Tiberius Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 What does the European Union have to so with reducing federal regulations here in the US? Oh yeah I got it. Abso!@#$inglutely nothing! God you are slow! We are talking about where the dear Libertarians would take us... How about you, would Mississippi be better off with less federal money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) God you are slow! We are talking about where the dear Libertarians would take us... How about you, would Mississippi be better off with less federal money? They would? LOL!! Less federal regulation you dolt. And we'd all be better off with that. Edited June 9, 2014 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 They do? LOL!! Less federal regulation you dolt. And we'd all be better off with that. C'mon Chef, you know less regulation means zero regulation to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Guys, you're arguing with a troll. Nobody can be as stupid as he puts on and still understand how to turn a computer on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Guys, you're arguing with a troll. Nobody can be as stupid as he puts on and still understand how to turn a computer on. The argument with gatorman isn't about the argument with gatorman. It's about exposing weak arguments. I've said this before, but if he hadn't rolled through on his own, I'd have invented him. He exists as a litteral argumentum ad absurdium fallacy, exposing the fraud of an entire brand of liberalism. Consider: Libertarianism = Marxism Libertarianism = anarchy Libertarianism = the European Union Libertarianism = extremist It's a list of every absurdity and lie the left tells, and this is a useful arena in which to knock them down. Edited June 9, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 The argument with gatorman isn't about the argument with gatorman. It's about exposing weak arguments. I've said this before, but if he hadn't rolled through on his own, I'd have invented him. He exists as a litteral argumentum ad absurdium fallacy, exposing the fraud of an entire brand of liberalism. Consider: Libertarianism = Marxism Libertarianism = anarchy Libertarianism = the European Union Libertarianism = extremist It's a list of every absurdity and lie the left tells, and this is a useful arena in which to knock them down. I'm not arguing with I'm actually asking you. How low will you go? You are the one that once defended the stupid articles of Confederation, so I'm just asking how small of a federal government do you want? And then I'm asking would that make things better for places like Mississippi. Not too difficult to grasp. Me thinks you want to avoid a discussion that sheds light on your theory of Libertarianism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) Back to Midterms discussion...................................... Dems’ Ad Strategy Boomerangs in Colorado Four years ago, Colorado Democrats ran heavy TV ads during the Republican gubernatorial primary to ensure that the weakest GOP candidate won the party’s nomination. Back then, it worked. This year, Democrats went back to the same well. And it backfired spectacularly. By spending half a million dollars on TV ads supporting GOP candidate and former congressman Tom Tancredo, Democratic funders showed the whole world their hand: They wanted Tancredo in November. Presumably, they reasoned that having Tancredo at the top of the GOP ticket would enhance Governor John Hickenlooper’s reelection prospects and, importantly, dampen Congressman Cory Gardner’s robust challenge to incumbent senator Mark Udall. Not only did the Democratic bear-hug not help Tancredo, it probably cost him the race. Prior to the ads, Tancredo was leading in the polls. But news that Democrats were meddling in the GOP primary awakened grassroots activists and shook loose money that had been sitting on the sidelines. As a direct result of the Democratic ads, a group called Republicans Who Want to Win was able to raise the funds it needed to buy last-minute air time in two critical counties, providing the margin Bob Beauprez needed to win the GOP primary. Colorado Republicans — and Cory Gardner especially — owe the Dems a big thank you. , Obama Comes to Minnesota: A Sign of the Times President Obama is in Minneapolis today. I know this because half of the city’s principal highways were closed down at rush hour and my commute was a nightmare. Obama will stay overnight and make more appearances tomorrow, so this is a major presidential visit. Much could be said about it–for example, Obama staged a meeting with a “middle-class” woman to show solidarity with those who are oppressed by his policies. Per the White House’s press release, he planned to “spend a day in the shoes of the St. Paul woman.” He had a cheeseburger with her at Matt’s Bar in Minneapolis. Sure–he and she are just alike. Except, of course, they don’t shut down the highways for her. {snip} But I digress. You might think that in deep-blue Minnesota, every Democratic politician would be falling over himself to appear on a stage with the president. And a few are doing just that. But there is one notable exception: Al Franken, who is up for re-election in November. Initially, Franken hadn’t planned to appear with Obama at all, but the local Republican Party made such an issue of his fleeing from the president that his office now says that he “looks forward to spending time with the President in Minnesota tomorrow.” How much of that time will be spent in public remains to be seen. Why is Franken dodging Obama, who carried Minnesota twice, easily? Because the president is deeply unpopular here. I haven’t seen any public polling in a while, but polling done for conservative groups has found that Obama’s approval rating in Minnesota is in the 30s, even lower than his anemic national standing. The Democrats’ polling must be showing the same thing. So it isn’t just in red states that Obama will be a drag on Democratic chances in November. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/obama-comes-to-minnesota-a-sign-of-the-times.php Edited June 27, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 The only thing I got out all of that is Colorado's governor is names John Hickenlooper?? Sounds like a name Col Hogan went by when he was disguised as a Nazi at the Hofbrau picking up chicks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 http://youtu.be/Hql5fB5qlOs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Re midterm Senate races: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/politics/key-races/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) Just dropped by to say: November is Coming. And, when we take this: http://www.realclear..._06_123153.html Combine it with this: http://www.realclear...the_senate.html Then, assume the basic undestanding of statistics that is required to understand how those 2 links interact with each other, we get this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lULXvuuy7W8 as a fairly reasonable prediction of what is going to happen in November. Again, this is about math, not candidates shooting off their mouths and causing themselves to lose(um Romney), in spite and contradiction of the math. For those who can't be bothered to do the reading: take the current RCP average from here: http://www.realclear...roval-1044.html, otherwise known as 42(rounded up), and find it on the chart below. Then, insert the corresponding "Lo" and "High" numbers into the sentence at the top. For gatorman, who will find this exercie too challenging, the final product, for today, is: "Using the model, we're 95% confident that the Democratic losses will be between 8 and 12 Senate seats". Now, the mode is a fancy statistical term that gatorman should stay away from. However, for the rest of you, the mode means that we will most likely end up with a 55 Seat Republican Senate(Rs currently have 45). Not necessarily enough to override a veto(but...you never know, and it depends on the issue, like...given the # of moderate Ds who are currently running against Obamacare, and who will owe their seats to that? An override on Obamacare "reform" suddenly becomes possible). But, more than enough to significantly bolster the Rs chances of retaining the Senate in the 2016 elections. (This is a big deal, because, until now, the math said that they would likely win in 2014, but, then lose the majority again in 2016) ALL of this is based on today. Obviously, if the approval rating(AR) increases, the outcome of the chart changes. It is reasonable to say that the AR could easily go up, after all, a lot can happen in a few months. However, it's also reasonable to recognize that currently, we are only 2 AR points away from all-out disaster for Democrats. If they lose 12 seats in 2014, as a 40% AR suggests, then all the bulit-in, Senate race advantages for the Democrats in 2016...get significantly marginalized. There simply won't be enough $ to around when they have to try and take back that # of seats, never mind that a presidential campaign will be sucking up all the $. And, the current situation probably means that extra $ has to be spent just to get to "even", by both the presidential and Senate candidates, because of all the ObamaFAIL stories that have to be overcome. Edited July 1, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) I'm very interested to see what happens when the Republicans control POTUS, both houses, and SCOTUS. It should guarantee a rather utopian time for Americans. Edited July 1, 2014 by Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I'm very interested to see what happens when the Republicans control POTUS, both houses, and SCOTUS. It should guarantee a rather utopian time for Americans. Gee, I'm not quite sure how times could get any better than they are right now. It sure is fun watching progressives suddenly realize that electing a president based on skin color is a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I'm very interested to see what happens when the Republicans control POTUS, both houses, and SCOTUS. It should guarantee a rather utopian time for Americans. Modern recent liberalism has shown us that we should continue a two party system but the 2 dominant parties should be Libertarian and Republican (or conservative). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Gee, I'm not quite sure how times could get any better than they are right now. It sure is fun watching progressives suddenly realize that electing a president based on skin color is a bad idea. It could get a lot better than right now. If we had a Republican Senate, and a Republican President, there would be less harmful regulations, lower taxes, less welfare queens, peace in the middle east, and secure borders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 It could get a lot better than right now. If we had a Republican Senate, and a Republican President, there would be less harmful regulations, lower taxes, less welfare queens, peace in the middle east, and secure borders. like Gator, you seem to think that those who would disagree with you are automatically all republicans, and that none of those who identify as anything other than a democrat/liberal ever take a critical view of republicans holding office. if I was to make as ridiculous an observation based on your post, it would seem as if you prefer having more welfare 'queens', higher taxes, a steady stream of people illegally entering the country, more middle-east violence, and more federal regulation. see how ridiculous that way of thinking is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 like Gator, you seem to think that those who would disagree with you are automatically all republicans, and that none of those who identify as anything other than a democrat/liberal ever take a critical view of republicans holding office. That is very true. Most make the mistake of thinking conservatives are happy to have Republicans in control. When the reality is we know they will continue to !@#$ things up and lead us down the path to ruin. Both parties are populated with incompetent fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 That is very true. Most make the mistake of thinking conservatives are happy to have Republicans in control. When the reality is we know they will continue to !@#$ things up and lead us down the path to ruin. Both parties are populated with incompetent ^self-serving^ fools ^who buy their office with money forcibly taken from the populace^. slight edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) like Gator, you seem to think that those who would disagree with you are automatically all republicans, and that none of those who identify as anything other than a democrat/liberal ever take a critical view of republicans holding office. if I was to make as ridiculous an observation based on your post, it would seem as if you prefer having more welfare 'queens', higher taxes, a steady stream of people illegally entering the country, more middle-east violence, and more federal regulation. see how ridiculous that way of thinking is? I'm advocating for kicking democrats out of office. They haven't gotten the job done, I want to see if the republicans (or any other party that wants to step up and actually make a dent in our politics) can get things turned around. I'm being genuine in saying this. The democrats have failed us. And I say that as a progressive/liberal/socialist/whatever you want to identify me as. Oh, and for what it's worth... I'm not a democrat, my ideals line up more with the green party. But unfortunately, voting for any independent party right now is basically throwing a vote away. Edited July 1, 2014 by Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 The democrats have failed us. Would you say one way the Democrats failed you is because they didn't make Obamacare single payer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts