Reply With Quote
Yes, yes, Democrats didn't land on the moon, we know.
All those stinkin' liberal facts are just obfuscating from the real questions.
Meh. I can see why you might get frustrated with political forums from time to time.
It must take an awful lot of mental gymnastics to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes from thinking your side is infallible.
The only time I have ever seen you admit Republicans or right wingers up, is when something so obviously ed like Aiken comes down the pike, and you see some poltical advantage from throwing them under the bus.
It would take a uva lot more courage to admit fault when there isn't any political advantage to be had.
Yes, yes, Democrats didn't land on the moon, we know.
All those stinkin' liberal facts are just obfuscating from the real questions.
you have to see your own fault, to have the courage to face it. I tend to doubt Yoni's that far long yet.
Is that the only 'issue' in play this election?
What world do you live in?
No, this is the issue raised by RandomGuy in this post, very early in this thread, and I was pointing out that fact checkers didn't know the facts.
Is that the only 'issue' in play this election?
The one where Obama had a Democrat-controlled Congress from April 2009 to January 2011, when he got an unpopular health care law and an 800 billion dollar stimulus through. And, the one where, since, he's issued executive orders or allowed his administration to fiddle with the rules in order to bypass sections of the law he doesn't like.What world do you live in?
That world.
When have I ever suggested "my side" is infallible?
My fault is that I have gotten royally pissed off, as I am sure has been noticed.
The right wing propaganda machine has just about won the battle, and it is frustrating as all get out to see so many independents sucking up the suble lies and manipulations as truth.
Democrats to be sure have some bull moments, but at this point how people can think that both parties are somehow equally ed up boggles my mind.
The one with Lieberman as the 60th voter, right? Is that the one you're talking about?
And considering that the Republicans passed the first stimulus, I'm not quite sure how Obama rammed that down Congress throats.
That is certainly an interesting question you have asked me.
Now let me talk about how much I think that spaghetti is so much better than ravioli.
Becauase that is what I really want to talk about here, your question might force me to admit fault, or appear to be wrong about something.
What subtle lies and manipulations?
As I just pointed out, that Obama is gutting the work requirements from Welfare Reform isn't a lie.
Are you going to suggest he isn't taking $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare?
Are you also going to suggest he has failed to turn the economy around after making promises to do just that? And, if you're going to further suggest that, well, he just didn't know how bad it was -- are you going to suggest he didn't have ability to go before the American people and say, I can't fix this in four years -- it's just too ed up, instead of what he did do, which is to keep telling Americans to hand on; 2011 was going to be the recovery summer. Nope. Then they tried to sell this summer as the recovery summer. They tell us GM is a government success even though they've once again suspended production of the Obamamobile and GM is on the ropes again.
What lies are being told about this ed up administration?
Did I say he rammed it? I said he got everything he asked for, including Obamacare. What did Republicans stop him from getting, that would have improved the economy, those first two years?
A blanket statement like "we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers" speaks about the whole campaign, not specific claims. As I said, it sets the bar to unapologetic outright bull ting.
Your point wasn't even germane to the conversation.
What does my pointing out Obama's faults have to do with your notion that I refuse to admit the infallibility of "my side?"
What does my pointing out the "fact checkers" were wrong about Obama gutting the work requirement from Welfare have to do with your notion that I refuse to admit the infallibility of "my side?"
Nothing, that's what.
Seriously though, to actually address your question directly:
You suggest it by dint of the never ending torrent of "look at the bad Democrats" threads that you post any time you are active. While an exact "infallible" is never expressly stated, the overall intent is fairly clear.
The suggestion is an indirect, but clearly palpable one, propaganda man.
Let's see if you can answer a direct critical thinking question:
If someone presents 100 news articles, all about how bad Democrats are, is it a reasonable assumption that the underlying message is:
"Democrats are bad, so Republicans, their political opposites, are much better".
Once again, a simple yes or no is all I really ask for, not that I expect one.
You seriously believe your own bull . In- ing-credible.
I'm turned off by the whole ball of wax. The last guy campaigned against the outrages of the other party then ins utionalized about all of em. Has even copied their style of campaign advertising this time around.
the Dems and the GOP and the vaporware they rode in on.
Seriously, RG; you're a smart guy.
Republicans suck. Democrats Suck. Everything else is details. Back away from the debate; stop trying to get either of these parties elected. "The lesser of two evils" is still ing evil!
Intelligent people can agree to disagree - and they can compromise; from the first Cons utional Convention that has been a great strength of our nation - but these parties, what they have become; the people pulling the strings HAVE ALREADY FULLY COMPROMISED!! They agree on the important stuff; the stuff that enriches and empowers them and their friends - they maintain that power by keeping us distracted and arguing amongst ourselves about bull . It's why nothing ever really changes (From Compassionate Conservative to Hope and Change; wtf is different????)
Seriously, we STILL have the power to kick all the sum es out; to start over with a fresh slate of reasonable people. If we're too busy calling each other names; we'll never get to any type of a solution. They great tragedy of the past four years is we had TWO grass roots movements rise to shake up the Apple Cart; if they ever could have realized how much common ground there was between them, something could have be happening RIGHT NOW....unfortunately both movements were successfully co-opted by one of the big parties; and now they're just talking points on mailings soliciting donations.
them all.
What's the context of that statement?
A blanket statement like "we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers" speaks about the whole campaign, not specific claims. As I said, it sets the bar to unapologetic outright bull ting.
From an Atlantic article:
In other words, the fact checkers are wrong and we stand by our ad. He could have added, "...we're going to let our campaign be dictated by facts."As Ben Smith of BuzzFeed has pointed out, the Romney campaign is simply swatting aside the media's objections to its welfare ad: "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," said Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster.
And, as I just demonstrated, it's entirely possible the Obama administration and Kathleen Sebelius intend to do just that. Otherwise, and you have yet to address this, why would Sebelius specifically point out, in her directive, that a waiver of Section 402 allows them to authorize States to explore alternatives to the work requirement in Section 407?
I'd stand by the ad, as well.
One more thing, since when does the media "object" to campaign ads? Why don't they just report?
I don't see anything not factual about characterizing Sebelius's language as an intent to waive the work requirements from Welfare.
^^Your heros continue to not let facts get in the way.
FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rya...070905927.html
No context. No analysis. Just mindless aping of the preferred narrative.
That is the only way the right wants its propaganda disseminated.
Critical thinking about your ideas is not allowed, and is obviously indicative of some hidden agenda.
I think your ing about someone having the nuts to call your bull for what it is, says volumes about your values.
Actually, I understood the concept before your explanation. And, I was shocked that Romney is not actually the President. Thanks for the newsflash.
" ....president and his staff *do* place." So yes, the jerk in the oval office matters in the end analysis.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
