GOP Must toss out the three Traitors

[Truth Detector]

We, and the Repubs, need more "Collins, Snowe, McCain". THAT is what works.

We don't need any more "trickle down economics". That's what started this mess. We need law makers to care less about the "rich guy" and more about the "average guy".

If a far left Liberal like you claims that the Republicans need more quasi-Republicans, it is obvious that the right stance would be the exact opposite; Collins, Snow and perhaps even McCain should be as honest as Spector and just change their affiliation.

Thank you for proving that these people are hardly what could be considered "Conservative."

 

[Truth Detector]

Reagan laid the groundwork for the Taliban to take over. He supported Saddam.

Reagan made Bush possible.

Good lord, you truly have a truly distorted uninformed version of history; but then FACTS and REALITY were never your forte'. You're much better at fabricating your own versions empty of any historic facts or REALITY.

I would ask you to show how Reagan laid the groundwork, but you will just blather the thread with your typical empty rhetoric wanting in facts and honesty.

Carry on. :rofl

 

[Truth Detector]

We could also say Russia made Bush possible since, if it wasn't for their hostility in the 1980's, we would have never supported the taliban and appointed Saddam in the first place.

Please stop; the emotional hysterics back and forth with Independent_thinker (oxymoron) with your fabricated versions of history are dragging the thread IQ down. :rofl

 

[Truth Detector]

So you personally insult people rather than deal with the issue? I asked a question. I will ask it again:

Why did you not demand the resignation of President Bush, but demand the resignation of these 3? Bush signed a bailout, and pushed for it too, which is the the same thing they voted for.

Please share with me why Bush should have been asked to resign? For what "perceived" crime should he have done that? Should be amusing watching you contort and twist reality to fabricate that one.

Bush signed the bailout and pushed for it; the Democrat majority in the congress wrote the legislation. Most Conservatives did not support the legislation but again this begs the question; have you asked Obama to resign yet? He makes Bush look like a rabid fiscal conservative. Where is your demand for Obama's resignation for placing the economic prosperity of all Americans into debt for the next ten decades and perhaps longer?

I am always amused when the Bush hating bashers continue to blather this forum with their abject nonsense and yet are almost completely silent on the mind numbing and almost criminal level of deficits Obama and his Democrat pals in the Congress have created.

So tell us Dan, what crimes should Bush have been charged with which would justify a demand that he resign? Amuse us with your contorted logic.

:roll:

 

[danarhea]

And the schizophrenic part of the GOP shows its face. Let me explain why I call the GOP schizophrenic:

1) They are doing everything they can to delay Franken taking his Senate seat. So far, so good. We want filibusters.

2) Then they turn around and want to kick Specter, Collins, and Snowe out of the party. Those 3 will then either become Democrats, or will become Independents and caucus with the Democrats. Filibusters go poof.

I rest my case.

 

[Truth Detector]

And Bush's bailout was, as the Iraq war was, asked for with lies!

This statement itself is a lie. What irony to see you lying about a lie.

Also, we didn't see any of these Bushies complaining when Bush and the Repubs spent our $$ like drunken sailors in his 1st 6 years in office, now did we? Hypocrites all of 'em!

I am continually amused by this FALSE assertion as well. Particularly from a rabid hyper partisan Liberal who voted for Obama and the current $1.8 trillion deficit he and the ingrates infesting the Congress representing the Democrat party have spent.

Liberals like you claiming Bush spent like a drunken sailor is like watching Pelosi claim she wants to be bi-partisan; patently absurd.

But then, you have never concerned yourself with the truth, the facts or honesty have you?

The truth: Bush and the Republicans along with a vast bi-partisan Democrat support passed legislation dealing with 9-11, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and dealt with the devastation of Katrina and put the nation into a deficit as do most administrations that deal with war and catastrophes.

The deficit by the time the Republicans were voted out of office was less than $200 billion. Since that time, Democrats have spent us into a $1.8 trillion deficit.

