153 replies to this topic

[gohornedfrogs]

Duquesne Frog, on 28 April 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

This guy is a sociopath--going after private citizens because they support his political opponent? This is sick and twisted:

http://www.mittromne...ecial-interests

I'm going to point out the narrative that pcf and NFF set on here for years about hypocrisy...if someone has publicly stated (or voted) against an issue, and then is found guilty of doing that which he/she condemned, the "hypocrisy" is a bigger evil than the actual event/issue. For instance, remember all of the tirades over "family values" candidates who had affairs and how Republicans were held to a different standard for cheating because they had campaigned on a "family values" platform? Democrats were openly given a free pass after extramarital affairs by our friends on here simply because they had never condemned "immorality" or infidelity in a marriage.

Yet these same people are now ignoring Obama's obvious hypocrisy regarding PAC donations, and large donors in general.

For the record, I don't care if either side is getting million dollar+ donations. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies by our demagogues on here.

[pcf]

gohornedfrogs, on 28 April 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

I'm older than you are...so don't presume to "teach" me about something you're not old enough to understand (at least by your own standard). But by all means, please feel free to lecture HF71, since he's the one who brought up CREEP. That I have to explain to you that implicit in my comment was that these two situations are different isn't surprising.

Million dollar donors? Really? Like Obama doesn't have them. And who do you think will have more money in his war-chest during this election?

Unlike you, I'm not playing the "my team is better than yours" game. I simply like to point out that just about whatever you (and Democrats) accuse Republicans of doing, there is at least a near equivalent that you (and they) are doing.

I've done this literally hundreds of times to your posts...the message obviously has not resonated.

I'm not playing any game.

1) This has nothing to do with the crimes of Watergate.
2) This isn't a secret enemies list.
3) I wasn't crying about million dollar donors. You bet Obama has them. The difference is I won't be whining if Romney lists Obama's donor like it is a secret plot against democracy.

As for not showing my elders respect, I apologize. You might be G. Gordon Liddy for all I know.

[Tucson Frog]

Duquesne Frog, on 28 April 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

This guy is a sociopath--going after private citizens because they support his political opponent? This is sick and twisted:

http://www.mittromne...ecial-interests

Duquesne Frog, on 28 April 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

This guy is a sociopath--going after private citizens because they support his political opponent? This is sick and twisted:

http://www.mittromne...ecial-interests

Of course he is a sociopath and you think Romney isn't?

That is exactly what I have been emphasizing all along but that idea is just too absurd for words. Ron Paul is just not psychopathic to suit the more sophisticated mainstream.

People may think Romney getting elected will change things, It wont.

[Tucson Frog]

pcf, on 28 April 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I'm not playing any game.

1) This has nothing to do with the crimes of Watergate.
2) This isn't a secret enemies list.
3) I wasn't crying about million dollar donors. You bet Obama has them. The difference is I won't be whining if Romney lists Obama's donor like it is a secret plot against democracy.

As for not showing my elders respect, I apologize. You might be G. Gordon Liddy for all I know.

pcf, on 28 April 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I'm not playing any game.

1) This has nothing to do with the crimes of Watergate.
2) This isn't a secret enemies list.
3) I wasn't crying about million dollar donors. You bet Obama has them. The difference is I won't be whining if Romney lists Obama's donor like it is a secret plot against democracy.

As for not showing my elders respect, I apologize. You might be G. Gordon Liddy for all I know.

No, Steelfrog is G Gordon Liddy.

[pcf]

gohornedfrogs, on 28 April 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

I'm going to point out the narrative that pcf and NFF set on here for years about hypocrisy...if someone has publicly stated (or voted) against an issue, and then is found guilty of doing that which he/she condemned, the "hypocrisy" is a bigger evil than the actual event/issue. For instance, remember all of the tirades over "family values" candidates who had affairs and how Republicans were held to a different standard for cheating because they had campaigned on a "family values" platform? Democrats were openly given a free pass after extramarital affairs by our friends on here simply because they had never condemned "immorality" or infidelity in a marriage.

Yet these same people are now ignoring Obama's obvious hypocrisy regarding PAC donations, and large donors in general.

For the record, I don't care if either side is getting million dollar+ donations. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies by our demagogues on here.

Sometimes I'm confused by your explanations of your comments.

Let's take it from the top.

TCUSA posts a diatribe against Obama and his campaign. You seem to endorse at least part of it.

I say it doesn't seem like anything unusual and certainly not illegal or even in the spirit of Watergate.

You blow a gasket and decide to take it out on your favorite whipping boy.

As far as hypocrisy, Obama didn't get to choose the weapons for this duel. However, he's in a fight and he needs to fight back. I hope he's more skillful than his opponents, no matter how they try to rig the challenge in their favor.

[pcf]

Tucson Frog, on 28 April 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

Of course he is a sociopath and you think Romney isn't?

That is exactly what I have been emphasizing all along but that idea is just too absurd for words. Ron Paul is just not psychopathic to suit the more sophisticated mainstream.

People may think Romney getting elected will change things, It wont.

It won't. It is just a psychological release for the winning side. They can go back to watching whichever reality series they prefer and feel comfortable and safe again.

[gohornedfrogs]

pcf, on 28 April 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Sometimes I'm confused by your explanations of your comments.

Let's take it from the top.

TCUSA posts a diatribe against Obama and his campaign. You seem to endorse at least part of it.

I say it doesn't seem like anything unusual and certainly not illegal or even in the spirit of Watergate.

You blow a gasket and decide to take it out on your favorite whipping boy.

As far as hypocrisy, Obama didn't get to choose the weapons for this duel. However, he's in a fight and he needs to fight back. I hope he's more skillful than his opponents, no matter how they try to rig the challenge in their favor.

So not only do you fail to see the hypocrisy of Obama's actions, you fail to see those of your own?

Got it.

Let's break this down further...

pcf, on 28 April 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Sometimes I'm confused by your explanations of your comments.

You shouldn't be. I'm very consistent. I use your words.

pcf, on 28 April 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

TCUSA posts a diatribe against Obama and his campaign. You seem to endorse at least part of it.

Uh, no. Just the opposite. I made a comment about Derangement Syndrome being applied to the writers of that blog, and then agreed with Duq that it's SOP for all politicians, to some degree, to attack their opponents lead donors. Look it up. You can use my own quotes, like I often use yours.

My point is that Obama made a major issue out of being an opponent of PAC's, and now he's benefiting from them.

pcf, on 28 April 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

I say it doesn't seem like anything unusual...

And this is where you are trapped...your guy was adamantly opposed to PAC money while he was campaigning! He voted against it. At least the "family values" people never voted against a measure to outlaw infidelity...and by your own rules, if the "family values" guys were obligated to resign over marital infidelity, then what should Obama have to do?

pcf, on 28 April 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

You blow a gasket and decide to take it out on your favorite whipping boy.

I've finally figured it out. pcf is George Zimmerman. He follows people around harrassing and inflaming them with his comments, and then claims to be the victim when somebody fights back.

pcf, on 28 April 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

As far as hypocrisy, Obama didn't get to choose the weapons for this duel. However, he's in a fight and he needs to fight back. I hope he's more skillful than his opponents, no matter how they try to rig the challenge in their favor.

Rigging the challenge in their favor? How? Obama had two years of huge majorities in Congress to repeal the PAC laws. He figured out he could "rig the challenge" in his favor, and has succeeded wildly in doing so...

Again, I have no problem with that. But you are the one who is not abiding by the standards you railed against conservatives for not upholding.

[pcf]

gohornedfrogs, on 28 April 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Rigging the challenge in their favor? How? Obama had two years of huge majorities in Congress to repeal the PAC laws. He figured out he could "rig the challenge" in his favor, and has succeeded wildly in doing so...

Again, I have no problem with that. But you are the one who is not abiding by the standards you railed against conservatives for not upholding.

Ever heard of the Supreme Court and Citizens United v. F.E.C. ?

The only choice Obama has is to play by the rules of the SC conservative majority or not play at all. It won't do any good to whine to the refs. Just go win the game.

[TCUSA]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 28 April 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

I was puttering around on my boat wiring, putting things together, tracing circuits and plumbing, tracing cables, starting and stopping things I need to learn to use etc. yesterday and today.

How very satisfying compared to reading this sort of thread,

That said, you're absolutely correct. T would never say anything negative about Mr. Soros!

Yeah--and if I controlled the IRS, SEC, and the rest of the bureaucracy, you can bet I'd have enough tact and awareness of my position to refrain from having a website of my campaign targeting him and trying to make an example of him as a warning to others.  Even Nixon had enough awareness to know that his "enemies list" was for his eyes only.

The point, as I said, is the President of the United States calling out private citizens for exercising their free speech--it's classless thuggery.  Far worse than even Nixon's.  Did George W. Bush ever mention any contributors to either the Gore or Kerry campaigns? Hell no.  Because he was a far bigger man and was far more aware of his station as President of ALL Americans.  You lefties are really getting pathetic in your defense of this rube.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Duquesne Frog, on 28 April 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

This guy is a sociopath--going after private citizens because they support his political opponent? This is sick and twisted:

http://www.mittromne...ecial-interests

Terrible. Just terrible. The sickness is appalling.

Except no mention of Soros. I guess even Romney is afraid to make Soros mad!

Let's compare anyway:

evil dem high rolling contributor:



nice, honest, hard working rep high rolling contibutor...

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Oh...happened to see a Wapo article by Brookings and American Enterprise Institutes scholars Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann (i.e., on balance probably somewhat centrist) discussing what is sick and what is not in DC at the present time. They put the blame clearly on extremism from the right labeling the present incumbents "an insurgent outlier party".  I'm sure this will meet with rational and thoughtful discussion here!

Premises:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

...

It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.

The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base. Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post.

...

Democrats are hardly blameless, and they have their own extreme wing and their own predilection for hardball politics. But these tendencies do not routinely veer outside the normal bounds of robust politics. If anything, under the presidencies of Clinton and Obama, the Democrats have become more of a status-quo party. They are centrist protectors of government, reluctantly willing to revamp programs and trim retirement and health benefits to maintain its central commitments in the face of fiscal pressures.

No doubt, Democrats were not exactly warm and fuzzy toward George W. Bush during his presidency. But recall that they worked hand in glove with the Republican president on the No Child Left Behind Act, provided crucial votes in the Senate for his tax cuts, joined with Republicans for all the steps taken after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and supplied the key votes for the Bush administration’s financial bailout at the height of the economic crisis in 2008. The difference is striking.

Conclusions:

Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?

...

Report individual senators’ abusive use of holds and identify every time the minority party uses a filibuster to kill a bill or nomination with majority support.

...

In the end, while the press can make certain political choices understandable, it is up to voters to decide. If they can punish ideological extremism at the polls and look skeptically upon candidates who profess to reject all dialogue and bargaining with opponents, then an insurgent outlier party will have some impetus to return to the center...

Anyway, thought provoking piece IMO. The trouble is, I truly doubt it will provoke much, if any, real thought. For my part, I have been concerned for some time over one notion they throw out but then don't explore more deeply: To my way of thinking, the drive to delegitimize the opposition is a seriously bad drive fraught with extremely negative possibilities.

[gohornedfrogs]

pcf, on 28 April 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Ever heard of the Supreme Court and Citizens United v. F.E.C. ?

The only choice Obama has is to play by the rules of the SC conservative majority or not play at all. It won't do any good to whine to the refs. Just go win the game.

Fair enough.

But don't accuse your opponent of doing exactly what you are doing.

[gohornedfrogs]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 29 April 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

Oh...happened to see a Wapo article by Brookings and American Enterprise Institutes scholars Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann (i.e., on balance probably somewhat centrist) discussing what is sick and what is not in DC at the present time. They put the blame clearly on extremism from the right labeling the present incumbents "an insurgent outlier party".  I'm sure this will meet with rational and thoughtful discussion here!

So you throw out an article that blames right wing extremism for causing what is "sick" in American politics and you expect to get rational and thoughtful discussion?

Try not to blame people for causing "sickness" and you might actually GET thoughtful discussion.

Would you give rational and thoughtful discussion to someone who said America is sick because of left-wing liberals? No need to answer that...we've seen what happens every time someone makes a post accusing liberals of something.

[Tucson Frog]

gohornedfrogs, on 29 April 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

So you throw out an article that blames right wing extremism for causing what is "sick" in American politics and you expect to get rational and thoughtful discussion?

Try not to blame people for causing "sickness" and you might actually GET thoughtful discussion.

Would you give rational and thoughtful discussion to someone who said America is sick because of left-wing liberals? No need to answer that...we've seen what happens every time someone makes a post accusing liberals of something.

gohornedfrogs, on 29 April 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

So you throw out an article that blames right wing extremism for causing what is "sick" in American politics and you expect to get rational and thoughtful discussion?

Try not to blame people for causing "sickness" and you might actually GET thoughtful discussion.

Would you give rational and thoughtful discussion to someone who said America is sick because of left-wing liberals? No need to answer that...we've seen what happens every time someone makes a post accusing liberals of something.

America is sick because of ignorance and apathy.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

gohornedfrogs, on 29 April 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

So you throw out an article that blames right wing extremism for causing what is "sick" in American politics and you expect to get rational and thoughtful discussion?

Try not to blame people for causing "sickness" and you might actually GET thoughtful discussion.

Would you give rational and thoughtful discussion to someone who said America is sick because of left-wing liberals? No need to answer that...we've seen what happens every time someone makes a post accusing liberals of something.

Yes I do...it's just barely possible they have something to say--backing it up with research and facts--that makes it worth thinking about. It is an interesting piece of writing that deserves consideration I think. Gridlock--the sickness at hand--is the fault of something. Is it possible one "side" is more at fault? Yes it is.

That said, I am wondering if the American Enterprise Institute is going to have yet another vacancy on Monday or not.

I'm coming to the position that we need some new labels. For my part--and as witnessed in the article--I think centrist should be used rather than moderate from here on out for what used to be labeled moderate positions. Centrist is more grounded in actual positions. Moderate has come to be used as moderate relative to X and Y. As such, the stretching at the extremes, especially the extra stretching at the right extreme which is pretty well documented, has stretched/modified the definition of moderate. So call me a "centrist" from now on.

As for the last, what essay citing facts and research rather than innuendo, lies and propaganda do you suggest putting up for discussion? I'm game. Question: Are you playing the victim card here??? For my part, I don't notice much problem with posts of negative facts about liberals. Obama being born in Kenya, etc. rates proper derision to my mind.

[oldscribe]

TCUSA, on 28 April 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Yeah--and if I controlled the IRS, SEC, and the rest of the bureaucracy, you can bet I'd have enough tact and awareness of my position to refrain from having a website of my campaign targeting him and trying to make an example of him as a warning to others.  Even Nixon had enough awareness to know that his "enemies list" was for his eyes only.

The point, as I said, is the President of the United States calling out private citizens for exercising their free speech--it's classless thuggery.  Far worse than even Nixon's.  Did George W. Bush ever mention any contributors to either the Gore or Kerry campaigns? Hell no.  Because he was a far bigger man and was far more aware of his station as President of ALL Americans.  You lefties are really getting pathetic in your defense of this rube.

I wish other Republicans were as aware that the president (any president) is of ALL Americans. Once early in Clinton's first term when I mentioned ``the president" to Rep. [Gary Danielson] Armey, he almost shouted ``He's not MY president!"......I have found room for disagreement with the last several oval office residents, but they have all been ``my" president as well as ``the" president.

[oldscribe]

oldscribe, on 29 April 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

I wish other Republicans were as aware that the president (any president) is of ALL Americans. Once early in Clinton's first term when I mentioned ``the president" to Rep. [Gary Danielson] Armey, he almost shouted ``He's not MY president!"......I have found room for disagreement with the last several oval office residents, but they have all been ``my" president as well as ``the" president.

I continue to find it ridiculous that this forum changes the nickname for ``richard" to [Gary Danielson]......even when one is referring to [Gary Danielson] Armey....

[Tucson Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 29 April 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Yes I do...it's just barely possible they have something to say--backing it up with research and facts--that makes it worth thinking about. It is an interesting piece of writing that deserves consideration I think. Gridlock--the sickness at hand--is the fault of something. Is it possible one "side" is more at fault? Yes it is.

That said, I am wondering if the American Enterprise Institute is going to have yet another vacancy on Monday or not.

I'm coming to the position that we need some new labels. For my part--and as witnessed in the article--I think centrist should be used rather than moderate from here on out for what used to be labeled moderate positions. Centrist is more grounded in actual positions. Moderate has come to be used as moderate relative to X and Y. As such, the stretching at the extremes, especially the extra stretching at the right extreme which is pretty well documented, has stretched/modified the definition of moderate. So call me a "centrist" from now on.

As for the last, what essay citing facts and research rather than innuendo, lies and propaganda do you suggest putting up for discussion? I'm game. Question: Are you playing the victim card here??? For my part, I don't notice much problem with posts of negative facts about liberals. Obama being born in Kenya, etc. rates proper derision to my mind.

NewfoundlandFrog, on 29 April 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Yes I do...it's just barely possible they have something to say--backing it up with research and facts--that makes it worth thinking about. It is an interesting piece of writing that deserves consideration I think. Gridlock--the sickness at hand--is the fault of something. Is it possible one "side" is more at fault? Yes it is.

That said, I am wondering if the American Enterprise Institute is going to have yet another vacancy on Monday or not.

I'm coming to the position that we need some new labels. For my part--and as witnessed in the article--I think centrist should be used rather than moderate from here on out for what used to be labeled moderate positions. Centrist is more grounded in actual positions. Moderate has come to be used as moderate relative to X and Y. As such, the stretching at the extremes, especially the extra stretching at the right extreme which is pretty well documented, has stretched/modified the definition of moderate. So call me a "centrist" from now on.

As for the last, what essay citing facts and research rather than innuendo, lies and propaganda do you suggest putting up for discussion? I'm game. Question: Are you playing the victim card here??? For my part, I don't notice much problem with posts of negative facts about liberals. Obama being born in Kenya, etc. rates proper derision to my mind.

Does anybody want a REAL discussion about what is actually happening to our country, to our government, to our economy? I don't think so.

[Tucson Frog]

oldscribe, on 29 April 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

I continue to find it ridiculous that this forum changes the nickname for ``richard" to [Gary Danielson]......even when one is referring to [Gary Danielson] Armey....

oldscribe, on 29 April 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

I continue to find it ridiculous that this forum changes the nickname for ``richard" to [Gary Danielson]......even when one is referring to [Gary Danielson] Armey....

Amen amen amen

[gohornedfrogs]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 29 April 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

As for the last, what essay citing facts and research rather than innuendo, lies and propaganda do you suggest putting up for discussion? I'm game. Question: Are you playing the victim card here??? For my part, I don't notice much problem with posts of negative facts about liberals. Obama being born in Kenya, etc. rates proper derision to my mind.

Use the board search function. I've made fun of the people challenging Obamas citizenship on many occasions. As well as many other kooky posts. Remember fn and others accusing me of being a liberal for attacking their nutty rants?

Victim? Nice attempt at projection.

And show me the innuendo and lies I've posted on here.

You've gone off the rails...