« First « Previous Comments 25 - 64 of 99 Next » Last » Search these comments
A whole hell of a lot more than whoever the GOP chooses because if the last two elections are any indicator they'll choose someone totally inappropriate.
That is a non answer you did not say anything.
The republicans I talk to want to destroy the GOP as it is today and replace it with the more conservative Tea Party. Every republican that I have talked to calls every moderate republican a RINO. Every republican that I have talked to and discussed Ronald Reagan with now calls him a RINO. The GOP of 20-30 years ago was a bunch of RINO's to the current average republican that I talk with. They want a more conservative republican party, which will destroy the party.
I mean theoretically you should want a more moderate party if you want the ultra conservative libertarian to destroy the party. But your views are ultra conservative/libertarian so.....what are you trying to accomplish?
Libertarians by definition are socially liberal and economically conservative.
The biggest threat to freedom is economic freedom which is a burden to every one. This means get rid of debt.
Ok, so you want to eliminate debt. How?
The writing is on the wall.
But not for the things stated by either side in this thread.
By 2016 Iraq will have split into 3 separate entities.
One of those states will be controlled by Al Queida et al.
Not just Obama, but the entire democratic party will be held responsible for allowing this direct threat to the US to exist.
Every foreign policy debacle will seem larger than life to the american public.
Benghazi will be held up as living proof of the stupidity of the administration.
The galling part for the people will be that all Obama had to do was follow the blueprint that history provided for converting subhuman societies to democratic bastions. South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc etc.
Simple leaving 20K troops on the ground for 20-40 years has repeatedly done the trick. Early withdrawal is a hallmark of the democrats, and is the exact opposite of what was needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
edvard2 says
This will be the undoing of Hillary in the 2016 run.
That is what the GOP desperately wants to believe. The writing is already on the wall for their party in 2016:
Here's the thing. A lot of us Democrats AND Republicans want a more moderate GOP. No- that doesn't mean the GOP suddenly starts acting like Democrats. Maybe more like the GOP of 20-30 years ago. The further to the right the GOP drifts the less they are beneficial in solving real world problems. A more moderate GOP would also mean a more moderate Democratic party. Both parties being more moderate would mean a return to more sensible, less sensational politics and more measured, reasonable, and actionable government...
Actually the missing element is compromise.
Both sides have acquiesced to the monetary expedient compromising everything in the process.
Both parties should be who they are but have to compromise or nothing happens.
But one way or another this country is going to fail soon without a miraculous change. Many doubt this but that doesn't make it so.
Ok, so you want to eliminate debt. How?
Not likely to happen.
1 educate people about super simple economics on television.Not a small project but Paul Martin did it in Canada in the 80s and the results were real.
2 You put in a budget. Not the horse shit that they do now but a real one.
3 Highly unlikely but you get rid of redundancies and corruption (top to bottom)
Benghazi will be held up as living proof of the stupidity of the administration.
Those not watching Fox News do not care at all about Bendhazi.
By 2016 Iraq will have split into 3 separate entities.
One of those states will be controlled by Al Queida et al.
You think? I mean maybe. If Al Qaeda had a state I am pretty sure it would become a nice fat target. We could carpet bomb it for practice.
Ok, so you want to eliminate debt. How?
Not likely to happen.
1 educate people about super simple economics on television.Not a small project but Paul Martin did it in Canada in the 80s and the results were real.
2 You put in a budget. Not the horse shit that they do now but a real one.
3 Highly unlikely but you get rid of redundancies and corruption (top to bottom)
So a fundamental change. We are talking about the presidential election of 2016? I mean I hear you, but it is not like any politician is going to propose or attempt to do anything like this.
5) The country wants real change.
That is what I think.
George Will said a while back that Hillary's time has passed. No longer in the zeitgeist?
So a fundamental change. We are talking about the presidential election of 2016? I mean I hear you, but it is not like any politician is going to propose or attempt to do anything like this.
Reading between the lines I think Rand Paul is, to some degree Paul Ryan regarding a budget.
If they vote for an "empty pantsuit" with NO accomplishments (former Senator and Sec of State) this time around, well, then there's ZERO hope for this country...
Agreed, goes from slim to none
By your definition it looks like Barack and Hillary are big Fox fans....
http://www.youtube.com/embed/8zN8AswLTs4
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-obama-benghazi--20140617-story.html
Benghazi will be held up as living proof of the stupidity of the administration.
Those not watching Fox News do not care at all about Bendhazi.
That is a non answer you did not say anything.
of course it was. The GOP chose crappy candidates in 08 and 12 and so I fail to see what's changed: They'll once more choose a totally inappropriate candidate with outdated idealogical plans and lose the vote to basically everyone except for their shrinking base.