I'm sorry ADK, but rabid hate filled hyper partisan Liberals like yourself have little credibility when it comes to fiscal restraint or honesty. :roll:

 

[Truth Detector]

Y'all really do know how to kill words.

Socialism, as a term uttered from Conservative puke-bags, means little more than "Omg hear me whine".

How trite coming from you. The notion you could comprehend a term like Socialism requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Carry on; I look forward to more of your banal bile and nonsense filled two liners.

:2wave:

 

[new coup for you]

id be interested in hearing your bona fides regarding your monopoly on an understanding of what socialism is

we can start by you explaining the philosophical mating of the dialectic method and materialism. then maybe you could move onto to the wheel of history (historical inevitability), or the difference between orthodox, spontaneous, marxist uprisings and leninist, vanguard led, proletarian uprisings.

please provide sources.

 

[Truth Detector]

And the schizophrenic part of the GOP shows its face. Let me explain why I call the GOP schizophrenic:

Obviously you lack the comprehension of what Schizophrenia means just as you have a problematic version of history and politics.

1) They are doing everything they can to delay Franken taking his Senate seat. So far, so good. We want filibusters.

So you think that Republicans should just roll over and not fight? And you felt that Gore's attempts to disenfranchise the Florida voters were an honest attempt to get the true results in 2000?

You think that instead of filibustering bills that contain little or NO input by the minority party is a bad idea and once again Republicans should just roll over and give in to Democrats?

2) Then they turn around and want to kick Specter, Collins, and Snowe out of the party.

Who has done this other than this being a fantasy of your own reality? The Republican Party hasn't asked these people to get out.

Those 3 will then either become Democrats, or will become Independents and caucus with the Democrats. Filibusters go poof.

No, one has already switched to Democrat Party and the other two may also finally be HONEST about their political philosophies and switch as well.

Is this a bad thing? Gee I don't know Dan, after all, now they will work WITH Democrats to mortgage our future and spend us even further into debt with their rapid march to the Socialist Community Organizing States of Amerika!

I rest my case.

Keep your day job dude, you couldn't make a case if the case walked up and introduced itself to you.

The only thing you have done is illustrate what a patently confused political view desperately searching for a purpose looks like. :rofl

 

[danarhea]

Obviously you lack the comprehension of what Schizophrenia means just as you have a problematic version of history and politics.



So you think that Republicans should just roll over and not fight? And you felt that Gore's attempts to disenfranchise the Florida voters were an honest attempt to get the true results in 2000?

You think that instead of filibustering bills that contain little or NO input by the minority party is a bad idea and once again Republicans should just roll over and give in to Democrats?



Who has done this other than this being a fantasy of your own reality? The Republican Party hasn't asked these people to get out.



No, one has already switched to Democrat Party and the other two may also finally be HONEST about their political philosophies and switch as well.

Is this a bad thing? Gee I don't know Dan, after all, now they will work WITH Democrats to mortgage our future and spend us even further into debt with their rapid march to the Socialist Community Organizing States of Amerika!



Keep your day job dude, you couldn't make a case if the case walked up and introduced itself to you.

The only thing you have done is illustrate what a patently confused political view desperately searching for a purpose looks like. :rofl

Way to misquote me. All people have to do is read what I posted, and you are exposed for the liar you are.

I never said that I was against GOP filibusters. I posted that filibusters are a good thing. Read my post again, and if you understand it this time, then stop lying.

And the schizophrenic part of the GOP shows its face. Let me explain why I call the GOP schizophrenic:

1) They are doing everything they can to delay Franken taking his Senate seat. So far, so good. We want filibusters.

2) Then they turn around and want to kick Specter, Collins, and Snowe out of the party. Those 3 will then either become Democrats, or will become Independents and caucus with the Democrats. Filibusters go poof.

I rest my case.

What don't you understand about that?

 

[Renae]

And the schizophrenic part of the GOP shows its face. Let me explain why I call the GOP schizophrenic:

1) They are doing everything they can to delay Franken taking his Senate seat. So far, so good. We want filibusters.

