The rules of political ignorange...

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Cranberry
http:///forum/post/3298907
Re-zone. No new places of worship to be built X miles radius of ground zero. Standing buildings to be grandfathered in. There. Problem solved.
I'm not horribly familiar with it, but I believe they had to rezone it to build the mosque.

 

[cranberry]

Whoever came up with that brilliant idea... I'm for the other side. Maybe I'll become a citizen just so I can vote.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3298885
See I disagree, neither Bush were leaders of an ideological movement, Reagan was, and Clinton was to a point, but his first goal was to stay in office and popular, and secondarily he was a idealog.
W. Bush was anything but a conservative leader, you take out his supreme court nominees, abortion, and his position on Iraq. You have him letting Ted Kennedy write a no child left behind act(not based in conservative ideology), you have a vast expansion in medicare and medicaid (prescription drug coverage), then you have very Keynesian advisers getting him to do stuff like the bailouts... Now I realise the litmus test of democrats is abortion, so the dem's will never see past that... Now you do have a point if you want to say republicans. Because I do think Bush was a party guy. But that gets into definitions of words. Splitting hairs more than you meant to by your statement.
But that is my political science view of that.
And I disagree, I think we are seeing the results of Obama's policies right now... Hello 10% unemployment...

Unemployment was on the downslide before Obama took office. He took a stab at trying to improve the numbers by creating all these stimulus packages. Instead of backing the plans, the Republicans used it for political gain, and trashed the programs saying they were typical "Liberal/Democrat spending sprees'. The media ran with that premise, which essentially killed them before they had a chance to work. No one has still yet to come up with an alternative to infuse the economy, and reduce the debt at the same time. I looked at the stimulus as "You have to spend money to make money." But like a business, if you don't have a product that sells, or you advertise the product the wrong way, you'll end up not recouping the money you spent.
In the case of the stimulus, it was mainly 'bad advertising'.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3298922
Unemployment was on the downslide before Obama took office. He took a stab at trying to improve the numbers by creating all these stimulus packages. Instead of backing the plans, the Republicans used it for political gain, and trashed the programs saying they were typical "Liberal/Democrat spending sprees'. The media ran with that premise, which essentially killed them before they had a chance to work. No one has still yet to come up with an alternative to infuse the economy, and reduce the debt at the same time. I looked at the stimulus as "You have to spend money to make money." But like a business, if you don't have a product that sells, or you advertise the product the wrong way, you'll end up not recouping the money you spent.
In the case of the stimulus, it was mainly 'bad advertising'.
Well, in all honesty, I'm not in a huge mood to goad, like I typically am so please don't take it as such. Nor do I have the time to really write and back up why these stimulus plans don't work. No matter who starts them last year of the term Bush, or Obama. But it isn't just a bad sales job. It is a fundamental flaw in economic thought. Quite frankly the feds taking money from the private sector, then turning around and giving it back to the private sector then saying see that stimulated the economy. Is like pulling on your boots and wondering why you can't pick yourself up off the ground. It just doesn't work. As for the ten year argument, the whole intent of intervention as dreamed up by Keynes was not for a long term solution. But essentially sandbagging your house, until the floor water comes. Keynes never intended it as a long term economic plan. These "tools" that they've used, would be like building your house in a floor plain, with the intent to just keep sand bagging and the higher the water gets, the higher your build your sand bag wall. And it never ends. Eventually it is going to fail...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Cranberry
http:///forum/post/3298907
Re-zone. No new places of worship to be built X miles radius of ground zero. Standing buildings to be grandfathered in. There. Problem solved.
Could be done, and it would be ovbious that it was done to stop this particular project and in the long run do a lot more damage than if the Mosque was built IMHO

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3298922
Unemployment was on the downslide before Obama took office. He took a stab at trying to improve the numbers by creating all these stimulus packages. Instead of backing the plans, the Republicans used it for political gain, and trashed the programs saying they were typical "Liberal/Democrat spending sprees'. The media ran with that premise, which essentially killed them before they had a chance to work. No one has still yet to come up with an alternative to infuse the economy, and reduce the debt at the same time. I looked at the stimulus as "You have to spend money to make money." But like a business, if you don't have a product that sells, or you advertise the product the wrong way, you'll end up not recouping the money you spent.
In the case of the stimulus, it was mainly 'bad advertising'.
You mean like the Democrats did when Bush tried to solve Social Security? Harry and Nancy bragged about killing the Bush proposal but never uttered a single word about their solution to the problem.
The media ran with the Obama administration propaganda until all the cooked numbers had been exposed. Then they had no choice but to report the truth.