Reading between the lines I think Rand Paul is, to some degree Paul Ryan regarding a budget.
Here's the only problem with Ryan. I will give it to him that he is a smart guy. But a whole ton of the plans that he has proposed economic-wise would not only bankrupt the country but put even more money into the pockets out outside controlling interests in various lobbys, industrial umbrella groups, and so on. In other words he would be like the version of economics the GOP favors but on a much greater, amplified basis.
They'll once more choose a totally inappropriate candidate with outdated idealogical plans and lose the vote to basically everyone except for their shrinking base.
You may be right...
But a whole ton of the plans that he has proposed economic-wise would not only bankrupt the country but put even more money into the pockets out outside controlling interests in various lobbys
I haven't paid much attention because I know they have no chance at this time. I thought he wanted to balance the budget way out just to get the conversation started. He is a CPA he kind of knows what he is talking abut regarding the BK thing. Is that the spin the Dems are putting on it?
Truthfully with as much waste as there is: in overpaid public employees at the Fed level, corruption in SS, the 175 billion dollars on the video just posted on the X35 that will not work, overlapping agencies between the Fed and the state levels, subsidies (corporate welfare), defense contractor boondoggles, the post office, etc, etc.
The budget might be brought under control simply by getting rid of most of the subsidies. Sowell says that you would not even have to get rid of all of them to balance the budget.
That is a trillion fucking dollars every fucking year give me a fucking break.
Look at how the judge who automatically grants long term disability claims automatically. That is 10 million people which is a 2 fer by the way because they no longer are paying taxes.
Or how big pharma poisons the people with some sort of panacea that leads to mass shootings at a huge fucking profit.
Look at how many things are public that should be private. How much would it save on schools, police, prisons, healthcare, if privatized?
Egregious pensions for public employees, how many thousands in just Calif are over 200k let alone over 100k for bullshit jobs?
Bankrupt NO, a different budget you bet your ass
That is a trillion fucking dollars every fucking year give me a fucking break.
Removing a trillion dollars in federal spending would shrink the economy by at least a trillion dollars. ~7%
Nice way to cure economic problems, that.
Removing a trillion dollars in federal spending would shrink the economy by at least a trillion dollars.
Typical fallacy, Nope e.g. take away the 4 trillion spent on the bailout. Would it reduce the economy by 4 trillion? Fuck no not even close.
What is worse you mutts think that government spending increases economic activity. Did that 4 trillion produce more than 4 trillion in economic activity? Fuck no
Typical fallacy, Nope e.g. take away the 4 trillion spent on the bailout. Would it reduce the economy by 4 trillion? Fuck no not even close.
Google this:
Y = C+I+G+NX. What is Y? What is G?
By definition, smarty pants.
What is worse you mutts think that government spending increases economic activity. Did that 4 trillion produce more than 4 trillion in economic activity? Fuck no
I don't think you want to talk about velocity with me again.
And by the way, you don't understand the difference between a balance sheet item and an income statement item. If you did, you would know that the answer is yes. As M2 grew $4 trillion over 6.5 years 2008-2014.5. GDP grew $2.5T in 2014 alone from where it was in 2008. And 1.9T in 2013. And $1T in 2011. And $.5T in 2010. Lets see, 2.5+1.9+1+.5 > 4.
Google this:
Y = C+I+G+NX. What is Y? What is G?
By definition, smarty pants.
Bite me
Purchases by the government do not find market value. Would anyone spend 350 million on an X35 when it can be shot down by a French Mirage and located with WWll radar? That is what happens with government spending it is a malinvestment and has a fraction of the value of the money spent. and it will not create economic activity other than the malinvesment I indicated.
You do know how fallacious that GDP number is anyway right?
I don't think you want to talk about velocity with me again.
Oh dear I'm so intimidated, sounds like you are flattering your self, typical?
Purchases by the government do not find market value. Would anyone spend 350 million on an X35 when it can be shot down by a French Mirage and located with WWll radar? That is what happens with government spending it is a malinvestment and has a fraction of the value of the money spent. and it will not create economic activity other than the malinvesment I indicated.
You don't even understand your made up Austrian terms. Buying x35's is not an example of malinvestment for the reasons you give. If true, its a bad investment at any price.
You don't even understand your made up Austrian terms. Buying x35's is not an example of malinvestment for the reasons you give. If true, its a bad investment at any price.
Once again Mr CP with all due respect, bite me
While it is true that since it is not on the market in the first place perhaps you could not call it something that is being invested in in he first place. But since it does not have value for it's intended customer it is a case of money being spent on something that does not have the intended value.
