The Left's state of denial

[Oldandtired]

So says the troll!

Fact is, you NEVER debate!..You spend all day running around here looking for anybody telling the TRUTH about your beloved messiah being the abject failure he is, just so you can call them trolls. That is the epitomy of a fucking troll!

Seriously, you're a fucking idiot!

LMAO!

LMAO....you picked up on that too...of all people to say what the Doc said.....

Doc.....look to the kettle to the left and call it black.

But try not to use a negro dialect.

as opposed to you, that likes to pretend he's an open minded, non-partisan hack, and one post will make a legit argument, the next whip out some partisan diatribe or some talking point.
Or do you have multiple personalities.

Thje line in bold...

Talking point is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal disagrees with.

Partisan diatribe is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal can not grasp.

Go away doc.....I have beaten you so many times with your own words it is getting embarrassing for me......I can imagine what it must be like for you.

 

[Dr Gregg]

LMAO....you picked up on that too...of all people to say what the Doc said.....

Doc.....look to the kettle to the left and call it black.

But try not to use a negro dialect.

as opposed to you, that likes to pretend he's an open minded, non-partisan hack, and one post will make a legit argument, the next whip out some partisan diatribe or some talking point.

Or do you have multiple personalities.

Oh...I see....

So I am open minded about some topics and closed about others....and that is a problem.

And the problem with admitting that I am not sure about some things but sure about others is exactly what?

So you are unsusre about ALL topics?

You are open minded about ALL topics?

Sadly...you dont even know how to insult someone without making an ass of yourself.

I have multiple personalities because I am unsure about some things and sure about others......

You just cant win...can you.

No, you are a phony. I think a classic case of Intellectual dishonesty. You pretend you aren't partisan, adn you show the ability to put forth rational arguments on one hand, then come back in another with petty partisan arguments and irrational talking points and generalization of liberals that shows yet another partisan hack

I may be "making an ass out of myself" in the eyes of the partisan, blind Obama bashers, but who the fuck cares what these fools think, when 90% of the posts are just rants with no substance and some of the most dumbest, lamest critucism of liberal imaginable

 

[theDoctorisIn]

LMAO....you picked up on that too...of all people to say what the Doc said.....

Doc.....look to the kettle to the left and call it black.

But try not to use a negro dialect.

as opposed to you, that likes to pretend he's an open minded, non-partisan hack, and one post will make a legit argument, the next whip out some partisan diatribe or some talking point.
Or do you have multiple personalities.

Thje line in bold...

Talking point is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal disagrees with.

Partisan diatribe is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal can not grasp.

Go away doc.....I have beaten you so many times with your own words it is getting embarrassing for me......I can imagine what it must be like for you.

No, a talking point is a phrase that sounds really good, but leaves out the "how". A ten word phrase that's designed to make people identify with it. For a talking point to have any actual value, it needs to be expanded upon and justified like any other argument.

For example:

This is a talking point:
"The stimulus package has created or saved millions of jobs"

This is a better talking point:
"The stimulus money has been put to use towards re-vitalizing the economy of Western New York, now that Gm has invested 470 million dollars on bringing their Tonawanda engine facility up to spec to develop the next generation of engines, in the process creating 500 jobs."

Never mind, those are both talking points. The second one is just better written, if I say so myself.

For talking points to work, they must be factually correct - for example, the first one has the "or saved" added to it to make it technically factually correct. The concept comes from trend of decreasing political attention spans among average Americans. Everyone in America has something to complain about, but few could say why - and talking points are factually correct statements that people identify with as answers to their complaints. Don't like how much you're getting paid? Maybe it's because "those corrupt wall street fat cats". Maybe its because of "Welfare queens who are taking your tax dollars". Both are factually true: Some businessmen on Wall Street are, in fact, corrupt, and there are people who engage in welfare fraud. But neither actually provide any solutions.

Class dismissed.

 

[Dr Gregg]

LMAO....you picked up on that too...of all people to say what the Doc said.....

Doc.....look to the kettle to the left and call it black.

