The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on November 15, 2010, 10:22:31 AM
-
no wonder the dems wouldn't schedule this spectacle before the elections. we would have won 100 seats.
and maxine waters' trial is going to be 100 times better than charlie's.
Rangel walks out of ethics trial
Complaining bitterly that he was denied the right to have an attorney present, an emotional Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) walked out of his highly publicized public ethics trial Monday morning, an unexpected twist in the ethics inquiry has tarnished Rangel’s four-decade congressional career.
The ethics panel, after an unexpected 40-minute private session, quickly rejected Rangel’s request to delay the trial.
"The committee has decided not to continue this matter," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who is overseeing the trial. "We recognize that Mr. Rangel does not intend to participate. It is his right not to participate."
Lofgren noted that Rangel "asked for formal advice from the committee [on covering his legal bills] in Sept. 2008, in March of 2009, in October of 2010 and again in November of 2010, and received informal advice on that in August."
Lofgren added: "Each time, the committee responded and provided Mr. Rangel with formal guidance on how he could pay his legal fees in this matter."
She also noted that Rangel could have paid legal bills out of his own pocket.
With Rangel out of the room, the trial went ahead as planned.
More (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45134.html)
-
Charlie is guilty and is trying to stall.
A lot of the democrats better be careful because he seems like he's lost his mental balance and might decide to roll on the rest of them.
-
Charlie, just go ahead and man up, take the fall and the hit, leave Congress and go into retirement.
You'll make more money on the talk circuit than you will in Congress, even with the kickbacks and money you stole.
You're a doddering old fool who simply needs to fade away.
-
After two years of stalling, suddenly the trial has to go through ahead of important things like a budget or a tax rate compromise...Charlie doesn't get it that his pals are trying to help him out and give him a slap on the wrist before a hearing not under Democrat control enters the picture. Crooked bastard should've retired when he had the chance.
-
After two years of stalling, suddenly the trial has to go through ahead of important things like a budget or a tax rate compromise...Charlie doesn't get it that his pals are trying to help him out and give him a slap on the wrist before a hearing not under Democrat control enters the picture. Crooked bastard should've retired when he had the chance.
Greed man, greed.
-
After two years of stalling, suddenly the trial has to go through ahead of important things like a budget or a tax rate compromise...Charlie doesn't get it that his pals are trying to help him out and give him a slap on the wrist before a hearing not under Democrat control enters the picture. Crooked bastard should've retired when he had the chance.
I was also wondering why he wasn't more willing to cooperate for the same reason; it will be much worse in january.
but then the MSM will play it as the mean republicans beating up on a minority.
-
Charlie, just go ahead and man up, take the fall and the hit, leave Congress and go into retirement.
You'll make more money on the talk circuit than you will in Congress, even with the kickbacks and money you stole.
You're a doddering old fool who simply needs to fade away.
Nancy Pelosi just had the worst election results for a political party in 70 years, yet somehow she is managing to stay on as minority leader instead of doing the honorable thing and going home, like most Speakers do when they lose control of the House to the opposition political party. Nevermind in an election where you were slaughtered after winning big 2 years before.
4 years of party gains wiped out in one night and she thinks she should stick around.
The thing that amazes me is democrats that are so politically inept that think this is a good idea.
-
I was also wondering why he wasn't more willing to cooperate for the same reason; it will be much worse in january.
but then the MSM will play it as the mean republicans beating up on a minority.
Remember Blago. There is a disease right now in the democratic party where you have the audacity to not even fess up and resign when you get caught red handed.
-
Nancy Pelosi just had the worst election results for a political party in 70 years, yet somehow she is managing to stay on as minority leader instead of doing the honorable thing and going home, like most Speakers do when they lose control of the House to the opposition political party. Nevermind in an election where you were slaughtered after winning big 2 years before.
4 years of party gains wiped out in one night and she thinks she should stick around.
The thing that amazes me is democrats that are so politically inept that think this is a good idea.
Democrats think that failure is actually success. And thus should be rewarded.
-
Nancy Pelosi just had the worst election results for a political party in 70 years, yet somehow she is managing to stay on as minority leader instead of doing the honorable thing and going home, like most Speakers do when they lose control of the House to the opposition political party. Nevermind in an election where you were slaughtered after winning big 2 years before.
