AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

Yeah sure, cyclops. So if Obama swats a human being, would that be worse than the fly? Or would that be a "superiority complex" coming out?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cop-out! My brother was a complete unknown when he ran for state office, and his average votes won was over 63% for all three terms in the legislature. He won 74% one year.

It's that famous 'Personal responsibility' the Republicans go on about.

Which is why, when I ask Fox or Ican or Okie what they are actually doing to address these problems they see with government, the answer is inevitably:

Quote:

See, b/c while it's fun to call for the creation of a new party, it's work to actually make it happen; and they are uninterested in actually working to accomplish their political goals.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Yeah sure, cyclops. So if Obama swats a human being, would that be worse than the fly?

Depends on the human being, doesn't it?

This isn't a material response to the discussion we were having, in which you cannot keep basic facts about our nation's recent history straight; but instead an attempt by you to change the subject to an intractable argument where you feel you are on more solid ground.

Are you going to admit that it was Bush and not Obama who bailed out many of these companies, and who made people take TARP funds? Or are you going to keep blaming Obama for stuff Bush did?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, My brother is a conservative (in California)!

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Yeah sure, cyclops. So if Obama swats a human being, would that be worse than the fly?

Depends on the human being, doesn't it?

So if its somebody you consider inferior, then that makes a difference?

Quote:

This isn't a material response to the discussion we were having, in which you cannot keep basic facts about our nation's recent history straight; but instead an attempt by you to change the subject to an intractable argument where you feel you are on more solid ground.

I am merely reminding you of how outlandish some of your arguments have been, to show you have little credibility.

Quote:

Are you going to admit that it was Bush and not Obama who bailed out many of these companies, and who made people take TARP funds? Or are you going to keep blaming Obama for stuff Bush did?

Cycloptichorn

I am not condoning what Bush did, but at some point, this is Obama's, and I think we have passed that point. And some of what Bush signed approved was because he considered himself a lame duck and he was merely expediting what Obama wanted. That does not relieve Bush of some responsibility, but it does show who really owns all of this, and it is clearly Obama.

3 Replies

@okie,

Just as a little backup--plus I'm in the mood to annoy the numbnuts this morning Smile

http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq289/LindaBee_2008/ObamatheTaxMan.jpg?t=1245429932

http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq289/LindaBee_2008/Obama.jpg?t=1245430050

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

I disagree with your opinion.

I will leave it at that.

You stated you had the impression. It isn't "my opinion" that I was talking about. I was asking you what caused you to come to the conclusion that we would soon have inflation and interest rates in the double digits.

You have claimed to be a reasonable thinking person so I thought you would have some reason for reaching your conclusion. It seems I was wrong about that.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I am not condoning what Bush did, but at some point, this is Obama's, and I think we have passed that point. And some of what Bush signed approved was because he considered himself a lame duck and he was merely expediting what Obama wanted. That does not relieve Bush of some responsibility, but it does show who really owns all of this, and it is clearly Obama.

Horse ****, Okie. Obama had nothing at all to do with the internal deliberations of Paulson and Bernake, managed by Bush. You can't pin the fact that Paulson forced banks to take money that didn't want it on Obama; which is what you stated a few pages back. You were clearly wrong and if you have any honesty at all you'll admit it.

Bush approved this stuff before Obama won the election; it is erroneous to say that Bush was doing what Obama wanted. Bush was doing what HE wanted to do. To blame that now on Obama is a sign of partisan idiocy on your part, and not an accurate reflection of history whatsoever.

You now claim that Obama 'owns' these problems, but refuse to provide evidence to support that or admit that you are blaming him for a stock market collapse that happened under Republican watch. This is not a serious argument on your part.

The truth is that you have been completely out of sorts since Obama has been elected. I mean, you're acting really weird. You used to be one of the more reasonable Conservatives here, now, every single day it's a litany of baseless accusations and irrational statements. This is pretty funny in a way, as it's a reflection of your party as a whole these days.

A hint for you: you guys are going to get creamed in 2010 unless you can start coming up with something better than ceaseless and baseless attacks on Obama. You also ought to come up with ideas that are at least superficially different than the ones the voters rejected the last two cycles, because, as Fox has accurately pointed out, the public doesn't trust Republican leadership on those ideas, at all. So how exactly do you guys plan on winning any influence back?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo, My brother is a conservative (in California)!

No, Cyclotroll is a whack job California progressive.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I actually think the political cartoons you post are pretty funny most of the time, and I don't have any problem at all with the partisan nature of them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I am not condoning what Bush did, but at some point, this is Obama's, and I think we have passed that point. And some of what Bush signed approved was because he considered himself a lame duck and he was merely expediting what Obama wanted. That does not relieve Bush of some responsibility, but it does show who really owns all of this, and it is clearly Obama.

You might want to read what you wrote okie.

You don't want to absolve Bush of any blame but Obama is to blame for everything. What complete and utter nonsense from you.

0 Replies

In reading this thread over the last few weeks, it seems that the conservatives posting here lose touch with reality more and more as time passes, and i suspect, as their frustration with their powerlessness increases. Ican is completely off the scale, with his incoherent ranting which paints Mr. Obama as a gangster, and calls for his impeachment for vaguely described crimes, most of which completely ignore the role of the Congress, and the lack of executive branch responsibility in the areas he's ranting about. James Morrison appears to have dropped out--maybe it was too embarrassing for him. Fox attempts to appear to be the voice of reason; in addition to her legendary inability to support the claims she makes, she now tries to suggest to Ican that Mr. Obama can't be impeached, right now, as though anything Mr. Obama were doing will lead to grounds for an indictment in the foreseeable future. Okie sinks further and further into an historical fantasy land.

Actually, from the point of view of those who support this administration, if this is an accurate portrayal of American conservatism, it should be greeted with glee. These jokers won't have a prayer in 2010, if they can't come up with anything better than the drivel which is consistently posted here.

Unfortunately, though, the Republicans, as politicians, aren't this stupid. They may well get their act together--but certainly not by listening to crap like this.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

However, from my observations of the republican party, they have become the No Party with nothing to offer except complaints and rantings contrary to the reality. It's not only the so-called MACs on a2k.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Debra, from your link:

Quote:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion
Main Entry: de·lu·sion
...
Function: noun
...
1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary

What, my dear Debra, is your indisputable evidence? Consensus?

Again:

ican711nm wrote:

I understand that Foxfyre is telling me that! I respectfully disagree with Foxfyre that: "A, the chances of impeaching Obama before the 2010 elections are effectively zero."

You are persistent in voicing your false psychotic belief that Obama can be impeached prior to the 2010 elections. The indisputable evidence to the contrary has been pointed out to you numerous times.

First, you have not articulated any conduct on Obama's part that constitutes an impeachable offense. Your complaint that Congress appropriates federal money to fund public welfare programs is merely the rant of a tax protestor.

Second, rational people understand that our current Congress that consists of a Democrat majority is not going to impeach a Democrat president for a nonexistent offense in order to appease the lunatic ravings of a tax protestor.

The fact that you maintain a persistent psychotic (not based on reality) belief that it is possible to impeach Obama prior to 2010 despite indisputable evidence to the contrary makes you delusional.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
the crime was upheld by a Superior Court and was recognized by th Supreme Court and the Arkansas State Bar.

Really? Explain.

Has Foxfyre explained her statement yet? Did I miss her response?

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

I'm curious too! Did Foxie explain how "the crime was upheld by a Superior Court and recognized by the Supreme Court?"

I'd like to see the court records on this issue to support her claim.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
the crime was upheld by a Superior Court and was recognized by th Supreme Court and the Arkansas State Bar.

Really? Explain.

Has Foxfyre explained her statement yet? Did I miss her response?

Nope. She didn't respond to this one either:

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I agree he was up to his eyeballs in all the corruption in the Chicago machine

Really? Explain.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Based on the obstruction of justice and I believe the perjury charges, Bill Clinton was suspended from the Arkansas State Bar and was banned from the U.S. Supreme Court. This has all been well documented on other threads as has Barack Obama's connections/involvements with Resko, Ayers, and others on the Chicago political scene. And that doesn't even include the political implications of how he went from a lowly community ACORN organizer to a wealthy member of the state legislature or Blago who he said he barely knew. . . .

http://www.blogchow.com/images/blagojevich_barack_obama_120208.jpg

http://citizenwells.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/blago1.jpg?w=350&h=238

http://citizenwells.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/blago3.jpg?w=300&h=225

http://citizenwells.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/blago4.jpg?w=300&h=211

http://citizenwells.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/blago5.jpg?w=500&h=374

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-78855398.html

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I once got my picture taken with a congressman; I wonder how Foxie will interpret that? LOL

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Obama was the Senator from Illinois; Blago was governor. You think it's indicative of a conspiracy of some sort, that they have been at the same events, shook hands, and had pictures taken together?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know