2) Then they turn around and want to kick Specter, Collins, and Snowe out of the party. Those 3 will then either become Democrats, or will become Independents and caucus with the Democrats. Filibusters go poof.

I rest my case.

I'm all for replacing all the so called "Moderates" in the party. Spector, Snowe, and Collins are the top three, one down, two to go.


Here's the thing Dan, what good are moderates when you REALLY need them, they vote for the otherside?

The best thing to do is clean house, and focus on CONSERVATIVES, not this idiocy of "moderate big party" crap. That lead to ruin.

 

[Truth Detector]

id be interested in hearing your bona fides regarding your monopoly on an understanding of what socialism is

we can start by you explaining the philosophical mating of the dialectic method and materialism. then maybe you could move onto to the wheel of history (historical inevitability), or the difference between orthodox, spontaneous, marxist uprisings and leninist, vanguard led, proletarian uprisings.

please provide sources.

My monopoly on the term? What a trite an intellectually empty assertion. Where have I declared this monopoly?

While you are at it, why don't you lecture me on how Obama's march towards a Socialist State is merely an effort to defend the protestant Liberal free market principles that our founders believed in and which led to the prosperous and powerful nation we are today; it will provide an amusing diversion from the thread topic.

My definition does not require the desperate contortions you attempt by suggesting that one need have a debate about Marxism or the Proletariat.

Main Entry: socialism !sO-shu-+li-zum
Pronunciation: \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Function: noun
Date: 1837
Results
1. 1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a. 2 a a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b. b a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3. 3 a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Socialism occurs when our Government takes over vast portions of the economy like insurance, medical healthcare, the auto industry, financial markets and decides what industries are going to be protected and funded like the “green” initiatives outside of free market principles of supply and demand.

When your tax policies are indicative of a vast re-distribution of wealth in an effort for “fairness,” and the Government then attempts to set the salaries on certain job functions within private organizations, you have already crossed the line.

The best example of this is the false notion that auto makers have failed because they didn’t produce more hybrids; Toyota has yet to make a profit on the most popular hybrid in the market today.

This is what is currently occurring and any effort to suggest that this is NOT a march towards Socialism requires a desperate contortion such as to redefine the term Socialism. I look forward to such a desperate response from you in explaining how we are NOT headed in that very direction under this administration and congress which is currently infested with intellectual midgets and ingrates more interested in expanding their political power by creating a vast dependent class of uneducated citizens than helping make America safe, prosperous, free and strong.

Carry on. :2wave:

 

[danarhea]

I'm all for replacing all the so called "Moderates" in the party. Spector, Snowe, and Collins are the top three, one down, two to go.


Here's the thing Dan, what good are moderates when you REALLY need them, they vote for the otherside?

The best thing to do is clean house, and focus on CONSERVATIVES, not this idiocy of "moderate big party" crap. That lead to ruin.

Thank you for your honest response. I disagree with you. If the GOP is to stop Obama, they need to keep their Senators, and not drive them off. Specter could have been dealt with in the future, but this was an extremely bad time to push him away. Now the Democrats can get away with murder. Reagan would NEVER have done something so stupid as this.

 

[Truth Detector]

Way to misquote me. All people have to do is read what I posted, and you are exposed for the liar you are.

Your lack of comprehension is only exceeded by your confused version of reality and politics. Please share where I have lied about ANYTHING in response to your banal blather. When did we contort asking a question as "misquoting?"

I simply asked questions which you choose to avoid with this preposterous insult that I am somehow a liar. I didn't "misquote" you; I asked a question.

I never said that I was against GOP filibusters. I posted that filibusters are a good thing. Read my post again, and if you understand it this time, then stop lying.

I never said you were against them; did it occur to you that perhaps I misunderstood your comments:

1) They are doing everything they can to delay Franken taking his Senate seat. So far, so good. We want filibusters.

This looked more like you were being facetious than honestly thinking this was good which is why I asked the question;

do you think that instead of filibustering bills that contain little or NO input by the minority party is a bad idea and once again Republicans should just roll over and give in to Democrats?

