- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 3,779
- Reaction score
- 1,079
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Not surprised that you resort to petty words that you have no idea weather or not are true. :roll:
"Socialist" doesnt mean a Democrat whose policies you disagree with and "Czar" doesnt mean...not quite sure what you think it means but I'd be willing to bet the real definition and your definition do not match.
If you were paying a little more attention, you would have figured out that he meant....... and "Czar" doesnt mean...not quite sure what you think it means but I'd be willing to bet the real definition and your definition do not match.
And that lists proves he's a socialist....how?
Study up on those people and you'll find out.
Call it a hypothesis, Socialist is the new "faggot". Dont like someone? Call them a Socialist! It's nebulous, hard to define, sounds bad, and scares people. That and the kind of language I see around here and in the media.Bold part: Whoever said it does?
It's a loaded term. It's used because of it's connection with Tsarist Russia which people, mistakenly, connect with Communism and people apparently think "Russia = Communism" even though the term "tsar" (the actual spelling of the word) actually referers to a monarchical autocracy popular in Russia pre-revolution. Which might then make you think people are trying to indicate that these people rule like autocrats over their chosen field...except...they dont really. Any way you slice it, it's a stupid usage of an archaic word designed to elicit an emotional response.Underlined part: How much would you be willing to bet?
So my earlier assessment that a "czar" is a term used to emotionally load people's responses against advisors they dont like seems to be panning outIf you were paying a little more attention, you would have figured out that he meant...
Been there, done that, when they were appointed. There is nothing Socialist about hardly any of them. Do you even know what Socialist means?Study up on those people and you'll find out.
Applying the term 'czar' to a position of authority in the Executive branch has been aruound since at least FDR.So my earlier assessment that a "czar" is a term used to emotionally load people's responses against advisors they dont like seems to be panning out
I notice that few, if any, liberals have voted in the poll, though a number of them have made posts under the tiopic
If the liberals do not think that any of the 10 items listed are the reason(s) for The Obsma's popular decline and resilting political woes, I wonder how THEY explain it.
Why is The Obama’s administration in trouble?
Please feel free to subtantively refute the argument made to that effect; at this point you have provided zero evidence to that effect.Wait. You want to know why his poll numbers are low? Why didn't you ask that instead of "Why is The Obama’s administration in trouble"? The administration isn't really in trouble...
Please feel free to subtantively refute the argument made to that effect; at this point you have provided zero evidence to that effect.
Otherwise you're just trying to avoid an issue you know that you cannot counter - and as such, the poll question and options listed are perfectly legit.
Your attacks on me and the article itself are nothing more than bitter red herrings designed to given you an excuse to avoid the issue.
That makes an argument that you have stated that you disagee with, after which you were challenged to substantively refute.Your one source is an op ed.
That makes an argument that you have stated that you disagee with, after which you were challenged to substantively refute.
A challenge that you are avoiding.
So, refute the argument or admit you cannot.
I notice that few, if any, liberals have voted in the poll, though a number of them have made posts under the tiopic
If the liberals do not think that any of the 10 items listed are the reason(s) for The Obsma's popular decline and resilting political woes, I wonder how THEY explain it.
That would be true, had you brought some substance to your claim that the argument presented by the author is unsound.I made an effort to discuss your topic.
It was to be expected when a bunch of really braindead people voted for an empty suit who sounded good but who never had any evidence he knew WTF he was doing
It was to be expected when a bunch of really braindead people voted for an empty suit who sounded good but who never had any evidence he knew WTF he was doing
1) Glen Beck
2) Rush Limbaugh
3) Sean Hannity
4) "evil Corporations"
5) and of course-RACISM
So, "I say so" argument is all you got?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?