Page 141 of 147 FirstFirst ... 4191131139140141142143 ... LastLast
Results 1,401 to 1,410 of 1467

Thread: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

  1. #1401
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,723
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    You left out the word "FAIR".

    As you wish. Whine and wriggle all you want, the fact remains that they pay at least their fair share.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  2. #1402
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,723
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    REally? Who? Can you name them? Are you talking about getting paid every two weeks. Based on a salery in the top 1%? Who are these people?

    Many top professionals, doctors, lawyers, consultants, etc., easily crack the top 1%. Engineers and executives too.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  3. #1403
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,723
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptinSarcastic View Post
    I think for the most part, people making under a million do, but people in that top of the top group, not even close.

    No whining, no wiggling, just facts.

    Do you have any data beyond "I think . . ."?
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  4. #1404
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    As you wish. Whine and wriggle all you want, the fact remains that they pay at least their fair share.
    It's not fair. that's the whole point.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  5. #1405
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    The Reagan speech. Im sure you can corroborate the liberal race baiting and dog whistle theories with actual quotes from the parties involved in setting up the event right? Oh. You cant. Well then thats inferrence not proof, and hence manipulation. Im not picking through the entirety of the hard left sewage you call a post anymore, as I said before you just keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.



    McCain and Rubio working on immigration reform that can pass. Several notable Republicans signing onto the gay marriage brief. How about the HHS flap over contraceptives and the Catholic Church, that may matter to a great many Hispanics. How about the immigrants, legal and illegal having to live near a border infested with crime--think they may want more secure borders? Just some examples.





    Ahhh, grand irony.



    Rezko, legalislative warfare on opposition campaigns, unsealing of divorce records harmful to both parties and children, quid pro quo I showed you, etc etc. I didnt assume anything. Obama has dealings some of the most corrupt people in Chicago. Obama has questionable dealings and engages in questionable ethical political tactics any time he fears he cant win at the ballot box. The amazing part is you blowing off an example of subtle quid pro quo then jumping straight forward to assume Im stereotyping poor, poor Obama. What a crock.





    This pile of piss and wind. I didnt say any of that, thats you projecting again. Your a hardline ideologue portraying yourself as an intellectual free thinker. You aren't, not even close. Your criticism flows one direction and thats at your opposition. Btw, your circular logic here assumes from the start with little logical basis. Plus you present a whole host of thoughts and positions as mine that I have not presented. How many fallacies you want to go for in one paragraph?


    So does liberalism.



    The whole establishment thing earlier in the thread went right by you. Establishment republicans arent very conservative. Establishment DC on both sides want more power. Establishment GOP are just going along with the power plays and cementing their own positions. I honestly dont know how much smaller, since we havent actually cut government in decades, its pretty hard to tell. Maybe we ought to try it and see if it works before looking down nose dismissal begins.

    Whether you like it or not, Liberalism and Democrats have become the party of bigger and bigger government. No one on the left is even making an argument for reduction of anything other than rate of growth and they dont even like that.



    Bolded: LOL, smear smear smear. You cant seem to help yourself.
    2nd Bolded: Of course you dont.

    The Reagan speech. Im sure you can corroborate the liberal race baiting and dog whistle theories with actual quotes from the parties involved in setting up the event right? Oh. You cant
    In fact I can. Ronald Reagan, on the campaign trail in 1980, saying in Mississippi "I believe in states' rights" (a sentence the New Statesman later described as "perhaps the archetypal dog-whistle statement"), described as implying Reagan believed that states should be allowed, if they want, to retain racial segregation. In 1981, former Republican Party strategist and Reagan campaign manager; Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing the GOP's Southern Strategy said:

    “You start out in 1954 by saying, "N, n, n." By 1968, you can't say "n" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N, n.” There is an audio recording of this.



    McCain and Rubio working on immigration reform that can pass. Several notable Republicans signing onto the gay marriage brief.
    My, how liberal of them.

    How about the HHS flap over contraceptives and the Catholic Church, that may matter to a great many Hispanics.
    Yeah...that really won them over didn't it? Even after all that nonsense 74% of Latinos voted against you.

    This pile of piss and wind.
    Right. It's also true.

    I didnt say any of that, thats you projecting again.
    Again you say "that". What is THAT which you're saying you didn't say? You're quoting me in which I haven't said that you SAID anything. My response that you quoted comes from you claiming that I need to be right on everything. I told you I know that I could be wrong about a lot of things. Can you? So what is THAT which you're referring to?

    Your a hardline ideologue portraying yourself as an intellectual free thinker.
    What's my ideology? Haven't you seen my sig? I don't subscribe to or hold ideologies. You seem to be suggesting that a person without an ideology has an ideology of not having an ideology. That's like saying that atheism is a religion of non-belief in religion. It's pretzel logic.

    You aren't, not even close
    And...you would know so much about "free thinking". I can see what an authority you are on that subject.

    Your criticism flows one direction and thats at your opposition.
    My criticism points directly at absolutist statements because the people making them are really nuts, and they're easy to take apart and stand in the way of truth. So yes, that's my opposition. I oppose bull**** and expose it for what it is. That's my only interest. Is something logical and rational, or more fictional beliefs or absolutist dogma. The criticisms are aimed at only one thing; Is the claim true of false. Assertions are always claims and they must be justified rationally. If they can't be demonstrated as being true...then what makes them worth accepting as true? What are they based on? And then, what justifies that base, and what is that justification based on. All ideas are open to criticism. There are no sacred cows. Unless you're an ideologue in which that becomes "sacred ground". Like I said, I could be wrong. So I can be willing to put my own to that same criticism. If they're wrong, I dump them for something that is true.

    Btw, your circular logic here assumes from the start with little logical basis.
    Can you demonstrate the circular logic that you refer to? I mean just saying that means nothing. Give me an example.

    Plus you present a whole host of thoughts and positions as mine that I have not presented. How many fallacies you want to go for in one paragraph?
    I haven't presented any as if they are yours. I'm not speaking for you. The only reference to you personally would be this: " If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? When you find out..then ask what that base is based on. You'll find yourself in a dilemma of infinite regress vs your dogma. You'll always be looking for another basis to justify the one that comes next. It's a black hole, and theres no way out of it, except to say I believe it because I believe it, which is circular reasoning." It's called Modus Tollens. IF/THEN. IF you had any interest in the truth, THEN you'd look at your ideology and ask what it's based on. What part of that is false?

    How many fallacies you want to go for in one paragraph?
    Show me one. Apparently you can list a bunch. I'm just asking for one.

    So does liberalism.
    Nope. Racism always has a conservative element to it. Racism isn't a liberal concept. Nice try, and I'm sure it makes you feel better to think that, but its not true. A conservative wants to preserve institutions and slavery, and Jim Crow, and Segregation were all conservative institutions. Liberalism is always a challenge to those institutions. Conservatives institutionalized racism. Liberals fought to eliminate it. The Civil Rights Act was a liberal idea. Not a conservative one. They fought against it. I find it amazing that on the very day that Rosa Parks statue is enshrined in the Capital Statuary Hall, the first women to be enshrined there, a woman from Alabama...and just down the street two Conservative Senators from Alabama sponsor Shelby County Alabama in a challenge to the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court. The very thing that Rosa Parks led the way toward. The timing was perfect. I'll tell you this, if the African/American community felt that liberalism was racist, why do you think 94% of them vote for liberals? They know where that hate comes from.

    Establishment republicans arent very conservative.
    They don't run the Republican Party. Conservatives do. They nominated a "severely conservative governor". Remember? And there isn't a single Republican that doesn't call himself a conservative. If you aren't a conservative, you're destined to be primaried by one more conservative than you are. That's ideology run amok.Extremism in full bloom.

    Maybe we ought to try it and see if it works before looking down nose dismissal begins.
    Actually, by Tea Party standards, it needs to be "small enough to drown in the bathtub"- Grover Norquist. It can't be small enough unless it's completely gone. It'll never be small enough to the Tea Party Conservative, until everything is dismantled. The problem is that the people don't want that. That's why you're losing elections. Which is also why it's not a smear. It's the truth as stated by people like Norguist. When the TeaParty conservatives tell me they hate the government; that goverenment is the problem; that they want to cut it to the bone, then this statement "Join the TeaParty and take down the entire government of the United States, and it'll be every man for himself", is no smear. Because if that's the goal, then that's going to be the result.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  6. #1406
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yep, typical liberal bull****, anything that points out facts and data is hatred for the person. What I do is confuse you by pointing out data the refutes the liberal rhetoric. You cannot figure out how an ideology that claims to promote compassion can be such an dire failure. You buy rhetoric and ignore data and facts. No wonder you have no interest in what anyone says that posts same.
    No. Claiming that the White House was cheering the death toll of 6 year olds to promote a politial agenda...that's true hate in action. That's irrational hate. That kind of hate is pure evil. You have a very sick and cynical view of people and anybody that harbors that kind of hate, isn't worth the time of day. What you actually do is reveal yourself as vile. And you confuse nobody. You torpedoed any credibility you may have hoped to gain. Any message you try to offer is buried by your own hate. Maybe you'll learn to read what you write before posting and consider the damage that you do to your own credibility.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  7. #1407
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    No. Claiming that the White House was cheering the death toll of 6 year olds to promote a politial agenda...that's true hate in action. That's irrational hate. That kind of hate is pure evil. You have a very sick and cynical view of people and anybody that harbors that kind of hate, isn't worth the time of day. What you actually do is reveal yourself as vile. And you confuse nobody. You torpedoed any credibility you may have hoped to gain. Any message you try to offer is buried by your own hate. Maybe you'll learn to read what you write before posting and consider the damage that you do to your own credibility.
    WHere did I say anything about 6 year olds dying? Maybe you ought to get some help with reading comprehension. This Thread is about Obama's SOU speech and his rhetoric vs his results. Your posts are filled with personal attacks and political hack points that are irrelevant to the topic. You buy the Obama rhetoric and ignore the Obama results claiming it is the fault of "hate" radio.

    Obama's record is a disaster but because he tells you what you want to hear you buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. You are easily swayed by rhetoric and that makes you part of the problem and not part of the solution. You never answer direct questions and always strive to change the discussion to other topics. Tell me how Obama policies are going to reduce the 16.6 trillion dollar debt, put the 22+ million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers back to work full time paying full taxes, reduce the numbers on taxpayer assistance, and creates more than .1% GDP growth?

  8. #1408
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,210

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    No. Claiming that the White House was cheering the death toll of 6
    year olds to promote a politial agenda...that's true hate in action. That's irrational hate. That kind of hate is pure evil. You have a very sick and cynical view of people and anybody that harbors that kind of hate, isn't worth the time of day. What you actually do is reveal yourself as vile. And you confuse nobody. You torpedoed any credibility you may have hoped to gain. Any message you try to offer is buried by your own hate. Maybe you'll learn to read what you write before posting and consider the damage that you do to your own credibility.
    They have yet to adress Nationally the rising death toll in Chicago. I didn't see one crying Chicago parent holding up a sign of their kids in the Congressional Hearing yesterday.

    Yes, the lefts obsession with gun control is nothing new. Obama's choice to ignore thousands of gangland murders which includes way more that 20 kids reaches a new level of demagoguery and selfishness.

    Why didn't they start this anti Gun tirade after the Chicago 6 year old girl was killed in her living room last year ?

    Oh I know why, they didn't care.

  9. #1409
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    In fact I can. Ronald Reagan, on the campaign trail in 1980, saying in Mississippi "I believe in states' rights" (a sentence the New Statesman later described as "perhaps the archetypal dog-whistle statement"), described as implying Reagan believed that states should be allowed, if they want, to retain racial segregation. In 1981, former Republican Party strategist and Reagan campaign manager; Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing the GOP's Southern Strategy said:

    “You start out in 1954 by saying, "N, n, n." By 1968, you can't say "n" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N, n.” There is an audio recording of this.

    Except you didnt include the part with the entire interview and the context of what Atwater is talking about is what politicians ran in the South. In the 50s it was pure race baiting, in the 60s it was voter rights/Jim Crow/forced busing, in the 70s, Atwater was describing what you would want to run on to appeal to voters. Hes not equating the things as being equal hes saying what strategy would work for voters. Voters werent just whites anymore, so the strategy going forward has to be different. Its a historical idea as much as anything else. The first 5 minutes are all about the context BEFORE he made those statements and places the context of what he meant.

    Exclusive: Lee Atwater



    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Yeah...that really won them over didn't it? Even after all that nonsense 74% of Latinos voted against you.
    Maybe it should. Promising them bread and circuses only works for so long.



    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Right. It's also true.
    Nah, its not.



    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Again you say "that". What is THAT which you're saying you didn't say? You're quoting me in which I haven't said that you SAID anything. My response that you quoted comes from you claiming that I need to be right on everything. I told you I know that I could be wrong about a lot of things. Can you? So what is THAT which you're referring to?
    Sigh. You make blanket assertions like I believe conservatism cant be wrong. At no point did I say or assert that. In fact I disagree with a lot of socially conservative positions. If you could avoid making arguments about things Ive never said that would be super.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    What's my ideology? Haven't you seen my sig? I don't subscribe to or hold ideologies. You seem to be suggesting that a person without an ideology has an ideology of not having an ideology. That's like saying that atheism is a religion of non-belief in religion. It's pretzel logic.
    You hold liberal positions most often, and you havent bothered to clarify or voice any positions other than liberal ones. So Im going with liberal until you post something different. So far you sound like a liberal water carrier we see around here quite a lot, matter of fact you sound like an amalgamation of HoJ and Haymarket.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    And...you would know so much about "free thinking". I can see what an authority you are on that subject.
    DBAJ. Just one post, try it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    My criticism points directly at absolutist statements because the people making them are really nuts, and they're easy to take apart and stand in the way of truth. So yes, that's my opposition. I oppose bull**** and expose it for what it is. That's my only interest. Is something logical and rational, or more fictional beliefs or absolutist dogma. The criticisms are aimed at only one thing; Is the claim true of false. Assertions are always claims and they must be justified rationally. If they can't be demonstrated as being true...then what makes them worth accepting as true? What are they based on? And then, what justifies that base, and what is that justification based on. All ideas are open to criticism. There are no sacred cows. Unless you're an ideologue in which that becomes "sacred ground". Like I said, I could be wrong. So I can be willing to put my own to that same criticism. If they're wrong, I dump them for something that is true.
    So far you are lodged pretty far into liberal territory. Its not "truth", or "sacred ground", its just ideology based upon a realm of political thinking. You also seem a lot more wedded to it, than I do, but less honest about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Can you demonstrate the circular logic that you refer to? I mean just saying that means nothing. Give me an example.
    You assume I believe conservatism is infallible and go about proving that without any argument from me to that effect. You assume Im wedded to conservativism on all issues, also not true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    I haven't presented any as if they are yours. I'm not speaking for you. The only reference to you personally would be this: " If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? When you find out..then ask what that base is based on. You'll find yourself in a dilemma of infinite regress vs your dogma. You'll always be looking for another basis to justify the one that comes next. It's a black hole, and theres no way out of it, except to say I believe it because I believe it, which is circular reasoning." It's called Modus Tollens. IF/THEN. IF you had any interest in the truth, THEN you'd look at your ideology and ask what it's based on. What part of that is false?
    The part where you assume to know what I believe without actually finding out. You are most definitely speaking for me by assuming what I believe without delving into any specifics whatsoever. Ive taken very few positions here, in point of fact, and Im tired of dealing with your lecturing, cajoling and overbearing crap.



    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Show me one. Apparently you can list a bunch. I'm just asking for one.
    Democrats treat minorities as voting blocks rather than people that have the same needs as other Americans.



    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Nope. Racism always has a conservative element to it. Racism isn't a liberal concept. Nice try, and I'm sure it makes you feel better to think that, but its not true. A conservative wants to preserve institutions and slavery, and Jim Crow, and Segregation were all conservative institutions. Liberalism is always a challenge to those institutions. Conservatives institutionalized racism. Liberals fought to eliminate it. The Civil Rights Act was a liberal idea. Not a conservative one. They fought against it. I find it amazing that on the very day that Rosa Parks statue is enshrined in the Capital Statuary Hall, the first women to be enshrined there, a woman from Alabama...and just down the street two Conservative Senators from Alabama sponsor Shelby County Alabama in a challenge to the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court. The very thing that Rosa Parks led the way toward. The timing was perfect. I'll tell you this, if the African/American community felt that liberalism was racist, why do you think 94% of them vote for liberals? They know where that hate comes from.
    Racism is racism. I dont think its a conservative or liberal concept, its a dehumanizing one. One I dont agree with on any level.



    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    They don't run the Republican Party. Conservatives do. They nominated a "severely conservative governor". Remember? And there isn't a single Republican that doesn't call himself a conservative. If you aren't a conservative, you're destined to be primaried by one more conservative than you are. That's ideology run amok.Extremism in full bloom.
    In fact, many of them are not conservative or only nominally so. If they WERE conservative they would not face primary challenges from the right so often, McCain amongst them.

    So what is it when blue dog dems faced primary challenges from the left? Because there are currently fewer House moderates than there were just 4 years ago. Many of them were primaried.



    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Actually, by Tea Party standards, it needs to be "small enough to drown in the bathtub"- Grover Norquist. It can't be small enough unless it's completely gone. It'll never be small enough to the Tea Party Conservative, until everything is dismantled. The problem is that the people don't want that. That's why you're losing elections. Which is also why it's not a smear. It's the truth as stated by people like Norguist. When the TeaParty conservatives tell me they hate the government; that goverenment is the problem; that they want to cut it to the bone, then this statement "Join the TeaParty and take down the entire government of the United States, and it'll be every man for himself", is no smear. Because if that's the goal, then that's going to be the result.
    So, now Im supposed to believe exactly what Grover Norquist believes? Really? Its GOT to be all or nothing eh? Did I argue that? I argued we should be making cuts because the spending we are at is not sustainable. I didnt say every man for himself, YOU said I did. So many misrepresentations in one post, how pathetic.

  10. #1410
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    No. Claiming that the White House was cheering the death toll of 6 year olds to promote a politial agenda...that's true hate in action. That's irrational hate. That kind of hate is pure evil. You have a very sick and cynical view of people and anybody that harbors that kind of hate, isn't worth the time of day. What you actually do is reveal yourself as vile. And you confuse nobody. You torpedoed any credibility you may have hoped to gain. Any message you try to offer is buried by your own hate. Maybe you'll learn to read what you write before posting and consider the damage that you do to your own credibility.

    This is "your" President and apparently someone you are proud of especially the results he has generated. More statistics from "hate radio?"


    24 Statistics Just to Verify Obama Has Been a Horrible President

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •