Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[Burgold]

Just imagine if the Republicans had won, Bin Laden would still be out there, Ghadaffi would still be out there. The debt would be worse (McCain had pledged a stimulus of the same size, but wanted to add on additional tax cuts because... well, ya know... tax cutting and mega spending is fiscal conservatism these days) We'd be deeper into Iraq and be fighting a third front on Iran and unemployment would most likely be the same or worse.

On the plus side, we probably wouldn't have had health care reform.

By the way, for those saying we would have still gotten Bin Laden and Moamar you are lying to yourselves. Republicans decried and said it was insanity to commit to any operation in Pakistan so Al Qaeda and Bin Laden over there would have been safe. Further, Republicans had no interest and in fact, fervantly opposed the U.S. supporting rebels with No Fly Zones.

[Teller]

I agree with you.

The primaries will be determined by the True Republicans. And the True Republicans will never, ever, vote for anybody who has in any way so much as questioned their Kool Aid fueled delusions.

It would be really nice if just once, just God damned once, I could have a discussion with a liberal and NOT be accused of being a spoonfed idiot. Guess what, Larry? Your opinion is not the be-all to end-all. I know that comes as a shock to you. And I hope you won't stroke out when I expound on that just a little further. An intelligent person can consider an issue, come to a different conclusion, and NOT be influenced by any pundit nor "drink the Kool-Aid."

I am so sick to death of this pathetic cop out of an argument from the left, that I'm surprised my computer continues to survive the experience. How much ****ing Kool-Aid did I drink last year when I voted for Obama, Lare? What color was it? Because clearly you don't think I'm intelligent enough to consider facts and come to disagree with His High-and-Mightiness. So you tell me? How did it happen? Were the FOX rays blocked from entering my house by the uranium siding I put up? Or did I consider the facts and actually end up making a seemingly rational decision?

Of course I agreed with you in that case, so you didn't make this type of bull**** accusation back then. But frankly it's more than a little ridiculous, given my posting history, and my record around here to make the foolish assertions that you do every time I encounter you in a thread. Your snarky bull**** has gotten more than tiresome, and frankly, I'm left to wonder what mod you're in such good graces with to even remain here.

I've laid off, because I was told by a friend "Don't mess with Larry. He has friends in high places on the board." That's fine. I don't know if I do or not, and frankly I don't care. But this has needed to be said for a long time, and if it costs me my membership here, I'm fine with that.

It's not just you either. Though you seem to be a frequent flyer in this regard. It's damned near impossible to have a discussion with anyone on the left here any more without the same tired "FAUXNews" cop out of an argument. The assertion that conservatives can't think independently is made here HUNDREDS of times a week. It's gotten old. It's gotten VERY old. And the sad thing is, it comes from people I used to have some level of respect for, despite our disagreements.

Still, I can take some amount of solace away from the fact that it's not us allegedly spoonfed idiots that have to resort to this kind of pathetic assertion. It's the enlightened. It's the elite. It's those oh-so-impressive critical thinkers that have to use that same broken crutch. So you tell me, Larry? Who can't think for themselves?

[visionary]

Just imagine if the Republicans had won, Bin Laden would still be out there, Ghadaffi would still be out there. The debt would be worse (McCain had pledged a stimulus of the same size, but wanted to add on additional tax cuts because... well, ya know... tax cutting and mega spending is fiscal conservatism these days) We'd be deeper into Iraq and be fighting a third front on Iran and unemployment would most likely be the same or worse.

On the plus side, we probably wouldn't have had health care reform.

By the way, for those saying we would have still gotten Bin Laden and Moamar you are lying to yourselves. Republicans decried and said it was insanity to commit to any operation in Pakistan so Al Qaeda and Bin Laden over there would have been safe. Further, Republicans had no interest and in fact, fervantly opposed the U.S. supporting rebels with No Fly Zones.

This seems out of place....
And not to get too off topic, but McCain had a lot of the same positions (although he criticized O for not doing enough in some cases...which I think could be argued both ways) as Obama has had now...just a bit earlier than him on Libya and other foreign policy issues.
(I'm not saying McCain would have been better overall though considering everything his presidency might have entailed)

Anyway...back to Romney....

[Burgold]

This seems out of place....
And not to get too off topic, but McCain had a lot of the same positions (although he criticized O for not doing enough in some cases...which I think could be argued both ways) as Obama has had now...just a bit earlier than him on Libya and other foreign policy issues.
(I'm not saying McCain would have been better overall though considering everything his presidency might have entailed)

Anyway...back to Romney....

It might be... but I was riffing off what Spearfeather was saying while he was basically complaining that Obama was the worst thing that ever happened to this country and anything could be better.

[Prosperity]

HH, if I remember correctly, you didn't vote for Obama, in fact you didn't actually get to vote at all

[Larry]

It would be really nice if just once, just God damned once, I could have a discussion with a liberal and NOT be accused of being a spoonfed idiot.

Perhaps if you could make a post without throwing in Kool Aid talking points?

Guess what, Larry? Your opinion is not the be-all to end-all. I know that comes as a shock to you.

Or making things up that people didn't say, so you can demonstrate your tough guy routine on the straw man.

And I hope you won't stroke out when I expound on that just a little further. An intelligent person can consider an issue, come to a different conclusion, and NOT be influenced by any pundit nor "drink the Kool-Aid."

Depends on the conclusion.

To pull up one example, if the conclusion is that Obama tripped the deficit, then I have no trouble whatsoever pronouncing that that person has been drinking the Kool Aid.

Because the fact is, that he didn't.

And that fact has been well known, and easily demonstrated, and publicly available, for years.

(I think it's probably a safe bet that his actions increased it. I don't think it can be proven without a time machine, but that's the direction I'd lean.) (I'd also lean, admittedly without proof, in the direction that his increasing of the deficit was good for the country.)

As another example, I suspect that almost everybody in Tailgate, now, would agree that anybody who's a birther has been drinking the Kool Aid. (Even the ones who defended the Birthers for years, with slogans like "Well, it's Obama's fault", or "all I want is more proof".)

I am so sick to death of this pathetic cop out of an argument from the left, that I'm surprised my computer continues to survive the experience. How much ****ing Kool-Aid did I drink last year when I voted for Obama, Lare? What color was it? Because clearly you don't think I'm intelligent enough to consider facts and come to disagree with His High-and-Mightiness. So you tell me? How did it happen? Were the FOX rays blocked from entering my house by the uranium siding I put up? Or did I consider the facts and actually end up making a seemingly rational decision?

Whereas, the "beating up straw men" technique, well, [i]that[/u] you never get tired of.

Of course I agreed with you in that case, so you didn't make this type of bull**** accusation back then. But frankly it's more than a little ridiculous, given my posting history, and my record around here to make the foolish assertions that you do every time I encounter you in a thread. Your snarky bull**** has gotten more than tiresome, and frankly, I'm left to wonder what mod you're in such good graces with to even remain here.

Perhaps the fact that I respond to the things you actually write, as opposed to the things that I make up in my mind and then attack you for?

Just a theory.

I've laid off, because I was told by a friend "Don't mess with Larry. He has friends in high places on the board." That's fine. I don't know if I do or not, and frankly I don't care. But this has needed to be said for a long time, and if it costs me my membership here, I'm fine with that.

It's the vast, left-wing conspiracy.

That must be why people act like you're imagining things.

Couldn't possibly actually be because of the things you say.

It's not just you either. Though you seem to be a frequent flyer in this regard. It's damned near impossible to have a discussion with anyone on the left here any more without the same tired "FAUXNews" cop out of an argument. The assertion that conservatives can't think independently is made here HUNDREDS of times a week.

Yep.

Every time the conservative Champions spout off the same talking point that wasn't true the last dozen times it was trotted out.

Every time Fox (or a "conservative filmmaker") gets caught committing outright fraud, and he gets defended with "well, I'm sure that the Democrats lie just as much as we do, they just don't get caught as much", or "well, they both do it (therefore I'm not going to criticize this one)" or "well, they took the bongs" (wonder why it is that not only are the Conservative Champions defending that fraud, but they're defending it with the same defense? Couldn't be.)

I'll point out that I've agreed with you. On many points. Including the post which you just quoted. I think that we've even had some rather respectful conversations via PM, concerning the last Florida election. (I haven't checked. I think it was you, but I could well be wrong.)

I point out your posting of untrue, delusional talking points, when you post untrue, delusional talking points.

Still, I can take some amount of solace away from the fact that it's not us allegedly spoonfed idiots that have to resort to this kind of pathetic assertion. It's the enlightened. It's the elite. It's those oh-so-impressive critical thinkers that have to use that same broken crutch. So you tell me, Larry? Who can't think for themselves?

The attempt to claim moral superiority because you don't resort to spouting repetitive slogans, cheers, and insults would have worked better if you weren't

a) Quoting a post in which someone actually responded to what you actually said, and
b) Peppering you entire post with straw men and Rush Limbaugh motivational slogans.

Comes across as "Good thing I never have to resort to name calling and stereotypes, you honky redneck dago Jew." From someone who's serious.

[Teller]

HH, if I remember correctly, you didn't vote for Obama, in fact you didn't actually get to vote at all

Sorry, I didn't think I needed to explain the proxy vote yet again. I usually say "decided to" which would have been more accurate. But that's far from my point, obviously.

[Burgold]

Yeah, I think HH's intent to vote for Obama is sincere and pretty much counts. If in his heart that was his candidate then Obama was his guy. If he now regrets that... well, that's okay too, but it's really crying over spilt milk. Much the way libs whined eternally about being rooked and judiciaried and conned in the 2000 election by activist judges, decision makers who were working for the Bush campaign, and by a really, really, really stupid liberal ballot designer.