 

[kjr_trig]

In fairness, I always say "George W. Bush" too.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/3298995
In fairness, I always say "George W. Bush" too.

Yeah pretty sure that's because there was another Bush once upon a time. Now if Barack Obama's Dad was a former president, I could totally see the whole Barack Hussein Obama thing... But let's be honest here, Barack Obama's Dad was obviously learning how to make pipe bombs and reading the Koran in Africa, or Indonesia, or whatever hole he came from...

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3298871
I think a point of political ignorance would be lumping O'Reilly, Cunningham and Limbaugh into the same category.
O'Reilly is a serious commentator who is center right, Rush is an entertainer who uses Republican idealism as his foil, Cunningham is a kook but he happens to be spot on about the inappropriateness of building the memorial. The pilots weren't a religion, they carried their act out in the name of that religion. Anyone who doesn't see how inappropriate it is to build there is truly tone deaf. Even Obama (Barack Hussein) walked back his statement of support for the Mosque saying he wasn't speaking of the wisdom of making that choice.
P.S. I agree about not hitting people over the head with his middle name.
Greetings and I must say a nice deflection, but Rush is much more than just an entertainer when it comes to the conservative movement, I would say either Rush or Palin are more like the leadership of the GOP these days. I don't consider youself, Darth or Streb27 as a part of the zany far-right, but your party has shifted much further right and is catering to the birther/conspiracy people much more than I have seen in the past. Crap, you guys had a perfect opportunity to get rid of Reid and the best person you could come up with is Sharron Angle? I just hope that the GOP can come up with someone besides Palin or Newt to run against Obama in 2012 and there is no valid excuse why either of these two should even be on the ticket as serious contenders. Romney seems much more suited, but again I have my doubts that the far-right is going to vote for a mormon no matter how qualified.
Just saying no is fine, but the GOP needs to step-up their game, I mean Steele, really he still has a job?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3299058
Greetings and I must say a nice deflection, but Rush is much more than just an entertainer when it comes to the conservative movement, I would say either Rush or Palin are more like the leadership of the GOP these days. I don't consider youself, Darth or Streb27 as a part of the zany far-right, but your party has shifted much further right and is catering to the birther/conspiracy people much more than I have seen in the past. Crap, you guys had a perfect opportunity to get rid of Reid and the best person you could come up with is Sharron Angle? I just hope that the GOP can come up with someone besides Palin or Newt to run against Obama in 2012 and there is no valid excuse why either of these two should even be on the ticket as serious contenders. Romney seems much more suited, but again I have my doubts that the far-right is going to vote for a mormon no matter how qualified.
Just saying no is fine, but the GOP needs to step-up their game, I mean Steele, really he still has a job?
You know, I do listen to Rush just about every day. And I think he's one of the best apologists for the conservative movement, if you can get over, or appreciate, his sense of humor. He's brilliant.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3299058
Greetings and I must say a nice deflection, but Rush is much more than just an entertainer when it comes to the conservative movement, I would say either Rush or Palin are more like the leadership of the GOP these days. I don't consider youself, Darth or Streb27 as a part of the zany far-right, but your party has shifted much further right and is catering to the birther/conspiracy people much more than I have seen in the past. Crap, you guys had a perfect opportunity to get rid of Reid and the best person you could come up with is Sharron Angle? I just hope that the GOP can come up with someone besides Palin or Newt to run against Obama in 2012 and there is no valid excuse why either of these two should even be on the ticket as serious contenders. Romney seems much more suited, but again I have my doubts that the far-right is going to vote for a mormon no matter how qualified.
Just saying no is fine, but the GOP needs to step-up their game, I mean Steele, really he still has a job?
Romney the guy who was governor when Mass came up with their terrible healthcare system. I'm sure libs would love for him to run...

 

[stdreb27]

But just a quick question here. You're criticizing Rush, and Palin for being zany Far-right. Criticizing the republican party for shifting too far right. But, if they're extremists, where does that put Obama and the democrat party in general?
Oh and cupcakes, it isn't ignorance. you sit in this guys church willingly for 20 years, your patriotism and love of country should be questioned.