But try not to use a negro dialect.

as opposed to you, that likes to pretend he's an open minded, non-partisan hack, and one post will make a legit argument, the next whip out some partisan diatribe or some talking point.
Or do you have multiple personalities.

Thje line in bold...

Talking point is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal disagrees with.

Partisan diatribe is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal can not grasp.

Go away doc.....I have beaten you so many times with your own words it is getting embarrassing for me......I can imagine what it must be like for you.

ah, the delusions continue. Seems you are teh one being embarrassed and you can't stand it that people are calling you out and showing that you are not who you try to play yourself off as.

 

[MaggieMae]

It did for 250 years......as we grew to be the strongest, most free most properous and most generous nation in the world.

Now, as liberalism is applied, we are becoming one of the fattest, laziest and most dependent nations.

Gee....I wonder if dependancy on government has anything to do with it. I wonder if being told..."there, there, the government will help you out...it is not your fault that you signed that contract without reading it..."...has anything to do with it.

Or perhaps the new robber barons who hauled people off the streets and told them not to worry about not being able to afford the mortgage; that they would be able to refinance or resell in a heartbeat?

Your side of that argument is but one, my friend. The stronger evidence points to the crooks and liars who roped those people in as the perpetrators of the collapse of the housing market, together with the financial institutions who had no clue that those bad mortgages were being packaged into securities to be bought and sold like commodies.

You are referring to those that made 5 or 6 figure decisions based on the advice of the person that makes money if they go for it?

Those that wanted to save 300 a month on a 30 year mortgage....or about $120,000...... but were not willing to spring for the 300 bucks to get legal advice?

You mean those victims ?

Or are you talking about those that looked at credit card applications and said "I am too lazy to read the fine print" and signed them anyway....maybe you are referring to them?

Or are you referring to those that were anxious to have their money make easy money for them by investing it into "sure things', but ultimately lost the gamble as the sure thing was not such a sure thing.

You mean those victims?

Or maybe those pooor folks that asked for NINJA loans so they can lie about their income and job history and not get caught and get that mortgage that they so badly wanted but knew that their real income and job history would not be accepoted as it would not support the terms of the mortgage.

Maybe THOSE are the victims you are referring to?

Please tell me....which ones are you referring to?

The Cheap ones who would not hire a lawyer
The lazy ones who would not read the fine print
The gamblers who tried to make easy money
or the liars who lied on an affidavit (mortgage application)

Which ones?"

Educate yourself. There are interviews here with some of the fine fellas you seem so eager to defend. They'll tell you how they did it.

News Headlines

 

[Wicked Jester]

as opposed to you, that likes to pretend he's an open minded, non-partisan hack, and one post will make a legit argument, the next whip out some partisan diatribe or some talking point.
Or do you have multiple personalities.

Thje line in bold...

Talking point is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal disagrees with.

Partisan diatribe is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal can not grasp.

Go away doc.....I have beaten you so many times with your own words it is getting embarrassing for me......I can imagine what it must be like for you.

ah, the delusions continue. Seems you are teh one being embarrassed and you can't stand it that people are calling you out and showing that you are not who you try to play yourself off as.

You're trolling again!

 

[Oldandtired]

as opposed to you, that likes to pretend he's an open minded, non-partisan hack, and one post will make a legit argument, the next whip out some partisan diatribe or some talking point.
Or do you have multiple personalities.

Thje line in bold...

Talking point is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal disagrees with.

Partisan diatribe is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal can not grasp.

Go away doc.....I have beaten you so many times with your own words it is getting embarrassing for me......I can imagine what it must be like for you.

No, a talking point is a phrase that sounds really good, but leaves out the "how". A ten word phrase that's designed to make people identify with it. For a talking point to have any actual value, it needs to be expanded upon and justified like any other argument.

For example:

This is a talking point:
"The stimulus package has created or saved millions of jobs"

This is an argument:
"The stimulus money has been put to use towards re-vitalizing the economy of Western New York, now that Gm has invested 470 million dollars on bringing their Tonawanda engine facility up to spec to develop the next generation of engines, in the process creating 500 jobs."