For what it's worth, I think Obama has been an okay President, but he's been saddled with such a destructive congress (this includes the Dem Supermajority Congress) that events had to go south. The Dems those first two years acted like spoiled, corrupt, disgusting brats (or villains). The Reps are basically as bad. Frankly, I think if we could fire Congress entirely and rehire Obama we'd be in much better shape.

(I'm probably off topic again. My tailgate muscles are out of shape.)

[Teller]

Perhaps if you could make a post without throwing in Kool Aid talking points?

Nope. You're right. I didn't watch and read about black voters with my own two eyes, saying they were voting for him BECAUSE he was black. Frankly, I don't care if some conservative pundit repeats that he saw the same thing. I don't watch any of the crap, and it's pretty presumptuous of you to assume I do. (Even after having to defend myself against the previously described bull**** almost daily.)

Or making things up that people didn't say, so you can demonstrate your tough guy routine on the straw man.

It presents as pretty damned high and mighty to assume that if someone disagrees with you, he's "drinking the Kool Aid." I stand by what I said 100%.

As another example, I suspect that almost everybody in Tailgate, now, would agree that anybody who's a birther has been drinking the Kool Aid. (Even the ones who defended the Birthers for years, with slogans like "Well, it's Obama's fault", or "all I want is more proof".)

That's an excellent point.

What do you think about the people who said for years that "that's all Hawaii issues. There isn't a long form." Damnable Kool Aid drinkers, the lot of 'em, right?

Whereas, the "beating up straw men" technique, well, [i]that[/u] you never get tired of.

Asked and answered.

Perhaps the fact that I respond to the things you actually write, as opposed to the things that I make up in my mind and then attack you for?

Many African Americans voted for Obama because of his race, or strongly considered his race when voting. That's a fact. What IS NOT a fact, is how you think I arrived at that conclusion. And I think I know just a LITTLE better than you do how that happened.

It's the vast, left-wing conspiracy.

That must be why people act like you're imagining things.

Couldn't possibly actually be because of the things you say.

The only imagining that's been done here, is you imagining I watch Rush or Hannity or any of the other garbage that's out there. But nice effor.

Every time the conservative Champions spout off the same talking point that wasn't true the last dozen times it was trotted out.

Point me to the one I used.

Every time Fox (or a "conservative filmmaker") gets caught committing outright fraud, and he gets defended with "well, I'm sure that the Democrats lie just as much as we do, they just don't get caught as much", or "well, they both do it (therefore I'm not going to criticize this one)" or "well, they took the bongs" (wonder why it is that not only are the Conservative Champions defending that fraud, but they're defending it with the same defense? Couldn't be.)

I guess you missed my posts in the FOX/Murdoch thread. Burgold and I actually had a nice little discussion about journalistic integrity, as I recall. I thought you were gonna stick to the things I actually say. Fat chance.

I'll point out that I've agreed with you. On many points. Including the post which you just quoted. I think that we've even had some rather respectful conversations via PM, concerning the last Florida election. (I haven't checked. I think it was you, but I could well be wrong.)

Yup. That was me. Doesn't change the fact that I'll call a spade a spade when I feel the need to.

I point out your posting of untrue, delusional talking points, when you post untrue, delusional talking points.

Again. Where?

a) Quoting a post in which someone actually responded to what you actually said, and

I said our base is the most motivated, and we wouldn't settle for electing a liberal in conservative clothing. You turned that into "true republicans" are Kool-Aid drinking idiots.

b) Peppering you entire post with straw men and Rush Limbaugh motivational slogans.

Thank you very much for this. You just did EXACTLY what I said you do. I've NEVER listened to Rush's radio show, and I watched his TV show in the late 80s (as a teenager, mind you) maybe twice. I've criticized him here plenty. And I have no use for ****-stirring jackwads on EITHER side. If Rush says the same thing as I do in ANY case, it's because he came to the same conclusion I did, not because I've ever even heard what he has to say.

But thanks for going the extra mile to prove me right.

[twa]

Mitt's really waiting for twa's backing.....

I don't see that forthcoming
Mitt is welcome to the spineless ones

[Spearfeather]

It might be... but I was riffing off what Spearfeather was saying while he was basically complaining that Obama was the worst thing that ever happened to this country and anything could be better.

Your words, not mine.

[Burgold]

Your words, not mine.

If I've misinterpreted you, I apologize. Certainly sounded like what you were saying.

[Spearfeather]

If I've misinterpreted you, I apologize. Certainly sounded like what you were saying.

No, I think it's more like what you wanted me to say,,,,.or at least it certainly sounded like what you were saying.

[Burgold]

No, I think it's more like what you wanted me to say,,,,.or at least it certainly sounded like what you were saying.

No, I certainly wouldn't have WANTED you to say that

For curiousity, how would you alter my paraphrase. What would have been the correct statement?

[Spearfeather]

Well, since you asked.

You wrote:

It might be... but I was riffing off what Spearfeather was saying while he was basically complaining that Obama was the worst thing that ever happened to this country and anything could be better.

but could have wrote: " It might be....but that was just done in response to Spearfeather's post."