4 years of party gains wiped out in one night and she thinks she should stick around.
The thing that amazes me is democrats that are so politically inept that think this is a good idea.
ah, but I am sure that she believes that she was the reason that the dems gained control of the house in the first place. and what Queen Botox giveth, Queen Botox taketh away.
-
Democrats think that failure is actually success. And thus should be rewarded.
success is unfair. success creates inequality. success discriminates. success means there will be losers (and winners, but that's beside the point).
success must be outlawed.
-
The funny thing was when I watched Charlie say he didn't personally benefit from not paying taxes or using a rent controlled apartment as a campaign office. He did this with a straight face. I have to admit, that takes some serious skill.
:rotf:
-
according to counsel for the ethics committee, rangel was "sloppy", not "corrupt". slap on the wrist forthcoming.
'No evidence of corruption' by Rangel
It has been a tough morning for Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who walked out of his ethics trial earlier when he wasn't allowed to more time to get a lawyer.
Yet Rangel did have a good moment, of sorts, when the top ethics committee lawyer said he wasn't corrupt. Sloppy, but not corrupt.
"I see no evidence of corruption," said Blake Chisam, the top ethics committee lawyer, about Rangel. Chisam's statement was in response to questioning by Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.). Butterfield is serving on the eight-member panel hearing the Rangel case.
"It's hard to answer the question of personal financial benefit," Chisam added. " I think the short answer is probably no. Do I believe that based on the record that Congressman Rangel took steps to benefit himself based on his position in Congress? No. I believe that the congressman, quite frankly, was overzealous in many of the things he did. And sloppy in his personal finances."
More (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1110/No_evidence_of_corruption_by_Rangel.html?showall)
-
These damn machine districts in both parties enable the worse kind of criminals.
-
These damn machine districts in both parties enable the worse kind of criminals.
:whatever:
-
:whatever:
Yes the GOP machine districts have a history of ethical and moral behavior O-)
-
Yes the GOP machine districts have a history of ethical and moral behavior O-)
Machines like:
Chicago
Washington DC
St. Louis
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Seattle
Portland
New Orleans
Philadelphia
Cleveland
Atlanta
Boston
Newark
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Milwaukee
Denver/Boulder
......just to hit the high spots.......
Or perhaps you refer to the "machines" in spots like:
Rapid City, SD
Colorado Springs
Dodge City, KS
Branson, MO
Valdosta, GA
Dennison, TX
And a few other bastions of political corruption........
Get real Jake......if "machine politics" is your talking point, your party has a corner on the market........or you're just talking out of your ass.
doc
-
These damn machine districts in both parties enable the worse kind of criminals.
If Rangel or Waters were republicans, they'd have already been forced to resign by their own party. The MSM would have kept the pressure on until they did.
-
If Rangel or Waters were republicans, they'd have already been forced to resign by their own party. The MSM would have kept the pressure on until they did.
Depends on who their donors/sponsors are.
-
Depends on who their donors/sponsors are.
Horseshit.......over the past two decades, a significant number of Republican politicians have resigned/failed to run again, simply based on the unfounded hint of impropriety (no ethics trial, hearings, or civil/criminal action).
If the politician is a Democrat, especially a black one, it is considered a resume' enhancement......William Jefferson comes to mind (caught red-handed with a hundred grand in his freezer)........and he had the audacity to claim Constitutional protection for his office files, stayed in congress until his voters turned him out.
doc
-
Depends on who their donors/sponsors are.
Oh God here we go again. More bullshit from Crazyjake.
-
And so goes the circus with this
guy scumbag. He's still allowed to be in Congress?! W.T.F?!?! :argh:
-
Oh God here we go again. More bullshit from Crazyjake.
The money Karl Rove raised came from somewhere and someone.
In any regards, I admire the GOP for being a much higher class of criminals than the democrats. Democrats fight over small piles of shit money. Republicans dream big.
I hold both with equal disdain. I think the GOP steals more, but they don't have the audacity to run on populist rhetoric.
-
The money Karl Rove raised came from somewhere and someone.
In any regards, I admire the GOP for being a much higher class of criminals than the democrats. Democrats fight over small piles of shit money. Republicans dream big.
I hold both with equal disdain. I think the GOP steals more, but they don't have the audacity to run on populist rhetoric.
the donor attack that the obamites spewed out during the midterms was a hypocritical pile of mccarthyesque crap, and they knew it. this administration has turned the office of the presidency into an arm of the obama reelection campaign.
using the bully pulpit to repeat the same damned lie over and over, day after day, just because they know that their willing accomplices in the MSM will pick it up and run with it is morally repugnant, utterly irresponsible, and ultimately dishonest.
-
The money Karl Rove raised came from somewhere and someone.
Carl Rove has never held an elected public office.........and his job was raising funds and awareness for his party........has there EVER been any credible claim that he has acted in a corrupt manner (except in the deranged minds of liberals)?
In any regards, I admire the GOP for being a much higher class of criminals than the democrats. Democrats fight over small piles of shit money. Republicans dream big.
Perhaps you will enlighten us with your citation of the last time a Republican politician was convicted of large-scale corruption......
I hold both with equal disdain. I think the GOP steals more, but they don't have the audacity to run on populist rhetoric.
You would.......and what you "think" is irrelevant, what you can prove isn't, which boils down to the fact that the only person attempting to spout "populist rhetoric" here is yourself......
doc
-
The money Karl Rove raised came from somewhere and someone.
In any regards, I admire the GOP for being a much higher class of criminals than the democrats. Democrats fight over small piles of shit money. Republicans dream big.
I hold both with equal disdain. I think the GOP steals more, but they don't have the audacity to run on populist rhetoric.
No you don't hold both parties to equal disdain. This has already been proven to be a lie the last time you were here.
All you've done and are continuing to do is to find a more fancy way to say it's "Bush's Fault".
That's all you're doing and all you will ever do when it comes to the discussion of politics.
-
No you don't hold both parties to equal disdain. This has already been proven to be a lie the last time you were here.
All you've done and are continuing to do is to find a more fancy way to say it's "Bush's Fault".
That's all you're doing and all you will ever do when it comes to the discussion of politics.
I actually hold Barack Obama with slightly more disdain than Bush.
Bush was at least upfront with his plans for the most part so you had sometime to comment on why you thought it was or was not a disaster in the making.
Barack you find out what the policy is as it is being implemented.
-
I actually hold Barack Obama with slightly more disdain than Bush.
<snip>
I'm gonna cut to the chase here........
I can bring over a myriad of quotations from you directly that establish, beyond a doubt, where your political loyalties are..........literally hundreds of quotes from your own keyboard.
When we consider this, we have to ask ourselves the obvious question......why are you here?? For what practical purpose are you posting in a Conservative forum, attempting to establish the impression that you are rational, and an independent political thinker, when there are simply thousands of your own words out there that prove that is not the case.
doc
-
I'm gonna cut to the chase here........
I can bring over a myriad of quotations from you directly that establish, beyond a doubt, where your political loyalties are..........literally hundreds of quotes from your own keyboard.
When we consider this, we have to ask ourselves the obvious question......why are you here?? For what practical purpose are you posting in a Conservative forum, attempting to establish the impression that you are rational, and an independent political thinker, when there are simply thousands of your own words out there that prove that is not the case.
doc
I may be a "liberal" on more than a few issues, however I view the current political debate to not really have that much of an ideological nature and thus even the labels are silly.
I wrote the word syphilis would be preferable in more than a few races this November.
Now, I will be perfectly honest with you that I have no intention of voting for the candidates you like, however just because I don't like the republicans, doesn't necessarily mean that I embrace the democratic party.
Frankly, if you read most of my recent postings I think the country is up shits creak without a paddle due to 30 years of mismanagement.
I hope I'm proven wrong. Nothing would please me more than when Obama gets shown the door there is a competent leader that can restore economic stability, encourage capital formation, and enforce the rule of law.
However, what I think will happen is another political thug no better than Obama will take power, loot the US Treasury further rewarding their chosen friends.
If you elect a candidate that enforces the rule of law and appoints a central banker that understands how you actually encourage growth in an economy and forces congress to spend within their means on everything, including defense by eliminating pet projects congresscritters want for their districts.