What don't you understand about that?

I thought it was pretty clear that it is difficult to comprehend your points when they contain little substance or facts which is why I asked you and stated:

Who has done this other than this being a fantasy of your own reality? The Republican Party hasn't asked these people to get out.

Now if you had attempted clarity in answering my questions in a civil way instead of going on another of your typical whiney tirades insulting me by claiming I am lying, we could have had a more substantive debate.

Carry on.

 

[Truth Detector]

Thank you for your honest response. I disagree with you. If the GOP is to stop Obama, they need to keep their Senators, and not drive them off. Specter could have been dealt with in the future, but this was an extremely bad time to push him away. Now the Democrats can get away with murder. Reagan would NEVER have done something so stupid as this.

The GOP cannot stop Obama and the Democrats. The American people having been duped into voting for huge majorities in the House, a majority in the Senate and a Democrat in the White House along with these so-called moderates guarantees they can implement their agenda without any need to work in a bi-partisan fashion.

It is a fantasy to think that they can.

The notion that the Republican Platform is served by these "Democrats" with an "R" in front of their names requires willful denial.

The best thing to do is to continue to vote against any part of these programs that continue to add to the burgeoning deficits without any honest debate on how to pay for them and to hope that in the mid-terms Americans will wake from their deep slumber and the disinformation being fed to them by a media willing to carry Obama's water and fawn over him and vote these morons who currently infest the Congress out.

Then perhaps we can start actually having some form of honesty, balance and real transparency in Government again.

 

[new coup for you]

My monopoly on the term? What a trite an intellectually empty assertion. Where have I declared this monopoly?

While you are at it, why don't you lecture me on how Obama's march towards a Socialist State is merely an effort to defend the protestant Liberal free market principles that our founders believed in and which led to the prosperous and powerful nation we are today; it will provide an amusing diversion from the thread topic.

My definition does not require the desperate contortions you attempt by suggesting that one need have a debate about Marxism or the Proletariat.

Main Entry: socialism !sO-shu-+li-zum
Pronunciation: \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Function: noun
Date: 1837
Results
1. 1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a. 2 a a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b. b a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3. 3 a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Socialism occurs when our Government takes over vast portions of the economy like insurance, medical healthcare, the auto industry, financial markets and decides what industries are going to be protected and funded like the “green” initiatives outside of free market principles of supply and demand.

When your tax policies are indicative of a vast re-distribution of wealth in an effort for “fairness,” and the Government then attempts to set the salaries on certain job functions within private organizations, you have already crossed the line.

The best example of this is the false notion that auto makers have failed because they didn’t produce more hybrids; Toyota has yet to make a profit on the most popular hybrid in the market today.

This is what is currently occurring and any effort to suggest that this is NOT a march towards Socialism requires a desperate contortion such as to redefine the term Socialism. I look forward to such a desperate response from you in explaining how we are NOT headed in that very direction under this administration and congress which is currently infested with intellectual midgets and ingrates more interested in expanding their political power by creating a vast dependent class of uneducated citizens than helping make America safe, prosperous, free and strong.

Carry on. :2wave:

So you've never studied it.

 

[danarhea]

Your lack of comprehension is only exceeded by your confused version of reality and politics. Please share where I have lied about ANYTHING in response to your banal blather. When did we contort asking a question as "misquoting?"

I simply asked questions which you choose to avoid with this preposterous insult that I am somehow a liar. I didn't "misquote" you; I asked a question.



I never said you were against them; did it occur to you that perhaps I misunderstood your comments:

1) They are doing everything they can to delay Franken taking his Senate seat. So far, so good. We want filibusters.

This looked more like you were being facetious than honestly thinking this was good which is why I asked the question;

do you think that instead of filibustering bills that contain little or NO input by the minority party is a bad idea and once again Republicans should just roll over and give in to Democrats?



I thought it was pretty clear that it is difficult to comprehend your points when they contain little substance or facts which is why I asked you and stated:

Who has done this other than this being a fantasy of your own reality? The Republican Party hasn't asked these people to get out.

