeah...that's all you got. Again, this is your best work? Cynicism? Dude...it's far past time for you to begin the 7 steps WRT this election, and lashing out is 3. You're ahead of yourself. Go back to 1 and start over.

No problem...I was just thinking about how annoying that would be for me, and the possibility that you still wouldn't get it. Suffice it to say: when I began posting here, I took your approach. I soon learned that was folly. Why? Because if there are 10 points to make, and you only make one, they run to the next point, instead of dealing with the 1st. They try to distract from the inescapable point you are making, like NewBills is lamely trying to do here. This creates 10 page threads, where, at the end, you end up the same place you would have if you had simply made the 10 points in one post. Also, it's fun to troll certain posters with long posts, because they can't help themselves(EDIT: don't tell me you haven't seen who I do that to, consistently That's why I am wondering why you don't "get it"). And, its fun to troll other posters who complain about long posts, by putting stuff in the middle...that they can't help themselves from quoting....so much for their long post complaint. I've explained this many times. Now, I am explaining it to you. I hope I don't have to explain it twice.

Should have you do the after debate write ups. This is by far the best analogy. It would save us the various iterations on "if an alien came down to earth and saw this debate...".

You don't understand. Not even a little bit? Next time I will PM and walk you through it.