Class dismissed.

I agree 100%.
And I expected you to know the definition as I see you apply it frequently.

Doc, however, uses "talking point" without understanding the difference.

Sort of like how many confuse earmark with pork....and one reason why Obama says "there was not one earmark in the stimulus bill" and half the right goes wild saying there were 9000.

Sadly, Obama knows that many misuse the word earmark...and as opposed to correct them, he lets them make asses of themselves.

Why do you think he does that?

 

[Dr Gregg]

So says the troll!

Fact is, you NEVER debate!..You spend all day running around here looking for anybody telling the TRUTH about your beloved messiah being the abject failure he is, just so you can call them trolls. That is the epitomy of a fucking troll!

Seriously, you're a fucking idiot!

LMAO!

LMAO....you picked up on that too...of all people to say what the Doc said.....

Doc.....look to the kettle to the left and call it black.

But try not to use a negro dialect.

Seriously.
Christ, I had the lil' fucker chasing me around through VM. It makes you seriously question the age and maturity of the lil' roaches.

More evidence of a troll, got to love it. What's a mature response in your book? Cause you VMs and negg comments, along with most of what you post, is the epitome of childish and immature comments.
Here, you think those are mature repsonses?
"And i'm supposed to care what you think, lil' man?......LMAO!....Step off, cockroach!"
"christ liberals are fucking morons"
"stop VMing me you little fag"

Like I said, not even a good troll that tries to hide it, you show it for all to see

 

[Oldandtired]

Or perhaps the new robber barons who hauled people off the streets and told them not to worry about not being able to afford the mortgage; that they would be able to refinance or resell in a heartbeat?

Your side of that argument is but one, my friend. The stronger evidence points to the crooks and liars who roped those people in as the perpetrators of the collapse of the housing market, together with the financial institutions who had no clue that those bad mortgages were being packaged into securities to be bought and sold like commodies.

You are referring to those that made 5 or 6 figure decisions based on the advice of the person that makes money if they go for it?

Those that wanted to save 300 a month on a 30 year mortgage....or about $120,000...... but were not willing to spring for the 300 bucks to get legal advice?

You mean those victims ?

Or are you talking about those that looked at credit card applications and said "I am too lazy to read the fine print" and signed them anyway....maybe you are referring to them?

Or are you referring to those that were anxious to have their money make easy money for them by investing it into "sure things', but ultimately lost the gamble as the sure thing was not such a sure thing.

You mean those victims?

Or maybe those pooor folks that asked for NINJA loans so they can lie about their income and job history and not get caught and get that mortgage that they so badly wanted but knew that their real income and job history would not be accepoted as it would not support the terms of the mortgage.

Maybe THOSE are the victims you are referring to?

Please tell me....which ones are you referring to?

The Cheap ones who would not hire a lawyer
The lazy ones who would not read the fine print
The gamblers who tried to make easy money
or the liars who lied on an affidavit (mortgage application)

Which ones?"

Educate yourself. There are interviews here with some of the fine fellas you seem so eager to defend. They'll tell you how they did it.

News Headlines

I know how they did it.

"take the low variable rate...when it goes above X% you will refinance to a lower fixed rate"

They are sleeze buckets. So are the losers that scalp tickets for thousands of dollars.

If people did not buy them, they would not be able to sell them....and the scalpers would cease to exist.

Those that got taken, did so becuase they believed what they wanted to believe. Their GREED dictated their reasoning.

They need to learn from it and move on.

Instead, we are going to make sure they never fall into it again....but at the cost of liberties (maybe) and at the financial cost of those of us that were more responsible.

I say, stop feeding the unscrupulous. Stop trying to find the deal that is too hard to beleive. Stop trying to capitalize on the system.

There was a time when a 5% return on money was just fine with all of us. You looked at the deal, if you were in the 5% range.....it was worthy of consideration.

Now? "I want to find a deal that allows me to lower my payment by 30% AND put cash in my pocket"....is how people are out there.

And question Maggie......those that got hurt......where were they when they were paying 1.2% with those teaser rates for a couple of years? Were they taking the extra cash and offering it to others that need it? Or were they bragging to their friends about all of the money they are saving?

Ya need to really think about it.

 

[MaggieMae]

The country doesn't need to be more conservative. It's center-right to begin with. And liberalism doesn't "always win in the long run". It manages to bullshit people every so often, when they've managed to forget what a disaster leftists are, and then makes such a mess that people run away in droves. Hence the coming 2010 elections.

Or are you seriously trying to tell us you think this fall will be a sweeping victory for the Democrats?

So what drove people away from Reagan/Bush41 and back to "liberalism"?? What drove people away from Bush43 and gave the Democrats a huge majority? Could it be that Republicans (conservatives) fucked up? The upcoming midterms will definitely see some Republican gains, and that's good. There should never be a majority in all three because it leads to extreme animosity and division.

I seem to recall that Mr. Obama did not run on a platform of liberalism. To the contrary, he made it quite clear that he was a moderate...

If you recall, people voted for Mr. Obama based on his promise that he was a moderate.
They voted for him based on his one promise that he was going to "Change the way things are done in Washington"

People were not running away from conservatism...they were running away from the way things are done in washington.

If he ran on a platform of "liberalism"...with "larger debt" and "higher deficit" and "more pork in bills"....and "entitlement programs"....and "2000 page bills with no time to read them"...and "back room deals with special interest groups"......I highly doubt he would have won the votes of independants.....

He won by lying...as most politicians do.

Dont make it more complicated than it is.

But that's the problem. It IS more complicated than just "lying." During the campaign, I doubt Obama expected the economic tsunami that hit when he had only been in office a month. He also, like every president before him, hoped that he could "change the way Washington does business," but, like very other president before him, got a rude awakening that it isn't as easy as it sounds. Back room deals and caving to special interest groups has been a part of Washington lawmaking for decades; it's hardly something "new."

Speaking of back room deals, though, I have a feeling there will be far fewer of those because it seems nowadays with the advent of instant blog alerts, the recipients of special favors are the ones who take the bulk of the public's disdain so perhaps they won't be so eager to wheel and deal in the future. One can only hope.

 

[MaggieMae]

People keep equating government spending to their own spending habits. Well here's a perfect example of what Biden means (I know, I know, it's difficult for some of you to comprehend anything beyond simple snippets).

Let's say you're starting a small business that will make some computer accessory and you've only got enough money to bankroll it for six months while you set up the operation and continue your day job for six months. You go to the Small Business Administration and get a loan in order to build up your business until it begins making a profit, and then eventually if you are successful, you can pay back that loan easily. You tighten the belt in areas that are unnecessary to the success of the business, and use the loan to "put fat in at the beginning," risking that with good management, eventually that investment will indeed pay off.

With the stimulus bill (and health care bill, actually), the government is trying to do the same thing, putting fat in at the beginning in order to reap the benefits down the road. It's a no-brainer.

That's utter bullshit but typical thinking from the Left, which never created wealth in their lives.
A more apt comparison is the guy who starts a business and keeps borrowing money from his wife's 401k to pump into it. Eventually the wife runs out of money and the business never makes a dime.
Government does not make a dime. Government does not earn anything. Government can only take from one party and give it to another. Any talk of "multiplier effect" is nonsense: there is no such thing. So they can only spend by taking from someone else who of course cannot spend that money.

We've been down that road here many times, and you're wrong. Most of the talk in other threads about government's ability to create jobs centers around private enterprise successes spurred by NASA endeavors and discoveries, the building of the Interstate system, and even going as far back as construction of railroads from coast to coast--all of which required great infusions of subsidies by the US Government.

 

[beowolfe]

I submit that the left is in denial. They continue to regurgitate the same failed talking points of the current POTUS out of sheer blind loyalty. And for what?

