Nanker Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Carly is great. She's the only Republican that's leaned anything from Professor George Lakoff's teachings. Trump is rubbing everyone's nose in it who didn't support the gentleman business man last time around. Romney wouldn't get down and dirty, but Trump's shameless and is the only "Republican" with celebrity status equal to or great than Hillary. But he ain't no gentleman. The TEA Party was marginalized, not by its expanding platform, but was poisoned by its coverage in the media, and by establishment Republicans who felt threatened. The Libs were more than happy to join in the beat-down and continue to kick them with impunity. Contrast the media coverage and the Dems' response to the Occupy movement. They were sanctified and beatified by the Left. And the contrast between the fundamental raison dêtre for each of those groups and it is abundantly clear: The Tea Party (Taxed Enough Already) wanted to revisit the American Revolution. The "Occupy" scum wanted to relive the French Revolution because "you didn't build it, someone else made that happen" ("What do we want?" "We don't know!" "When do we want it?" "NOW!").
Magox Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Jeb is not a good politician, not right now he isn't anyway. Mitt Romney wasn't a good politician either even though I substantively agree with both of these guys on many issues. But in order to win, you usually have to be a good politician/salesmen and Jeb doesn't look like he has what it takes. I mean, I have little doubt that if he were to be paired up one on one vs Trump he'd win, but that's not how it works. It appears to me that Trump as much as I hate to admit it, Jeb, Rubio and Cruz are going to be around for a very long time. That's not to say that others won't just that these four I see as lock ins to be here late into the process. With all the polls coming out that match up against Hillary, Rubio matches up the best, then Jeb, then Walker. Even though Walker I think has looked really bad as of late. Here is a matchup in Michigan, just to show you how far off and weak Hillary is GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush leads Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton in Michigan, according to a new Free Press/WXYZ-TV poll. Bush, a former Florida governor, is supported by 45 percent of Michigan voters, leading Clinton by 5 points. That’s an 8-point swing from June, when the same poll found Clinton leading Bush. ADVERTISEMENT Meanwhile, the former secretary of State edges out GOP front-runner Donald Trump by 2 points in the poll, 44 percent to 42 percent. Michigan has been a reliable state for Democrats in presidential elections, so the results are likely to raise eyebrows. No Republican presidential candidate has won Michigan since 1988. “For a state that is assumed to be a winning state for the Democrats, as it has been for the last several elections, to be trailing Jeb Bush by five points suggests that something is going on,” said Bernie Porn, president of Lansing-based EPIC-MRA that conducted the poll. About 15 percent of voters in the state are undecided in match-ups between Clinton and either Republican, according to the poll. A majority of those surveyed, 55 percent, viewed Clinton unfavorably, compared to 32 percent who viewed her favorably. Independents surveyed viewed her unfavorably 63 percent to 18 percent.
Nanker Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 I can't wait for the first Hillary debate. Her poll numbers are going to go down faster than a Prog noticing Obama's fly is undone.
meazza Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump "@YoungYoung54: @JeriHyatt @megynkelly @JebBush So true. Jeb Bush is crazy, who cares that he speaks Mexican, this is America, English !!" And Magox is the low information voter? Edited August 25, 2015 by meazza
Magox Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 And Magox is the low information voter? You know, when I saw that, I was thinking that in any normal setting, someone would look at that and roll their eyes and think to themselves, "what a poor dumbass". But, he knows the base of his supporters. And for the base of his supporters, it was another "YAAAAAAA!!!!! Tell that burrito eating maggot how it is! YAAAAA!"
meazza Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 You know, when I saw that, I was thinking that in any normal setting, someone would look at that and roll their eyes and think to themselves, "what a poor dumbass". But, he knows the base of his supporters. And for the base of his supporters, it was another "YAAAAAAA!!!!! Tell that burrito eating maggot how it is! YAAAAA!" Funny how speaking multiple languages is considered a bad thing. I speak 3 so I must be real toxic to some of these people.
GG Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Trap? Hardly. Where have I ever said a fence will cure the issue? My position on illegal immigration is not known by anyone here as I have never posted it. I've simply commented on other people's position. As for the answer to your silly question, I think Trump or anyone else serious about securing the border understands that simply building a fence and walking away is not going to do it. Others running for President would take a different approach (and they have said so) which would use more technology and law enforcement. There are probably several approaches that can work. Considering you twisted Magox's argument that he supports full citizenship for everyone who's here illegally and appear to support Trump's stance on immigration, it's not hard to connect the dots. But I also doubt that Trump is serious about immigration, other than understanding that every time he says "Mexican" it bolsters his support among the 20% nativist crowd.
Azalin Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Funny how speaking multiple languages is considered a bad thing. I speak 3 so I must be real toxic to some of these people. I knew there was something about you I didn't like.
