Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
gandalf
ParticipantAllan, you’ve got a good point.
If we can get back to a point where compromise is not a bad word, then the traditional dem-regulate and rep-free-market positions will achieve reconciliation somewhere in the OPTIMAL middle. Problem right now is there’s no middle-ground. How do we get back to a country where we are working together and respecting the “other side”?
FYI, part of my support for Obama — remember, I’m a fiscal conservative, part of my support is based on the expectation that the next 4-8 years in US history are going to be incredibly challenging from a financial and economic standpoint. There’s not going to be any money for massive social programs. So I’m not too worried about it.
ParticipantAllan, you’ve got a good point.
If we can get back to a point where compromise is not a bad word, then the traditional dem-regulate and rep-free-market positions will achieve reconciliation somewhere in the OPTIMAL middle. Problem right now is there’s no middle-ground. How do we get back to a country where we are working together and respecting the “other side”?
FYI, part of my support for Obama — remember, I’m a fiscal conservative, part of my support is based on the expectation that the next 4-8 years in US history are going to be incredibly challenging from a financial and economic standpoint. There’s not going to be any money for massive social programs. So I’m not too worried about it.
ParticipantAllan, you’ve got a good point.
If we can get back to a point where compromise is not a bad word, then the traditional dem-regulate and rep-free-market positions will achieve reconciliation somewhere in the OPTIMAL middle. Problem right now is there’s no middle-ground. How do we get back to a country where we are working together and respecting the “other side”?
FYI, part of my support for Obama — remember, I’m a fiscal conservative, part of my support is based on the expectation that the next 4-8 years in US history are going to be incredibly challenging from a financial and economic standpoint. There’s not going to be any money for massive social programs. So I’m not too worried about it.
ParticipantAllan, you’ve got a good point.
If we can get back to a point where compromise is not a bad word, then the traditional dem-regulate and rep-free-market positions will achieve reconciliation somewhere in the OPTIMAL middle. Problem right now is there’s no middle-ground. How do we get back to a country where we are working together and respecting the “other side”?
FYI, part of my support for Obama — remember, I’m a fiscal conservative, part of my support is based on the expectation that the next 4-8 years in US history are going to be incredibly challenging from a financial and economic standpoint. There’s not going to be any money for massive social programs. So I’m not too worried about it.
ParticipantWow, casca. That’s racist.
What you’ve basically implied is Obama is just another black man who doesn’t work, doesn’t have an education, only got ahead because of affirmative action, etc. That’s RACISM in a nutshell.
What stands out the most is the statements you’ve made have almost no basis in reality. The man excelled in a number of extremely competitive environments which require WORK and COMPETITION. The previous poster pointed this out, as well as some other mistruths, with incisive clarity. So basically, you’re not just a lying, dishonest partisan, you’re also a racist. You’re more like marion than you realize.
The only thing you’ve mentioned that seems to have any factual basis is the Rezko connection, which I will confess troubles me as well. Then again, I wonder if there are any politicians out there that can’t be ‘associated’ with a criminal. Seems like most politicians ARE criminals these days, another senator indicted just the other day. The corruption is systemic and it crosses party lines.
All in all, I find the dishonest, lying partisan crap that gets posted here to be OFFENSIVE, particularly when it employs racial stereotypes. It’s depressing to watch a ‘class’ site like Piggs get taken down with all of this noise. We pride ourselves in bringing data and substance. Both McCain and Obama are exceptional individuals, both qualified to be president. I would prefer to see a more respectful and reality-based discussion. And definitely NO RACISM.
ParticipantWow, casca. That’s racist.
What you’ve basically implied is Obama is just another black man who doesn’t work, doesn’t have an education, only got ahead because of affirmative action, etc. That’s RACISM in a nutshell.
What stands out the most is the statements you’ve made have almost no basis in reality. The man excelled in a number of extremely competitive environments which require WORK and COMPETITION. The previous poster pointed this out, as well as some other mistruths, with incisive clarity. So basically, you’re not just a lying, dishonest partisan, you’re also a racist. You’re more like marion than you realize.
The only thing you’ve mentioned that seems to have any factual basis is the Rezko connection, which I will confess troubles me as well. Then again, I wonder if there are any politicians out there that can’t be ‘associated’ with a criminal. Seems like most politicians ARE criminals these days, another senator indicted just the other day. The corruption is systemic and it crosses party lines.
All in all, I find the dishonest, lying partisan crap that gets posted here to be OFFENSIVE, particularly when it employs racial stereotypes. It’s depressing to watch a ‘class’ site like Piggs get taken down with all of this noise. We pride ourselves in bringing data and substance. Both McCain and Obama are exceptional individuals, both qualified to be president. I would prefer to see a more respectful and reality-based discussion. And definitely NO RACISM.
ParticipantWow, casca. That’s racist.