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3299178
But just a quick question here. You're criticizing Rush, and Palin for being zany Far-right. Criticizing the republican party for shifting too far right. But, if they're extremists, where does that put Obama and the democrat party in general?
Oh and cupcakes, it isn't ignorance. you sit in this guys church willingly for 20 years, your patriotism and love of country should be questioned.
I thought I was being pretty honest with my post Streb27 and I am aware of who Wright is believe it or not and using him and crying no fair is getting old and if we can no longer blame Bush, then we can no longer blame Wright either. The GOP needs to field some serious leaders and clean house on the people holding office now just like the dreaded dems do. One of G.W.'s good traits was he did not cry foul a lot and ignored the attack dog press.
Fishtaco(Papa Grizzly)

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3299178
But just a quick question here. You're criticizing Rush, and Palin for being zany Far-right. Criticizing the republican party for shifting too far right. But, if they're extremists, where does that put Obama and the democrat party in general?
Oh and cupcakes, it isn't ignorance. you sit in this guys church willingly for 20 years, your patriotism and love of country should be questioned.
You're the epitome of what's wrong with the Conservative right. Instead of providing solutions, you spend all your energy on conspiracy theories and political bashing to try and get your point through. You can't come up with rational answers to the debate, so you spew out ridiculous crap like Wright, Ayers, and a birth certificate. That's become the typical platform with the Republican Party. You can't come up with reasonable solutions to the problems facing this country, so you'll try winning the battle with airing out useless political conspiracy trash to try and tarnish my opponents name. That's one of the main reasons why I don't vote for Republican candidates. During his 2008 campaign, how many times did Obama bring up McCain's involvement with the Keating 5? Yea, yea, he was supposedly exonerated on those charges, but him and his money-bags wife still had some shady deals going on in Arizona.
Obama admittedly has made some poor decisions, and allowed some questionable policies go through. What President hasn't?

 

[ironeagle2006]

This is coming from someone in IL were the Idiot IN CIEF is from. BTW he is one. He came out of Chicago to my town for a Campaign stop in 2006 when he was running for US Senate he stated I am going to Washington to force Gun Control Down the Throats of the USA. He also stated that I know what is Best for America and it is NOT WHAT WE HAVE NOW. We have a President that Launched his Political Career at a Known Terrorist House in Bill Ayers who Stated after 9/11 I wish we had Done More. He sat Front and Center for 20 Years with one of the MOST RACIST Ministers there is, Yet he claims that he never Listened to him. Then when he heard about the incident in Cambridge MA before he even knew the facts of the case jumps on the side of the African American. He has shown that if your against him he will call the raicist card.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3298794
Rule 1 - If you are trying to make any kind of valid point, don't start your sentence with "Barack Hussein Obama..."
Rule 2 - Don't claim that building a mosque a few block from the former World Trade center is the same as if "the Japanese would build a mosque to kamikaze pilots in Pearl Harbor". Last I checked, Islam is a religion, pilots who flew into aircraft carriers are not.
Rule 3 - Don't claim that Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States, or went to school as a child, or grew up in a radical Muslim home, or hates the United States, etc; unless you have first hand knowledge and/or proof.

Since you bring it up, let's look at it a bit more two sided.
SCSINET'S RULES OF RATIONAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION
Rule 1 - If you are trying to make any kind of valid point, do not start a sentence by using language that amounts to name calling, regardless of whether it is technically correct. Do not call him Barack Hussein Obama. Equally important, do not refer to the Tea Party as "Tea Baggers." His name is General Petraeus, not General Betrayus.
Rule 2 - "Racist" is a misused and meaningless term in the modern vernacular. Using it only serves as stooping to name calling, and responding to the use of the word only serves to demonstrate your ignorance and inability to carry on a rational discussion.
Rule 3 - Do not be a hypocrite. Don't stand there and tell me that you claim to be a champion of the constitution and a champion of the concept of a constitutional republic, then in the next breath tell me that the judge in CA was wrong or that they should be stopped from building an mosque near ground zero. Understand and either support or work to change the basic concepts of our governmental system, but don't pick and choose who gets to be protected by the state and federal constitutions and who does not. Hypocrisy makes you look like you are an idiot, pandering, or both.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3299232
You're the epitome of what's wrong with the Conservative right. Instead of providing solutions, you spend all your energy on conspiracy theories and political bashing to try and get your point through. You can't come up with rational answers to the debate, so you spew out ridiculous crap like Wright, Ayers, and a birth certificate. That's become the typical platform with the Republican Party. You can't come up with reasonable solutions to the problems facing this country, so you'll try winning the battle with airing out useless political conspiracy trash to try and tarnish my opponents name. That's one of the main reasons why I don't vote for Republican candidates. During his 2008 campaign, how many times did Obama bring up McCain's involvement with the Keating 5? Yea, yea, he was supposedly exonerated on those charges, but him and his money-bags wife still had some shady deals going on in Arizona.
Obama admittedly has made some poor decisions, and allowed some questionable policies go through. What President hasn't?
yeah, and a poor discision like that, means you aren't qualified to be president... This isn't a conspiracy theory. There is no doubt he went to that church. Is it a conspiracy theory, that his administration is full of wackos, from the "safe" program guy who taught kids how to fist as a safe alternative to ---, to people in his administration calling Mao the greatest philosopher of all time. (the guy killed more people than hitler). Never mind the Weather Underground. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is a consistent deliberate seeking out of these people. Birds of a feather flock together...
I'm not going to accept these liberal premises and then weaken and water down their ideas as an acceptable "conservative" solution... Because in most cases the whole premise is a fabrication.
In this case, doing nothing would be far better than doing anything. You know it is funny, (and I know this will go way over your head) but the solution of govenment stopping what it is doing, because it is was never the intended role of government as enumerated by the Constitution is a pretty good solution...

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by ironeagle2006
http:///forum/post/3299236
This is coming from someone in IL were the Idiot IN CIEF is from. BTW he is one. He came out of Chicago to my town for a Campaign stop in 2006 when he was running for US Senate he stated I am going to Washington to force Gun Control Down the Throats of the USA. He also stated that I know what is Best for America and it is NOT WHAT WE HAVE NOW. We have a President that Launched his Political Career at a Known Terrorist House in Bill Ayers who Stated after 9/11 I wish we had Done More. He sat Front and Center for 20 Years with one of the MOST RACIST Ministers there is, Yet he claims that he never Listened to him. Then when he heard about the incident in Cambridge MA before he even knew the facts of the case jumps on the side of the African American. He has shown that if your against him he will call the raicist card.

I rest my case.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3299250
I rest my case.

The problem with your case is that nothing he said was untrue...

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3299245
yeah, and a poor discision like that, means you aren't qualified to be president... This isn't a conspiracy theory. There is no doubt he went to that church. Is it a conspiracy theory, that his administration is full of wackos, from the "safe" program guy who taught kids how to fist as a safe alternative to ---, to people in his administration calling Mao the greatest philosopher of all time. (the guy killed more people than hitler). Never mind the Weather Underground. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is a consistent deliberate seeking out of these people. Birds of a feather flock together...
I'm not going to accept these liberal premises and then weaken and water down their ideas as an acceptable "conservative" solution... Because in most cases the whole premise is a fabrication.
In this case, doing nothing would be far better than doing anything. You know it is funny, (and I know this will go way over your head) but the solution of govenment stopping what it is doing, because it is was never the intended role of government as enumerated by the Constitution is a pretty good solution...
Who cares what church the guy went to. If you ask me, all these 'preachers', 'reverends', and 'ministers' are wackos whose only objectives is to fill your mind with useless rhetoric, and empty your pockets into their personal bank accounts so they can live high on the hog. Rev. Wright is in fact a nut case, but his opinions are those of his own. Come to San Antonio and listen to this John Hagee fruitcake. I guess if I went to his ministry and then ran for President, I'd be accused of some crazy things as well.
As far as Ayers, we've beat that dog to death TOO many times. HE WAS A CASUAL ACQUAINTANCE. He worked with the guy on several charitable organizatrions. Again, if you put a microscope up every politicians butt and analyzed every single person they been associated with through their lifetime, I'm sure you could fins some REAL shady characters in each and every one of them. I honestly doubt there's a single person on this forum that could run for a national office, and wonder about what kind of 'dirt' that could be dug up in their past. I know personally some people I grew up with, and associated with in college, that have been indicted for murder, fraud, Ponzi schemes, and a couple that had a Dishonorable Discharge from the military. Some of these associations were actually brought up when I obtained my TS/SCI clearance. When I discuseed them with the FBI, I told them I had no clue of their sordid past, and hadn't spoken to any of these individuals for years. Did I get penalized for knowing these people? Apparently not. I've had my clearance for 5 years now.