birdog1960 Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) Mighty environmentally friendly off you. Who cares about a million birds or so? by far, the biggest recent threat to birds (and what largely was responsible for the decimation of eagle populations) was ddt. interestingly, republicans are still angry about it's banning. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/scientists_hate_the_gop_for_a_reason/. the adverse effects of wind energy on birds can be mitigated but those of ddt can't. "this was used recently in attacks on the long-dead Rachel Carson, the environmental author of The Silent Spring, a book that led to the ban of DDT in 1972. Even though there’s no real movement to bring back the use of DDT, conservative pundits and publications routinely drag Carson’s corpse out to punch it some more to spread the myth that scientists are dangerous anti-business ideologues who make up phony research for no other reason than their secret socialist agenda to bring down capitalism. Typical of the anti-Carson genre is Hoover Institute scholar and Forbes contributor Henry I. Miller calling her work “sentimental claptrap” and accusing her of lying. Writing for Reason, libertarian Ronald Bailey accused Carson of having an anti-human agenda, claiming that environmentalism isn’t about protecting our habitat so much as pushing the belief that “humanity is arrogant, heedless, and often the source of moral evil.” The reality is that Carson was a nature-lover and a researcher who believed, correctly, that throwing off the natural balance can have long-ranging negative effects, and thus should be guarded against." Edited August 25, 2015 by birdog1960
IDBillzFan Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 by far, the biggest recent threat to birds (and what largely was responsible for the decimation of eagle populations) was ddt. interestingly, republicans are still angry about it's banning. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/scientists_hate_the_gop_for_a_reason/. the adverse effects of wind energy on birds can be mitigated but those of ddt can't. Wind farms are bad for birds, but what about DDT? Are you phucking kidding me? Why do you do this? Why do you suggest that someone's position with which you disagree is bad, but not as bad as some other thing that has nothing to do with the topic, but provides a chance to beanpole a Republican in the head with...of all things...a Salon article? Are you so devoid of reasonable thinking and discussion that it's actually EASIER for you to find an opposing point of view at Salon and present it as your latest argument? I mean, even gatorman isn't stupid enough to show everyone where he gets his talking points from, y'know?
meazza Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Wind farms are bad for birds, but what about DDT? Are you phucking kidding me? Why do you do this? Why do you suggest that someone's position with which you disagree is bad, but not as bad as some other thing that has nothing to do with the topic, but provides a chance to beanpole a Republican in the head with...of all things...a Salon article? Are you so devoid of reasonable thinking and discussion that it's actually EASIER for you to find an opposing point of view at Salon and present it as your latest argument? I mean, even gatorman isn't stupid enough to show everyone where he gets his talking points from, y'know? But it's OK because he saw an eagle and it's rare.
birdog1960 Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) Wind farms are bad for birds, but what about DDT? Are you phucking kidding me? Why do you do this? Why do you suggest that someone's position with which you disagree is bad, but not as bad as some other thing that has nothing to do with the topic, but provides a chance to beanpole a Republican in the head with...of all things...a Salon article? Are you so devoid of reasonable thinking and discussion that it's actually EASIER for you to find an opposing point of view at Salon and present it as your latest argument? I mean, even gatorman isn't stupid enough to show everyone where he gets his talking points from, y'know? not suprisingly, you have the process back asswards. I read up on eagle populations in Virginia on the state conservancy, state park, hunting and fishing and deq sites after spotting the eagle. they all pointed to ddt and it's taken this long to recover. I doubt you'll find a credible scientist that bewlieves there are comparable risks to bird populations from wind farms but have at it. and just for giggles, an interesting aside from the salon article: Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican, whereas 55 percent identify as Democratic. In October of 2012 Edited August 25, 2015 by birdog1960
Chef Jim Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Funny how speaking multiple languages is considered a bad thing. I speak 3 so I must be real toxic to some of these people. I would love if they spoke even a language and a half.
GG Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Wind farms are bad for birds, but what about DDT? Are you phucking kidding me? It's quicker to pronounce than, Sweden.
IDBillzFan Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 not suprisingly, you have the process back asswards. I read up on eagle populations in Virginia on the state conservancy, state park, hunting and fishing and deq sites after spotting the eagle. they all pointed to ddt and it's taken this long to recover. I doubt you'll find a credible scientist that bewlieves there are comparable risks to bird populations from wind farms but have at it. and just for giggles, an interesting aside from the salon article: Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican, whereas 55 percent identify as Democratic. In October of 2012 So in conclusion, 55% of scientists identify as Democrats, who LOVE to give taxpayer money called "grants" to scientists, who use the money to conduct studies that allow their party to pass legislation, which requires MORE taxpayer money be given to scientists so they can continue their studies while also making healthy contributions to fill the campaign coffers of their party so Democrat politicians can stop by the science lab during a campaign to point to all the success the government-funded scientist is having right before the scientist and his business go bankrupt. Are we getting that right, or is there some Salon topic you'd like to compare this to without any real reason?
birdog1960 Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 So in conclusion, 55% of scientists identify as Democrats, who LOVE to give taxpayer money called "grants" to scientists, who use the money to conduct studies that allow their party to pass legislation, which requires MORE taxpayer money be given to scientists so they can continue their studies while also making healthy contributions to fill the campaign coffers of their party so Democrat politicians can stop by the science lab during a campaign to point to all the success the government-funded scientist is having right before the scientist and his business go bankrupt. Are we getting that right, or is there some Salon topic you'd like to compare this to without any real reason? yes, because there are so many wealthy academics and everyone knows that if you want to get rich you should choose an academic career.
GG Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 yes, because there are so many wealthy academics and everyone knows that if you want to get rich you should choose an academic career. Too bad that wasn't his argument.
birdog1960 Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Too bad that wasn't his argument. it actually was. it was about self interest. and I replied that it's generally not in a students financial self interest to become a scientist. it's about passion and hunger for knowledge. you wouldn't understand.
keepthefaith Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Considering you twisted Magox's argument that he supports full citizenship for everyone who's here illegally and appear to support Trump's stance on immigration, it's not hard to connect the dots. But I also doubt that Trump is serious about immigration, other than understanding that every time he says "Mexican" it bolsters his support among the 20% nativist crowd. So you're busting my balls about me busting his balls. That's cool with me.
DC Tom Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican, whereas 55 percent identify as Democratic. In October of 2012 So !@#$ing what?
Recommended Posts