What you’ve basically implied is Obama is just another black man who doesn’t work, doesn’t have an education, only got ahead because of affirmative action, etc. That’s RACISM in a nutshell.
What stands out the most is the statements you’ve made have almost no basis in reality. The man excelled in a number of extremely competitive environments which require WORK and COMPETITION. The previous poster pointed this out, as well as some other mistruths, with incisive clarity. So basically, you’re not just a lying, dishonest partisan, you’re also a racist. You’re more like marion than you realize.
The only thing you’ve mentioned that seems to have any factual basis is the Rezko connection, which I will confess troubles me as well. Then again, I wonder if there are any politicians out there that can’t be ‘associated’ with a criminal. Seems like most politicians ARE criminals these days, another senator indicted just the other day. The corruption is systemic and it crosses party lines.
All in all, I find the dishonest, lying partisan crap that gets posted here to be OFFENSIVE, particularly when it employs racial stereotypes. It’s depressing to watch a ‘class’ site like Piggs get taken down with all of this noise. We pride ourselves in bringing data and substance. Both McCain and Obama are exceptional individuals, both qualified to be president. I would prefer to see a more respectful and reality-based discussion. And definitely NO RACISM.
ParticipantWow, casca. That’s racist.
What you’ve basically implied is Obama is just another black man who doesn’t work, doesn’t have an education, only got ahead because of affirmative action, etc. That’s RACISM in a nutshell.
What stands out the most is the statements you’ve made have almost no basis in reality. The man excelled in a number of extremely competitive environments which require WORK and COMPETITION. The previous poster pointed this out, as well as some other mistruths, with incisive clarity. So basically, you’re not just a lying, dishonest partisan, you’re also a racist. You’re more like marion than you realize.
The only thing you’ve mentioned that seems to have any factual basis is the Rezko connection, which I will confess troubles me as well. Then again, I wonder if there are any politicians out there that can’t be ‘associated’ with a criminal. Seems like most politicians ARE criminals these days, another senator indicted just the other day. The corruption is systemic and it crosses party lines.
All in all, I find the dishonest, lying partisan crap that gets posted here to be OFFENSIVE, particularly when it employs racial stereotypes. It’s depressing to watch a ‘class’ site like Piggs get taken down with all of this noise. We pride ourselves in bringing data and substance. Both McCain and Obama are exceptional individuals, both qualified to be president. I would prefer to see a more respectful and reality-based discussion. And definitely NO RACISM.
ParticipantWow, casca. That’s racist.
What you’ve basically implied is Obama is just another black man who doesn’t work, doesn’t have an education, only got ahead because of affirmative action, etc. That’s RACISM in a nutshell.
What stands out the most is the statements you’ve made have almost no basis in reality. The man excelled in a number of extremely competitive environments which require WORK and COMPETITION. The previous poster pointed this out, as well as some other mistruths, with incisive clarity. So basically, you’re not just a lying, dishonest partisan, you’re also a racist. You’re more like marion than you realize.
The only thing you’ve mentioned that seems to have any factual basis is the Rezko connection, which I will confess troubles me as well. Then again, I wonder if there are any politicians out there that can’t be ‘associated’ with a criminal. Seems like most politicians ARE criminals these days, another senator indicted just the other day. The corruption is systemic and it crosses party lines.
All in all, I find the dishonest, lying partisan crap that gets posted here to be OFFENSIVE, particularly when it employs racial stereotypes. It’s depressing to watch a ‘class’ site like Piggs get taken down with all of this noise. We pride ourselves in bringing data and substance. Both McCain and Obama are exceptional individuals, both qualified to be president. I would prefer to see a more respectful and reality-based discussion. And definitely NO RACISM.
July 31, 2008 at 7:18 PM in reply to: Off Topic: U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. #250066ParticipantIran is not an immediate threat. The world is full of enemies. Some of them have nukes. Iran already has 10-12 nukes from Russia. They’ve had them for years now. The bulk of this discussion is ranting ideological bullshit. If you think we should panic, you’re a big pussy.
Democrats are not your enemy.
None of this has any real bearing on the effectiveness of our foreign policy or the strategic defense of our country. Here are some substantive questions:
How should we deal with Islamic extremism, surrogate armies and two-faced nation-states such as Saudi Arabia? How would you assess our strategic position (overextended in Iraq, focus more on Al Qaeda), our strengths and weaknesses (energy supplies), the effectiveness of our current tactics (improving)? If the hardline Iranian regime is a foe, how do we deal with and neutralize them? Saber-rattling strengthens the hardline regime. Why would we do this? Piss your pants over Iran for christ’s sake. Give me a fucking break.
How do we best harness the capacity of this country to deal with Iran, Al Qaeda and other ongoing threats from abroad? By attacking democrats and liberals, demonizing your fellow Americans? Divide and conquer for political gain? It really needs to stop.
July 31, 2008 at 7:18 PM in reply to: Off Topic: U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. #250221ParticipantIran is not an immediate threat. The world is full of enemies. Some of them have nukes. Iran already has 10-12 nukes from Russia. They’ve had them for years now. The bulk of this discussion is ranting ideological bullshit. If you think we should panic, you’re a big pussy.
Democrats are not your enemy.
None of this has any real bearing on the effectiveness of our foreign policy or the strategic defense of our country. Here are some substantive questions:
How should we deal with Islamic extremism, surrogate armies and two-faced nation-states such as Saudi Arabia? How would you assess our strategic position (overextended in Iraq, focus more on Al Qaeda), our strengths and weaknesses (energy supplies), the effectiveness of our current tactics (improving)? If the hardline Iranian regime is a foe, how do we deal with and neutralize them? Saber-rattling strengthens the hardline regime. Why would we do this? Piss your pants over Iran for christ’s sake. Give me a fucking break.
How do we best harness the capacity of this country to deal with Iran, Al Qaeda and other ongoing threats from abroad? By attacking democrats and liberals, demonizing your fellow Americans? Divide and conquer for political gain? It really needs to stop.
July 31, 2008 at 7:18 PM in reply to: Off Topic: U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. #250228ParticipantIran is not an immediate threat. The world is full of enemies. Some of them have nukes. Iran already has 10-12 nukes from Russia. They’ve had them for years now. The bulk of this discussion is ranting ideological bullshit. If you think we should panic, you’re a big pussy.
Democrats are not your enemy.
None of this has any real bearing on the effectiveness of our foreign policy or the strategic defense of our country. Here are some substantive questions:
How should we deal with Islamic extremism, surrogate armies and two-faced nation-states such as Saudi Arabia? How would you assess our strategic position (overextended in Iraq, focus more on Al Qaeda), our strengths and weaknesses (energy supplies), the effectiveness of our current tactics (improving)? If the hardline Iranian regime is a foe, how do we deal with and neutralize them? Saber-rattling strengthens the hardline regime. Why would we do this? Piss your pants over Iran for christ’s sake. Give me a fucking break.
How do we best harness the capacity of this country to deal with Iran, Al Qaeda and other ongoing threats from abroad? By attacking democrats and liberals, demonizing your fellow Americans? Divide and conquer for political gain? It really needs to stop.
July 31, 2008 at 7:18 PM in reply to: Off Topic: U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. #250286ParticipantIran is not an immediate threat. The world is full of enemies. Some of them have nukes. Iran already has 10-12 nukes from Russia. They’ve had them for years now. The bulk of this discussion is ranting ideological bullshit. If you think we should panic, you’re a big pussy.
Democrats are not your enemy.
None of this has any real bearing on the effectiveness of our foreign policy or the strategic defense of our country. Here are some substantive questions:
How should we deal with Islamic extremism, surrogate armies and two-faced nation-states such as Saudi Arabia? How would you assess our strategic position (overextended in Iraq, focus more on Al Qaeda), our strengths and weaknesses (energy supplies), the effectiveness of our current tactics (improving)? If the hardline Iranian regime is a foe, how do we deal with and neutralize them? Saber-rattling strengthens the hardline regime. Why would we do this? Piss your pants over Iran for christ’s sake. Give me a fucking break.
How do we best harness the capacity of this country to deal with Iran, Al Qaeda and other ongoing threats from abroad? By attacking democrats and liberals, demonizing your fellow Americans? Divide and conquer for political gain? It really needs to stop.
July 31, 2008 at 7:18 PM in reply to: Off Topic: U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. #250294ParticipantIran is not an immediate threat. The world is full of enemies. Some of them have nukes. Iran already has 10-12 nukes from Russia. They’ve had them for years now. The bulk of this discussion is ranting ideological bullshit. If you think we should panic, you’re a big pussy.
Democrats are not your enemy.
None of this has any real bearing on the effectiveness of our foreign policy or the strategic defense of our country. Here are some substantive questions:
How should we deal with Islamic extremism, surrogate armies and two-faced nation-states such as Saudi Arabia? How would you assess our strategic position (overextended in Iraq, focus more on Al Qaeda), our strengths and weaknesses (energy supplies), the effectiveness of our current tactics (improving)? If the hardline Iranian regime is a foe, how do we deal with and neutralize them? Saber-rattling strengthens the hardline regime. Why would we do this? Piss your pants over Iran for christ’s sake. Give me a fucking break.
How do we best harness the capacity of this country to deal with Iran, Al Qaeda and other ongoing threats from abroad? By attacking democrats and liberals, demonizing your fellow Americans? Divide and conquer for political gain? It really needs to stop.
-
AuthorPosts