The Left in this country continues to push for their radical agenda when Americans have overwhelmingly rejected their agenda. It escapes the common lefty that Americans are NOT stupid and anyone that manages a personal budget can tell you that you CANNOT spend your way out of debt. Americans EVERYWHERE are sick and tired of watching these crooks in D.C run this country and it's future into the ground while they make themselves and their buddies rich off the backs of our countries future.

In my life time, I have never seen the American people so angry. I have never seen them so mobilized and eager to clean up our government. And the democrats have in one year tilted so far left that it easy to see the difference between the two parities. The Left is crazy. Their ideals do not work, and it is insanity to think that raising the debt to the levels NEVER seen on this planet; and growing the government into an uncontrollable monster will some how fix our economy.


The arrogance of those on the left highlights what is wrong with them. And if they didn't have the media structure in place to perpetuate their fallacies they would be shunned and mocked as the loons they prove to be everyday. They are dangerous because they lack a coherent and effective vision for the future and they continue to push an agenda that will strip this country of it's greatness by pushing to tax everyone into oblivion and spend the wealth it took this country over 200 years to amass.

There is nothing redeeming about those on the left. They are thieves and liars with a malicious goal of turning the U.S into a third world country. America does not want the future you have planned for this country. It wants prosperity and freedom. Not poverty and slavery.

And for those of you on the left that think we will stop being angry in time to save your obama man. Don't count on it. America is awake and she is going to shake free the democrat fleas that have infested her for too long. It is time for a reckoning and the democrats are going to pay for their treachery. And if you can't see that, then you are in denial.

And I think you're in denial..........not to mention the wingnuts.

 

[The Rabbi]

Now that we've determined who is a troll, can we get back to the subject?
The subject is the meltdown the Left is having over their failure to get their agenda passed, despite having almost unprecedented control of the gov't and an unbelievably popular young president often compared to JFK.
I guess illusions die hard. The illusion was that Obama would come in and change how things are done in Washington (what that means was never specified). He would move the country ahead (to what he never said). He wanted to move past the failed policies of George W Bush (he continued every one of them and added his own failed policies).
All of it was false. All of it was a lie. Obama lies every day because his platform was so non=specific it allowed everyone to see what they wanted. And once in office you can't get by on generalities. You have to govern. And he has no experience in that, and poor instincts.
So it was all in their grasp and the Left lost. Now they are faced with Democrats jumping ship and a likely take over by the GOP in the House and Senate. Another failed opportunity, struck down by good ole American know how.

 

[Wicked Jester]

LMAO....you picked up on that too...of all people to say what the Doc said.....

Doc.....look to the kettle to the left and call it black.

But try not to use a negro dialect.

Seriously.
Christ, I had the lil' fucker chasing me around through VM. It makes you seriously question the age and maturity of the lil' roaches.

More evidence of a troll, got to love it. What's a mature response in your book? Cause you VMs and negg comments, along with most of what you post, is the epitome of childish and immature comments.
Here, you think those are mature repsonses?
"And i'm supposed to care what you think, lil' man?......LMAO!....Step off, cockroach!"
"christ liberals are fucking morons"
"stop VMing me you little fag"

Like I said, not even a good troll that tries to hide it, you show it for all to see

Those are responses to your lame bullshit. You know, like when you neg. rep me, accusing me of being a troll, because I happen to say something about your beloved messiah and all his lies and abject failings.

Now, just FYI. I get between 10-20 positive reps a day. Your lil' negative reps don't mean shit. And if you ever bother to notice, I only negative rep you in response to your sissy lil' negative reps. I could care less what you say. I have better things to do than negative rep people on their comments. Besides, who gives a shit about reps anyway?...But for more information. I have nearly triple the rep power of you in points. My negative reps against you, affects your rep power far more than yours affects mine. But then, only a candyass with no life would put any stock in fucking rep power!

And let me remind you once again. Your boy is a failure who has broken just about every promise he made to the american people. That fact you cannot deny!...Just thought i'd let ya' know once again!...Wouldn't want ya' to forget!

 

[Oldandtired]

So what drove people away from Reagan/Bush41 and back to "liberalism"?? What drove people away from Bush43 and gave the Democrats a huge majority? Could it be that Republicans (conservatives) fucked up? The upcoming midterms will definitely see some Republican gains, and that's good. There should never be a majority in all three because it leads to extreme animosity and division.

I seem to recall that Mr. Obama did not run on a platform of liberalism. To the contrary, he made it quite clear that he was a moderate...

If you recall, people voted for Mr. Obama based on his promise that he was a moderate.
They voted for him based on his one promise that he was going to "Change the way things are done in Washington"

People were not running away from conservatism...they were running away from the way things are done in washington.

If he ran on a platform of "liberalism"...with "larger debt" and "higher deficit" and "more pork in bills"....and "entitlement programs"....and "2000 page bills with no time to read them"...and "back room deals with special interest groups"......I highly doubt he would have won the votes of independants.....

He won by lying...as most politicians do.

Dont make it more complicated than it is.

But that's the problem. It IS more complicated than just "lying." During the campaign, I doubt Obama expected the economic tsunami that hit when he had only been in office a month. He also, like every president before him, hoped that he could "change the way Washington does business," but, like very other president before him, got a rude awakening that it isn't as easy as it sounds. Back room deals and caving to special interest groups has been a part of Washington lawmaking for decades; it's hardly something "new."

Speaking of back room deals, though, I have a feeling there will be far fewer of those because it seems nowadays with the advent of instant blog alerts, the recipients of special favors are the ones who take the bulk of the public's disdain so perhaps they won't be so eager to wheel and deal in the future. One can only hope.

You know...I was not for the healthcare bill. But I came to terms with it and accepted it for what it was. The Nebraska, Fla. and La. deals were a bit exhorbinant, but yes, that is the way of Washington.
But as the fortunate user of a "cadillac" plan, I was angered at the final union deal made by Obama himself. Now he was showing favoritism to the employed...to those with more "hope" than those out there alone.
Now it became a class warfare item to me. Yes, I do better financially than they do. But we all made choices...and I lucked out.
But becuase they were lucky, just not as lucky as me...they get special consideration?

Sorry....but I do not agree with Obama strictly due to the different visions we have.
I now am angered by him as he exudes the aura of a man that frowns upon those of us that have acheived great success.

 

[Wicked Jester]

now that we've determined who is a troll, can we get back to the subject?
The subject is the meltdown the left is having over their failure to get their agenda passed, despite having almost unprecedented control of the gov't and an unbelievably popular young president often compared to jfk.
I guess illusions die hard. The illusion was that obama would come in and change how things are done in washington (what that means was never specified). He would move the country ahead (to what he never said). He wanted to move past the failed policies of george w bush (he continued every one of them and added his own failed policies).
All of it was false. All of it was a lie. Obama lies every day because his platform was so non=specific it allowed everyone to see what they wanted. And once in office you can't get by on generalities. You have to govern. And he has no experience in that, and poor instincts.
So it was all in their grasp and the left lost. Now they are faced with democrats jumping ship and a likely take over by the gop in the house and senate. Another failed opportunity, struck down by good ole american know how.

post of the day!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Thje line in bold...

Talking point is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal disagrees with.

Partisan diatribe is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal can not grasp.

Go away doc.....I have beaten you so many times with your own words it is getting embarrassing for me......I can imagine what it must be like for you.

No, a talking point is a phrase that sounds really good, but leaves out the "how". A ten word phrase that's designed to make people identify with it. For a talking point to have any actual value, it needs to be expanded upon and justified like any other argument.

For example:

This is a talking point:
"The stimulus package has created or saved millions of jobs"

This is an argument:
"The stimulus money has been put to use towards re-vitalizing the economy of Western New York, now that Gm has invested 470 million dollars on bringing their Tonawanda engine facility up to spec to develop the next generation of engines, in the process creating 500 jobs."

Class dismissed.

I agree 100%.
And I expected you to know the definition as I see you apply it frequently.

Doc, however, uses "talking point" without understanding the difference.

Sort of like how many confuse earmark with pork....and one reason why Obama says "there was not one earmark in the stimulus bill" and half the right goes wild saying there were 9000.

Sadly, Obama knows that many misuse the word earmark...and as opposed to correct them, he lets them make asses of themselves.

Why do you think he does that?

Because, that in a nutshell is a politician's job. Obama's use of the confusion between earmarks and pork is no more or less bullshit than Bush declaring victory in Iraq back in 2003 - it's what a President must do, in the system we have around us.

Take this message board for example:

I wasn't here then, but I was at "another" political message board back in 2007 when Bush was still President - and back then, the liberals were blaming everything on Bush. Now, the conservatives on this board are blaming everything on Obama.

If America as a whole has such little idea of how things really work, there's no choice but have the President as someone who spends 90% of their time justifying and talking and making excuses about what they spend the other 10% of their time doing.

I don't think talking points are a bad thing. If people can't take the time to actually understand something, what other choice is there?

By the way, I work in election politics and writing talking points is a pretty big part of my job - if we're going for full disclosure here.

 

[MaggieMae]

America is awake and she is going to shake free the democrat fleas that have infested her for too long. It is time for a reckoning and the democrats are going to pay for their treachery. And if you can't see that, then you are in denial.

Aren't you a drama queen?? Tell me, what awful things did Dems do that "infested" America?? In case you don't know, Bush was a Repulsive, not a Democrat. Clinton was a very good prez and Obama has 3 years to go. So what are you talking about???

There is much that liberals have done, benefiting everyone and appreciated by few because people tend to forget. This is outdated, but it drives the point home.

Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.
He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

A TvNewsLIES Reader contribution.
By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio - [email protected] - July - 2004

 

[The Rabbi]

Because, that in a nutshell is a politician's job. Obama's use of the confusion between earmarks and pork is no more or less bullshit than Bush declaring victory in Iraq back in 2003 - it's what a President must do, in the system we have around us.

Bullshit comparison of the day!

 

[Oldandtired]

No, a talking point is a phrase that sounds really good, but leaves out the "how". A ten word phrase that's designed to make people identify with it. For a talking point to have any actual value, it needs to be expanded upon and justified like any other argument.

For example:

This is a talking point:
"The stimulus package has created or saved millions of jobs"

This is an argument:
"The stimulus money has been put to use towards re-vitalizing the economy of Western New York, now that Gm has invested 470 million dollars on bringing their Tonawanda engine facility up to spec to develop the next generation of engines, in the process creating 500 jobs."

Class dismissed.

I agree 100%.
And I expected you to know the definition as I see you apply it frequently.

Doc, however, uses "talking point" without understanding the difference.

Sort of like how many confuse earmark with pork....and one reason why Obama says "there was not one earmark in the stimulus bill" and half the right goes wild saying there were 9000.

Sadly, Obama knows that many misuse the word earmark...and as opposed to correct them, he lets them make asses of themselves.

Why do you think he does that?

Because, that in a nutshell is a politician's job. Obama's use of the confusion between earmarks and pork is no more or less bullshit than Bush declaring victory in Iraq back in 2003 - it's what a President must do, in the system we have around us.

Take this message board for example:

I wasn't here then, but I was at "another" political message board back in 2007 when Bush was still President - and back then, the liberals were blaming everything on Bush. Now, the conservatives on this board are blaming everything on Obama.

If America as a whole has such little idea of how things really work, there's no choice but have the President as someone who spends 90% of their time justifying and talking and making excuses about what they spend the other 10% of their time doing.

I don't think talking points are a bad thing. If people can't take the time to actually understand something, what other choice is there?

By the way, I work in election politics and writing talking points is a pretty big part of my job - if we're going for full disclosure here.

Well said.
And I certainly do not agree with many of your posts; and most probably never will.....although this post is an exception to the rule....... But I appreciate your approach, and, as you see I know when someone knows more about a topic than I do.
Cya.