Now if you had attempted clarity in answering my questions in a civil way instead of going on another of your typical whiney tirades insulting me by claiming I am lying, we could have had a more substantive debate.

Carry on.

I will address your points one at a time.

1)

This looked more like you were being facetious than honestly thinking this was good which is why I asked the question;

do you think that instead of filibustering bills that contain little or NO input by the minority party is a bad idea and once again Republicans should just roll over and give in to Democrats?

Yes, we NEED the filibusters. That is exactly what I posted, so do NOT attempt to twist my words in an attempt to make it look like I meant anything other than what I said. That is dishonest debating.

2)

Who has done this other than this being a fantasy of your own reality? The Republican Party hasn't asked these people to get out.

The Republican party in Pennsylvania did it by supporting wing nut Pat Toomey. As a result, this Senate seat is toast for the GOP. Toomy will never be elected, as Specter will not only have the Democratic votes, but moderate Republican votes as well. No fantasy of my own reality at all, as you posted in your ad hom attack. This is based in the real world.

 

[Truth Detector]

So you've never studied it.

So you are unwilling to make an effort responding other than your typical little one liner and trite remarks?

I asked you: why don't you lecture me on how Obama's march towards a Socialist State is merely an effort to defend the protestant Liberal free market principles that our founders believed in and which led to the prosperous and powerful nation we are today; it will provide an amusing diversion from the thread topic.

I stated my definition of the term and provided you with examples of why I believe we are heading to a Socialist State; where is your rebuttal and lecture on what actually constitutes Socialism?

Carry on; I am looking forward to your coherent rebuttal on what Socialism REALLY is and how this President is not attempting to move this nation in that direction. :2wave:

 

[new coup for you]

it's a simple question; have you or have you not ever studied socialism?

 

[Truth Detector]

Do you ever do anything besides whine?

Yes, we NEED the filibusters. That is exactly what I posted, so do NOT attempt to twist my words in an attempt to make it look like I meant anything other than what I said. That is dishonest debating.

I stated my comment as a question; your desperate desire to make it more sinister is illustrative of your inane notions about debating.

The Republican party in Pennsylvania did it by supporting wing nut Pat Toomey.

But your statement was this:

2) Then they turn around and want to kick Specter, Collins, and Snowe out of the party.

I asked you; who in the Republican Party has stated they want to kick these people out of the party? The HONEST answer to that is no one has. Therefore, you must be fabricating your own version of events or purposely making false assertions; which is it?

The Republican Party in Pennsylvania obviously believed that someone more in line with their Conservative values was needed. They didn’t kick Spector out; that is patently false, Spector is kicking himself our by finally ADMITTING and being honest that the Democrat Party better reflects his views than the Republicans do.

Suggesting that he was “kicked” out is nonsense and hardly supported by any facts or actions by the Republican Party.

As a result, this Senate seat is toast for the GOP. Toomy will never be elected, as Specter will not only have the Democratic votes, but moderate Republican votes as well.

That may be, but your original premise was this:

Quote:Originally Posted by danarhea
And the schizophrenic part of the GOP shows its face. Let me explain why I call the GOP schizophrenic:

If we are going to take your arguments at face value, obviously you failed to prove this and perhaps instead actually illustrated that perhaps people like Spector are the schizophrenics, not the Republican Party; which was my point all along.

The Republican Party hasn’t “changed” or “flipped”, it was Arlen Spector finally being honest and admitting he was a flaming Liberal Democrat and finally correctly identifying himself with that party. The notion that Republicans need people who consistently vote against Conservative principles under the false impression this prevents them from being in a minority is weak at best.

I can remember the countless bashing you did of George Bush and the Republican majority in congress and the Senate and believe you claimed he/they were not Conservative and that he/they were fiscally irresponsible; your silence in the face of the current policies being passed by the Democrats is deafening; perhaps it is time for you to do some admitting and come clean too? :mrgreen:

 

[Truth Detector]

it's a simple question; have you or have you not ever studied socialism?