Once again Mr CP with all due respect, bite me
HAHA.
With all due respect, every idea you read from mises.org ain't worth a velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin getting it on.
With all due respect, every idea you read from mises.org ain't worth a velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin getting it on.
Ah yes, you have already run out of arguments.
I prefer the dogs playing poker, I suppose I'm a bit of a snob?
yea that is the same thing, flawless logic, what a twit.
Bill Maher makes a logical, sensible, and convincing argument demonstrating with amble examples and evidence that conservatives are utterly full of false outrage over Benghazi and are trying to connive a false scandal while ignoring real and important scandals and the real threat to the health, safety, and security of America: climate change.
Your wussy and unfounded remark does not at all address any of the well-established points Maher made. You cannot dismiss a well-reasoned argument with a generic snarly remark.
When you want to debate the real issue, we'll be ready. Until then, you have conceded the issue.
I prefer the dogs playing poker, I suppose I'm a bit of a snob?
I always liked the women in the low cut black dress with big tits. But hey if you get off on dogs playing poker I'm ok with that.
Your wussy and unfounded remark does not at all address any of the well-established points Maher made. You cannot dismiss a well-reasoned argument with a generic snarly remark.
With all due respect bite me bitch
That was a comedy bit that was ALL conjecture. Sarcasm about Susan Rice not using notes, sarcasm about Lindsay Graham, sarcasm about the blond on Fox news, sarcasm about Darrell Issa, sarcasm about republican rhetoric, sarcasm, sarcasm, sarcasm. Not one argument about the facts of Benghazi.
I saw him once on the George Steponallofus show whee he claimed that Brazil no longer used oil because of their sugar ethanol program. Actually an argument, a point, which was quickly exposed as bogus by George Will.
No he is glib and superficial.
When you want to debate the real issue, we'll be ready. Until then, you have conceded the issue.
You are flattering yourself.
So when do you plan on joining reality?
The writing is on the wall.
Some people apparently live in a mythical universe...
With all due respect bite me bitch
Bend over and I'll do more.
That was a comedy bit that was ALL conjecture.
1. Comedy and valid points are not mutually exclusive.
2. It was funny because it demonstrates how utterly ridiculously hypocritical and lying republicans are.
3. There was absolutely no conjecture in the video.
4. Everything point made by Maher was supported by example.
5. The examples were all videos. Getting caught on video red handed is the best evidence today. It creates a permanent, absolute, unlying record of the events.
6. You have not refuted any of the arguments Maher made. You are simply trying to poison the well, which is a fallacy and a common unethical or juvenile tactic of the right.
Not one argument about the facts of Benghazi.
No you're thinking of the guy in the mirror. You have presented no facts to refute Maher.
Maher has presented a multitude of facts including
- Republicans have made accusations based on trivial wording differences like "act of terror" rather than "terrorist act".
- Republicans were caught in a hypocrisy about whether it's permissible to criticize the president while he is on foreign soil
- Republicans used stupid, meaningless standards like "Obama was four minutes into his speech before mentioning an act of terror" to imply that Obama was condoning terrorist acts against America.
- Republicans were never outraged that Nixon was an accomplice to the crime of burglary in the Watergate Scandal.
- Republicans were never outraged that Reagan traded weapons to terrorists. If Obama did this, he would be impeached as a traitor giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
- Republicans were never outraged that Bush II sent General Powell to lie to the U.N. Yet they accuse Obama of lying about Benghazi because he said "act of terror" instead of "terrorist act".
- 4 in 10 Republicans said that Benghazi is the worst scandal in history above Watergate, purpose injecting civilians with syphilis, lying about WMDs in Iraq, lying about Saddam being connect to 9/11, slavery, and the many genocides of the Native Americans. This is both ridiculous and offensive to human dignity.
No facts? You are totally full of shit. You may be able to bullshit about subject matters in a face-to-face conversation, but on the Internet everything is verifiable. Any lie you state will be exposed. And the more shit you make up, the stupider you and your politics look.
Can I bite you now?
By the way, keep up the Benghazi bullshit. It makes you dumb asses look as crazy as you are. Keep it coming.
Did I hear that Ahmed Abu Khatallah is saying he got inspired by the anti-Islam video after all? That'll really make the Wingnuts' heads explode.
Bend over and I'll do more.
So you are a homosexual then?
Republicans have made accusations based on trivial wording differences like "act of terror" rather than "terrorist act".
yea all the Republican stuff is important... (sarcasm)
4 in 10 Republicans said that Benghazi is the worst scandal in history above Watergate
What percentage of the Democrats think there is global warming?
No facts? You are totally full of shit. You may be able to bullshit about subject matters in a face-to-face conversation, but on the Internet everything is verifiable.
Facts are somebody did something. Polls are not facts they are opinions.
We are talking about Benghazi not Reagan, Bush, Nixon they are irrelevant.
The rest of the stuff is trivial.
The video in the OP is about FACTS.
Bill Maher is NOT it is a fucking comedy show.
Good question, the reason is it goes to the character of a potential presidential candidate. Not to mention some dedicated personnel were killed because of the indifference
Bend over and I'll do more.
So you are a homosexual then?
What does that matter to you? Are you a bigot?
yea all the Republican stuff is important... (sarcasm)
Sarcasm is not a counter-argument.
What percentage of the Democrats think there is global warming?
Irrelevant. Climate change or global warming is a scientific fact. Science is not a democracy. There is truth and there are falsehoods. Which is which is not determined by a popularity contest.
At this point, with the mountainous evidence of climate change with many independent lines of verification, anyone who claims to doubt the reality and severity of man-made climate change is a liar, an idiot, or willfully ignorant. Of course, these three things are not mutually exclusive.
Facts are somebody did something. Polls are not facts they are opinions.
It is a fact that Reagan gave weapons to terrorists. It is a fact that the republicans had no objection to this, nonetheless outrage like they pretend to have at Obama wording a speech "incorrectly".
Also, polls reveal facts about people's positions. It is a fact that 4 out of 10 republicans referred to Benghazi as the worst scandal in American history. This fact is important as it demonstrates how bat-shit crazy the republicans are. Just because you don't like a fact doesn't make it not a fact.
We are talking about Benghazi not Reagan, Bush, Nixon they are irrelevant.
We are talking about the insincerity of republican motives in trying to create a false scandal around Benghazi, the inaccuracy of the so-called facts the republicans present, and the utter hypocrisy of their actions.
So yes, revealing that Reagan gave arms to the terrorists is most certainly relevant. Just because you don't like that I've shown Reagan, not Obama, to be the one guilty of treason of the highest degree does not make that fact irrelevant or republicans any less hypocrites for deifying Reagan while condemning Obama for some utter bullshit about supporting the terrorists which could not be further from the truth.
You republicans are so bat-shit crazy when it comes to Obama and so utterly divorced from any resemblance of reality that I, someone who has called for Obama to be tried for crimes against humanity, have to defend him in order to defend the truth. You're accusations against him are so ludicrous that either you are utterly insane or completely and blatantly racist. Again, these two things are not mutually exclusive.
The rest of the stuff is trivial.
The video in the OP is about FACTS.
Bill Maher is NOT it is a fucking comedy show.
Once again, you have failed to even attempt to address a single point Maher made, and in failing so have revealed that you are incapable of making any counter-arguments. This is not surprising because you lack both the truth, which is the easier ground to defend, and the intelligence to make any coherent argument.
I see from your last sentence above that merely creating a complete, intelligible sentence is a stretch for your intellect.
You keep posting the Bill Maher videos.... Like he has ANY relevancy to anything...
So, who's the dumb ass now??
The person who's only argument against Maher is that he's funny and therefore must not be correct. That is in no way a valid counter-argument. At best, you are occupying the second lowest level of the argument pyramid and that is a losing position.
To all those listening to this thread, I have a question. Is the average republican as utterly stupid as those posting on this thread, or are these republicans on Patrick.net particularly stupid?
I remember Obama and the Democrats saying that this was caused by a public protest against some video on the internet. That excuse was bullshit then, and it's still bullshit now.
What does that matter to you? Are you a bigot?
Why are you ashamed of your homosexuality?
Sarcasm is not a counter-argument.
It indicates that it is trivial
At this point, with the mountainous evidence of climate change with many independent lines of verification, anyone who claims to doubt the reality and severity of man-made climate change is a liar, an idiot, or willfully ignorant. Of course, these three things are not mutually exclusive.
Just answer the question.
t is a fact that Reagan gave weapons to terrorists
Irrelevant
ou're accusations against him are so ludicrous that either you are utterly insane or completely and blatantly racist.
Neither, there was some question as to my sanity but after coming to this site I am in good shape... I don't have a racist bone in my body. No one is entitled to anything ceptin if you ask a liberal.
making any counter-arguments.
Sarcasm does not work well with logic, it sort of like a wish which does not apply to logic. By virtue of this Bill Maher cannot be consider anything more than entertainment.
Is the average republican as utterly stupid as those posting on this thread, or are these republicans on Patrick.net particularly stupid?
And this once again is called projecting.
« First « Previous Comments 25 - 64 of 99 Next » Last » Search these comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsiDV1LuJA