I will gladly change my voter registration to Republican.
-
I may be a "liberal" on more than a few issues, however I view the current political debate to not really have that much of an ideological nature and thus even the labels are silly.
Unfortunately, America has a two party form of government.........therefore, you HAVE to choose a side. You don't get to sit in the "middle", and throw rocks at everyone.
Straddling the fence until your shorts rip isn't a political strategy that will do much more than isolate you in the grand scheme of things. That said, we have no "ideological test" here for membership, and have several members who are liberal in more than a few areas.........they tend to avoid the political discussions, and get along just fine.
I suppose that my concern is that every time you appear, there are an inordinate number pf "guests" that are hanging on every word that is posted in the threads that you frequent.......suffice it to say that makes your occasional appearances somewhat suspicious, and your motives questionable.
Now, I will be perfectly honest with you that I have no intention of voting for the candidates you like, however just because I don't like the republicans, doesn't necessarily mean that I embrace the democratic party.
Which again begs the question of why come here?? You're pissed at the Democrats, and won't vote for a Republican for ideological reasons.......it therefore seems illogical that you would want to even be here, except to piss and moan.......perhaps because the liberal forums that you would LIKE to frequent will tolerate no dissent, and offer you no opportunity to vent.
Bringing us to the conclusion that you just want a venue that actually respects "Freedom of Speech", which you can utilize to expound on how disastrous the state of American politics is, from your perspective.......you are using us.
Frankly, if you read most of my recent postings I think the country is up shits creak without a paddle due to 30 years of mismanagement.
I would opine that its been longer than that.......however, you never seem to mention that for the vast bulk of that period of time, the people in power (regardless of party) that have been responsible for that mismanagement has come from the liberal side of the political spectrum.
I guess I'm waiting for you to admit the fact that liberalism (as we know it) doesn't work, and has failed every time it has been attempted, and in every area that it has been attempted.
If you elect a candidate that enforces the rule of law and appoints a central banker that understands how you actually encourage growth in an economy and forces congress to spend within their means on everything, including defense by eliminating pet projects congresscritters want for their districts.
I will gladly change my voter registration to Republican.
Well.......I listened to a large group of incoming Republican freshmen speak today, and what they unanimously state is that they plan to do just that........it is however very doubtful that you either voted for, or ever would support any of them........this kinda makes you a hypocrite........not to put too fine a point on it.
doc
-
Not really a hypocrite, when presented with the what you consider two evils, you always have the choice to say no to either evil and do nothing.
There were 3 races I voted for Syphilis in.
The most awful of the races was the choice of a corrupt lawyer, I know is corrupt because they live down the street from me and are a total asshole. The other choice was an incumbent whose wife is an active lobbyist who lobbies her own husband.
The other two races were not as bad at that one, but when given the choice, I can write in whatever I want or not vote. Hell over 56% of my fellow countrymen picked the no vote option.
Frankly the fact that a whole bunch of new people are promising to be the most ethical and transparent congress ever and won't grow the deficit is something I've heard rather recently.
Show me the money.
-
Not really a hypocrite, when presented with the what you consider two evils, you always have the choice to say no to either evil and do nothing.
There were 3 races I voted for Syphilis in.
The most awful of the races was the choice of a corrupt lawyer, I know is corrupt because they live down the street from me and are a total asshole. The other choice was an incumbent whose wife is an active lobbyist who lobbies her own husband.
The other two races were not as bad at that one, but when given the choice, I can write in whatever I want or not vote. Hell over 56% of my fellow countrymen picked the no vote option.
Frankly the fact that a whole bunch of new people are promising to be the most ethical and transparent congress ever and won't grow the deficit is something I've heard rather recently.
Show me the money.
Objection Your Honor........the witnesses' answer was anecdotal and non-responsive........
And yes......you ARE on trial here........
doc
-
Greed man, greed.
I agree it seems to be his downfall
-
Show me the money.
The political party you support now holds one branch of congress.
Otherwise all you are selling me is skittle shitting unicorns.
I'm about as popular in democratic party circles as leprosy because I've been highly vocal on their plans were a disaster.
If your party starts doing things that are a disaster are you going to speak up, or are you going to abide by the nonsense that the democrats are a greater threat?
I'm not selling myself as a conservative. We can probably find agreement on the central bank and possibly on some budget cuts.
I'm under no illusion that we agree on everything.
The difference between you, and my democratic "friends" is you will punch me in the face when we disagree. They will stab me in the back.
-
Show me the money.
The political party you support now holds one branch of congress.
Otherwise all you are selling me is skittle shitting unicorns.
You are dissembling.......you made a statement about a specific political objective, and I simply stated that there are a new crop of congressmen that espouse your identical principle, and I further stated that you never did, nor would you ever vote for any of them.......this makes you a hypocrite.......
I'm about as popular in democratic party circles as leprosy because I've been highly vocal on their plans were a disaster.
Who cares??
If your party starts doing things that are a disaster are you going to speak up, or are you going to abide by the nonsense that the democrats are a greater threat?
Everyone here has been critical of Republicans when they stray from their principles, but that isn't the point.
The point is that today's Democrats are the most corrupt, anti-American, bunch of lying scum that has graced the hallowed halls of congress in several generations.......they and their warped, politically correct, quasi-socialist agenda needs to be eradicated by any means possible. Were we to suddenly find ourselves in 1787, a substantial portion of today's Democrats would be hanged for treason (Lord, how I miss the "good old days")
The difference between you, and my democratic "friends" is you will punch me in the face when we disagree. They will stab me in the back.
Well......again, I've taken the trouble, and time to discuss point by point, each of the positions that you have taken in this thread, and pretty much all of your responses have been vague and banal generalities and more whining and moaning......life isn't "fair", and "I can't get my way".........
I suppose you understand why we have an entire forum dedicated to pointing and laughing at your "political friends"........you share a great many of their characteristics.
doc
-
I don't really understand your definition of a hypocrite.
If I believe that the GOP congress will behave quite similarly to the DNC congress with Keynesian nonsense, I don't really see how that makes me a hypocrite.
Whether you borrow for tax cuts or you borrow for stimulus it is still Keynesian stimulus.
It isn't about getting or not getting my way. My way or not the country is heading over a cliff.
You go to war, you have to fund it. You decide to build a highway, you have to fund it.
I'm not really interested in getting in a pissing contest over who the bigger idiot is. I say they are both ****ing idiots because over the past 30 years they have gotten to a situation where they are turning our currency into toilet paper.
Hey Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all appointed Greenspan who blew speculative credit bubble after speculative credit bubble destabilizing our economy.
George W. Bush and Barack Obama both appointed Ben Bernake who has now going about a policy of monetizing the federal debt.
We want to debate God, Gays, and Guns fine. When you are taking more $ to buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of gas due to devaluation of the dollar to paper over bank losses from credit bubbles, I think those aren't going to be the first issues.
-
I don't really understand your definition of a hypocrite.
If I believe that the GOP congress will behave quite similarly to the DNC congress with Keynesian nonsense, I don't really see how that makes me a hypocrite.
Whether you borrow for tax cuts or you borrow for stimulus it is still Keynesian stimulus.
It isn't about getting or not getting my way. My way or not the country is heading over a cliff.
You go to war, you have to fund it. You decide to build a highway, you have to fund it.
I'm not really interested in getting in a pissing contest over who the bigger idiot is. I say they are both ****ing idiots because over the past 30 years they have gotten to a situation where they are turning our currency into toilet paper.
Hey Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all appointed Greenspan who blew speculative credit bubble after speculative credit bubble destabilizing our economy.
George W. Bush and Barack Obama both appointed Ben Bernake who has now going about a policy of monetizing the federal debt.
We want to debate God, Gays, and Guns fine. When you are taking more $ to buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of gas due to devaluation of the dollar to paper over bank losses from credit bubbles, I think those aren't going to be the first issues.
You sure are misguided. Reagan brought the interest ate down from some 18% down to a more reasonable and affordable rate. It wasn't until Clinton that we started with the credit bubbles, IT Bubbles and Housing Bubbles. Even then, it wasn't all that bad. Bush and his people WARNED the country of the impending housing crisis started by Barney Frank, Joe Biden and their ilk. We also need to blame the banks for the credit problems. After all, who in their right mind would give someone making $15K per year a $22K credit line just because they kept their bills paid on time??
I will admit that the TARP that was perpetrated by Bush was wrong. Many of us here also felt that way. Obama has done NOTHING but drive us deeper in debt.
-
I don't really understand your definition of a hypocrite.
<significant drivel snippage>
And you likely never will.......liberalism being the emotional disorder that it is.
Meh.......I've grown weary of circular logic .....if one of the rest of you want to take up the gauntlet, be my guest......he's just wasting my time.....
doc
-
And you likely never will.......liberalism being the emotional disorder that it is.
Meh.......I've grown weary of circular logic .....if one of the rest of you want to take up the gauntlet, be my guest......he's just wasting my time.....
doc
ATJ comes in babbling his econo-shitstorm, lobs grenades at both sides of the political spectrum, and attracts a shitload of flies masquerading themselves as "guests".
He's like a wandering troubadour, selling his ideas like they did their music. There's only one problem - the stink and the accompanying flies follow him.
Kinda looks like shit-stirring to me. All that buzzing is so loud I can't hear the machinery next door.
-
circular logic: Thought process a dog uses when chasing his tail.
-
ATJ can i ask you one thing do you enjoy pissing people off or are you just that stupid that you don't know you are doing it?
-
circular logic: Thought process a dog uses when chasing his tail.
Hey now, my dogs object!
They are entertaining themselves when they chase their tails. Almost as much as when they are chasing the cats' tails down the hall. :-)
-
ATJ can i ask you one thing do you enjoy pissing people off or are you just that stupid that you don't know you are doing it?
1) I never claimed to be a conservative
2) I come on here to see what you are thinking
3) I generally keep a rather open mind. There are things I believe about human nature that many of you probably won't agree with, however when presented with factual evidence that their core beliefs are wrong, humans generally respond by clinging
even more tightly to their fallacious beliefs. (I think the evidence of that is Speaker Pelosi sticking around)
4) Other than my view on economics, which is rather conservative in nature, I try my best not to get involved in other thought processes, but I occasionally make the mistake of doing so.
-
Did you see Rangel walking out of his own trial with that smirk on his face. Piece of garbage shouldn't be walking down the halls of Congress. :argh:
-
Chuckles should be happy, that Pelosi's congress is trying him and not Bohner's congress.
-
Chuckles should be happy, that Pelosi's congress is trying him and not Bohner's congress.
Very true. :naughty:
-
No you are right you have never said you were conservative but you come in here acting like the world's biggest prick. You just piss me off when you act like a know it all and don't bring the correct facts to the table.
-
No you are right you have never said you were conservative but you come in here acting like the world's biggest prick. You just piss me off when you act like a know it all and don't bring the correct facts to the table.
hi-5
-
No you are right you have never said you were conservative but you come in here acting like the world's biggest prick. You just piss me off when you act like a know it all and don't bring the correct facts to the table.
Well on the charge of being the world's biggest prick, I'll plead guilty.
I stick to economics, other issues, I have opinions that are probably not as well formed as yours, thus my facts might mix with opinions and I'll evaluate my thought process and see if my opinion is correct when asked.
-
Well on the charge of being the world's biggest prick, I'll plead guilty.
I stick to economics, other issues, I have opinions that are probably not as well formed as yours, thus my facts might mix with opinions and I'll evaluate my thought process and see if my opinion is correct when asked.
OK, I must be dense because I don't really comprehend what you have said here. :???:Could you please rephrase the bolded part of your statement. TIA.
-
OK, I must be dense because I don't really comprehend what you have said here. :???:Could you please rephrase the bolded part of your statement. TIA.
When confronted with facts I'll search out other facts than evaluate my opinion in the face of new evidence.
-
I stick to economics, other issues, I have opinions that are probably not as well formed as yours, thus my facts might mix with opinions and I'll evaluate my thought process and see if my opinion is correct when asked.
99.9% of the crap you talk here is opinion. The small kernel of fact mixed in there is your name.
You have been proven repeatedly to be tragically wrong on a whole host of things. And when it's proven that you don't know what the hell you're talking about...you simply scoot on to another topic until the process is repeated there...until the embarrassment grows to be too much and you disappear for a few months at a time hoping that people forget what you've said.
You're whole thought process and everything you write here revolves around your hatred of President Bush. You may couch it in fancier words than your mouth breathing cousins at the DUmp...but at the end of the day...all yo've done is gone to the Thesaurus to find bigger words to say the exact same thing.
"It's Bush's Fault!"
-
When confronted with facts I'll search out other facts than evaluate my opinion in the face of new evidence.
No what you do is suddenly act like the thread you got pwn3d in never existed.
-
No what you do is suddenly act like the thread you got pwn3d in never existed.
OK
I'll stick to the economics forums where you guys don't get so emotional and stay away from party politics which I have little vested interest because they both seem to pick the same central bankers that wreck the economy fueling credit bubbles
-
When confronted with facts I'll search out other facts than evaluate my opinion in the face of new evidence.
Hi,
OK Jake, I come in peace. I think I might be able to help. I am a conservative. When I started posting on this forum, if I saw something that agreed with my views I posted it and found very quickly that was not enough. I was hit with questions like, what is your source, give me a credible source etc. The point being, regardless whether what I posted was conservative or not, the forum wanted legitimate stuff that was backed up with facts. If your are an economist you get that part real quickly.
In one of my early posts on this forum I posted an article and then slammed the libs and it was the "Tanker" who said the source I quoted was not good enough, they have a reputation for making stuff up and I needed to find another source. I will confess that was a real slap in the face. I am 70 years old, have a pretty good reputation and very seldom was I questioned. At the same time, what a blessing his remarks turned out to be. Did not take me long to realize, regardless of what the source was, if it agreed with my point of view, I took it as fact and the only sources I questioned were those I did not agree with. More l hung on this forum I realized that the libs do not own the exclusive right to make up stuff and if you want to have credibility, you better make sure your starting point is accurate, not some opinion column that has no more credibility than the Huffington Post.
Much like the government makes up the inflation and CPI data, unemployment data, etc. that just did not fly with this group. It was actually a good thing because they made me much better in dealing with my friends outside of this forum. Instead of spouting off, I found myself building a case based on the data which was irrefutable.
As a result, I learned a second thing. When you confront a liberal with the facts and back them up, they respond emotionally, "It's Bush's fault!" "You are just a bigot or racist!" are some examples because they were screwed, they had no place to go with their arguments.
That is why Glenn Beck drives them nuts. If you follow him closely you will notice that most every point he makes he uses the words of the person he is attacking against them, either speeches they gave, or things they wrote. In other words he backs up his point using first hand information provided by the person he is nailing.
The gist of what I am reading is that you are getting similar feedback to when I started. I finally learned to state my source first then draw my conclusions. I have a nephew who is the local union rep where he works. I started debating with him and he told me to quit sending him crap, if I could not send him facts don't waste his time. Over a two year period he is a convert because, between him and this forum, I was taught so substiantiate my points of view.
Now, after I got that figured out, I learned that most on this forum are like my nephew, they are pretty forgiving when I say, "in my opinion", and I string out a conclusion based on the premise and clearly state that it is an opinion. It is going from a known set of facts, then bridging into what could easily be the logical conclusion but stating that the conclusion is only my opinion. While some in the group may not agree with my conclusion, I find that the personal attacks are very much diminished. Twas a good lesson for me to learn.
Just trying to help,
5412
-
Did you see Rangel walking out of his own trial with that smirk on his face. Piece of garbage shouldn't be walking down the halls of Congress. :argh:
He had to flee to avoid getting any of that "ethics" on him.
-
newsalert just moved : the ethics committee has found him guilty of "multiple violations of house rules".
-
newsalert just moved : the ethics committee has found him guilty of "multiple violations of house rules".
Which means the Dems in the House will give him a standing ovation.
-
Which means the Dems in the House will give him a standing ovation.
..., a pay raise and reupholster his seat for him.
-
Which means the Dems in the House will give him a standing ovation.
HA HA! :lmao: Yeah, for getting away with this crap for so long.
-
He had to flee to avoid getting any of that "ethics" on him.
I think that it's difficult for ethics, or anything else, to find a foothold on SLIME.