Have you or have you not ever studied Economic theory, Capitalism and Free Market systems? See how easy it is to avoid substance?

My studies consisted of the history, economics and free market concepts I learned at Cal State University in Fullerton getting a finance business degree with honors. In addition, I am a student of history and have read a lot of books on the subject of War, Communism vs. Democracies and Marxism.

Where did you study these theories and concepts, what courses did it entail and what was your degree in?

I am still waiting for a substantive rebuttal to my statements and a lecture on what constitutes Socialism that go beyond the trite and simplistic. I am sure you have a point to make shortly without wandering endlessly in the circle of futility where you continually avoid substance.

 

[new coup for you]

Have you or have you not ever studied Economic theory, Capitalism and Free Market systems? See how easy it is to avoid substance?

My studies consisted of the history, economics and free market concepts I learned at Cal State University in Fullerton getting a finance business degree with honors. In addition, I am a student of history and have read a lot of books on the subject of War, Communism vs. Democracies and Marxism.

Where did you study these theories and concepts, what courses did it entail and what was your degree in?

I am still waiting for a substantive rebuttal to my statements and a lecture on what constitutes Socialism that go beyond the trite and simplistic. I am sure you have a point to make shortly without wandering endlessly in the circle of futility where you continually avoid substance.

I have an advertising degree and took micro, macro and neo-classical econ courses. I also took 3 years of anthro-soc classes, because I originally wanted to be a sociology major before I went into advertising.

prove to me that you know what socialism is, because it's a lot more complex then purely the relationship between private enterprise and the government.

maybe you'd like to start with the French Revolution? Or maybe the Revolutions of 1848? Or how about the Sino-Soviet split? How about the differences between anarcho-syndicalism and statist collectivism?

You have no idea what socialism is, you only know that it's what you're supposed to currently scream at Obama- exactly like how he was a celebrity yesterday or a Muslim the day before that.

The entire rightwing's use of the term socialism is so utterly pathetic. Socialism is a complex belief regarding the progress of human society, the structuring of the economy is only one part of the belief.

Do you think that Obama believes in an inevitable uprising of the working classes in a spontaneous manner? The fact that he's the president would preclude that belief- and it's a pretty central tenet of Marxism. Do you think he believes in industrial alienation? Or how about a "plateau of history"? How about the "withering of the state"?

Explain to me the socialist conception of the movement of history. Explain to me the dialectic method and the concept of social struggle. Explain to me the FIRST ****ING THING about socialism.

If you can do THAT then we can discuss whether or not Obama is a socialist.

 

[Captain America]

Have you or have you not ever studied Economic theory, Capitalism and Free Market systems? See how easy it is to avoid substance?

My studies consisted of the history, economics and free market concepts I learned at Cal State University in Fullerton getting a finance business degree with honors. In addition, I am a student of history and have read a lot of books on the subject of War, Communism vs. Democracies and Marxism.

Where did you study these theories and concepts, what courses did it entail and what was your degree in?

I am still waiting for a substantive rebuttal to my statements and a lecture on what constitutes Socialism that go beyond the trite and simplistic. I am sure you have a point to make shortly without wandering endlessly in the circle of futility where you continually avoid substance.

All that education and still...... :roll:



:rofl


.

 

[Truth Detector]

I have an advertising degree and took micro, macro and neo-classical econ courses. I also took 3 years of anthro-soc classes, because I originally wanted to be a sociology major before I went into advertising.

prove to me that you know what socialism is.

I already stated to you what Socialism is and provided a definition; now you prove how I am wrong in my assertions.

Oh wait, this has nothing to do with substance, this is just your typical attempt to bate and troll?

If you think I am wrong, prove that I am wrong; otherwise all of this is merely the typical nonsense you substitute for substantive debate.

Your advertising degree obviously makes you an expert at determining what passes for Socialism so lecture us wise sage and show me where I err.

:roll:

 

[Truth Detector]

All that education and still...... :roll:

:rofl .

I see you are still more adept and baiting and trolling than adding anything of substance. :2wave: