Deleted
Joined: May 10, 2024 5:07:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 18:55:28 GMT -5
Obamacare didn't appear in the OP? Really? I must have imagined the following: and i was looking for "ObamaCare" in the OP. i didn't find it. so, yes- if you did, then you must have imagined it. Palin was suggesting that "fraud" was grounds for impeachment here, not the ACA.(Obamacare is in "the list of abuse" that goes on and on) but no SPECIFIC mention of the ACA as grounds for impeachment, right? (actually, i was kinda surprised by that. Palin missed a chance there).Touche on the vacuum reference (although, since my posts don't suck... it's not quite the valid reference you tried to make it ). your posts are fine- your analogy sucked. Regarding your bolded rebuttals... First one: Remind me, if you remember... what was Obama pushing when he made that "If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor. If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."... Was it war in the middle East? Was it Gay Marriage? Was is re-invigorating NASA? I seem to recall it was Obamacare. I could be wrong though. Second one: Part A> See the "First one" (That "If you like... you can keep..." is pretty SPECIFIC in what it's related to) Part B> I agree that Palin could have had a REALLY good mention of that. NO argument there. BUT, "specific mention" isn't really required in this kind of "amateur rant/whine by Palin, because smart people know about Obama's list, and know that Obamacare is on it. As to the comment after the quote (with included commentary, in the quote, by you)... my analogy was perfect. If it went over your head, my sincere apologies.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,179
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2014 18:59:01 GMT -5
your posts are fine- your analogy sucked. Regarding your bolded rebuttals... First one: Remind me, if you remember... not going to play that game. just answer me this: was Palin suggesting that Obama be impeached for fraud about statements he made, or about the ACA? was ObamaCare mentioned in the OP? conclusion: i looked. i didn't find. if you want to argue about what WAS there, that is fine. but i am arguing about what was NOT there. edit: we are now arguing about whether or not the OP said anything about ObamaCare, which is even FURTHER off topic. how does that jibe with your edict to remain faithful to the subject matter of threads? isn't it time to move on, Richard?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,179
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2014 19:00:13 GMT -5
As to the comment after the quote (with included commentary, in the quote, by you)... my analogy was perfect. ok, we have established that you are neither Amish nor humble. good to know.If it went over your head, my sincere apologies. well, i am pretty thick. let's go with that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 10, 2024 5:07:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 19:14:45 GMT -5
Regarding your bolded rebuttals... First one: Remind me, if you remember... not going to play that game. just answer me this: was Palin suggesting that Obama be impeached for fraud about statements he made, or about the ACA? was ObamaCare mentioned in the OP? conclusion: i looked. i didn't find. if you want to argue about what WAS there, that is fine. but i am arguing about what was NOT there. edit: we are now arguing about whether or not the OP said anything about ObamaCare, which is even FURTHER off topic. how does that jibe with your edict to remain faithful to the subject matter of threads? isn't it time to move on, Richard? "faithful to the subject matter of threads"... remind me... what's the Title of this thread? His numerous illegal changes to Obamacare are all worthy of impeachment. But that's not the issue at hand... a comment was made that was "thread related", and I replied appropriate to both the thread and the comment. You are the one taking this off into flights of fancy. If you "looked but didn't find"... then you didn't look hard enough. It was there, plain and simple, for me to see. As to your first question about what Palin was suggesting... Palin is a twit that doesn't understand how our Government works, so what she wants she can't articulate appropriately. I take that into consideration.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 15, 2014 20:58:39 GMT -5
And there you go- Palin is a twit Refreshing to argue with people that are not defined by the party they may even support. As far as I am concerned if someone supports the party line 100% then they are brain dead.
I like the billionaire thing the other day- they are the richest men on the planet and they can compromise- why the hell can't congress?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 15, 2014 22:10:34 GMT -5
And there you go- Palin is a twit Refreshing to argue with people that are not defined by the party they may even support. As far as I am concerned if someone supports the party line 100% then they are brain dead.
I like the billionaire thing the other day- they are the richest men on the planet and they can compromise- why the hell can't congress? Give one example of a reasonable compromise the US executive branch has offered the House in 2014. By "reasonable", I mean conceding to 40% or more of the Republicans' demands in exchange for 60% of demands they oppose.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,179
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2014 23:33:53 GMT -5
not going to play that game. just answer me this: was Palin suggesting that Obama be impeached for fraud about statements he made, or about the ACA? was ObamaCare mentioned in the OP? conclusion: i looked. i didn't find. if you want to argue about what WAS there, that is fine. but i am arguing about what was NOT there. edit: we are now arguing about whether or not the OP said anything about ObamaCare, which is even FURTHER off topic. how does that jibe with your edict to remain faithful to the subject matter of threads? isn't it time to move on, Richard? "faithful to the subject matter of threads"... remind me... what's the Title of this thread? the case for Obama's impeachment.His numerous illegal changes to Obamacare are all worthy of impeachment. iyo. but Palin didn't actually mention the changes, tho- did she?But that's not the issue at hand... a comment was made that was "thread related", and I replied appropriate to both the thread and the comment. You are the one taking this off into flights of fancy. is that so? If you "looked but didn't find"... then you didn't look hard enough. It was there, plain and simple, for me to see. i still can't find any reference to ObamaCare, and i have scoured it word for word.As to your first question about what Palin was suggesting... Palin is a twit that doesn't understand how our Government works, so what she wants she can't articulate appropriately. I take that into consideration. yeah, but she is super cute, right?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,179
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2014 23:59:33 GMT -5
Richard: we are having a minor disagreement about what the OP says. so here, let me be totally clear, and maybe we can bridge it.
Palin does not specifically mention ObamaCare in the OP. she mentions one IMPACT of the ACA, and the fact that Obama prevaricated about it. in HER opinion (not mine, but hers, and possibly many others), that is an offense that he should be impeached for. however, she is not saying that the ACA itself is impeachable. she is not saying that any CHANGES made in it are impeachable, either.
now it is true that YOU ARE, and that therefore this is congruent with the topic. i agree that you THINK that these facts are impeachable. i got that. i don't. you do. others do. that is fine. my ONLY claim is that this point is not bourne out in the OP. if we can BOTH get past that, i concede that it is on topic.
but i think whether or not he is impeachable is ALSO a part of this topic. you seem to think that this is a distraction. i don't. i think it is totally relevant.
if a president can engage in a money laundering scheme that involves trading drugs for weapons used for terrorists, defying an act of congress, and not get impeached for it, then i am really having a hard time figuring out how Obama delaying certain aspects of his signature legislation rises not just to that level, but BEYOND it. if Obama had done what Reagan did, they would have dispensed with the proceedings, and just dragged him out into the Capital Mall and publicly drawn and quartered him.
how times have changed.
but you know what- if your team can crucify Saint Barack, be my guest. but make sure you put Bush right up there with him.
_END_
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,170
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 16, 2014 0:03:21 GMT -5
Tina Fey is better. And with Palin, the gag would be NECESSARY, not part of any S&M or domination thing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,179
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 16, 2014 0:05:44 GMT -5
Tina Fey is better. And with Palin, the gag would be NECESSARY, not part of any S&M or domination thing. i really wish i didn't speak English, sometimes.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,170
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 16, 2014 0:13:46 GMT -5
Or that she didn't.... But honestly, I'd settle for all of her comments getting exactly the level of media play that they deserve. The silence would be golden.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 10, 2024 5:07:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 18:38:52 GMT -5
but you know what- if your team can crucify Saint Barack, be my guest. but make sure you put Bush right up there with him. _END_ I'm basically not going to comment on everything else in this post... because, at this point it's just me saying the same thing and you rebutting the same rebuttal... so... pointless... But on what I quoted, that I'll comment on: I happily crucify Bush for things he did. No doubts there.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 27, 2014 1:41:41 GMT -5
Lots of impeachment chatter going around. Go ahead. Idiocy knows no bounds.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,179
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2014 9:35:12 GMT -5
Lots of impeachment chatter going around. Go ahead. Idiocy knows no bounds. i have never seen so much solidarity on the left before. if the GOP keeps going, they are going to make it pretty much impossible to peel off Reagan Democrats for the next decade.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 27, 2014 11:38:59 GMT -5
Just for the record, you do condemn the left for shielding Great Leader at all costs, no? You've been outspoken in your criticism of Republican brass that shielded Pres. Bush during his tenure, and you've said on several occasions that Pres. Obama should be tried for war crimes. It stands to reason you'd be equally vexed by senior Democrats circling the wagons with the attitude that Pres. Obama can do whatever he darn well wants to do. Reply #74 seems oddly like an endorsement for the Republicans to give up and let Pres. Obama do whatever he darn well wants to do.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Jul 27, 2014 11:50:44 GMT -5
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jul 27, 2014 15:27:46 GMT -5
As far as I am concerned if someone supports the party line 100% then they are brain dead.
This goes both directions. I'm so glad bho is almost a has-been. The best thing that could happen is for everyone to ignore him ...... but I know with his ego he won't allow the media to do that.
I'm against impeachment of the white house idiot. I remember when willie Clinton was impeached. Congress wasted a lot of time and nothing came of it.
Hmmmmmm, maybe congress wasting time on bho impeachment isn't such a bad idea. Will keep them from other destructive things.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 27, 2014 16:39:44 GMT -5
Of course it goes both ways. Most people would hate to be pigeon-holed by whatever the people they may tend to vote for stands for.
Although around here- that seems to be the norm. You are either a tea-bag lunatic or a dirty liberal. Not sure why but some people tend to ignore what people actually say and conclude everything about the other person.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,179
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2014 17:46:52 GMT -5
Virgil: post 74 is an analysis of the political situation, not an endorsement of anything.
if the GOP impeaches Obama, they will lose conservative Democrats, imo. i consider that a fact.
do i think they should impeach him? if it is for war crimes, his use of drones, and spying, sure. i have been a strong advocate of impeaching imperial presidents since i was eligible to vote. if it is for his use of executive privilege, Benghazi, and any of a thousand other silly things, then no. if you are going to do it, make it good. make it matter. that way, the next president is appropriately restrained.
for the record, i think what Boehner is doing is "testing the water". i seriously doubt it will go very far.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,179
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2014 17:48:27 GMT -5
electors don't vote in midterms.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 10, 2024 5:07:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 18:05:10 GMT -5
electors don't vote in midterms. Who said anything about Electors?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,179
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2014 18:06:31 GMT -5
electors don't vote in midterms. Who said anything about Electors? Stockman. if you think i am misinterpreting what he said, then help me understand what he meant.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Jul 27, 2014 18:14:29 GMT -5
e·lec·tor·al iˈlektərəl adjective of or relating to elections or electors. "electoral reform" www.electoral-vote.com/Track the 2014 Senate election with a red/blue map of the US updated daily using the latest state polls.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 10, 2024 5:07:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 18:14:48 GMT -5
Who said anything about Electors? Stockman. if you think i am misinterpreting what he said, then help me understand what he meant. The "Democratic party base" is the voters that are registered Democrat. And Voters will be voting in mid-terms.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,179
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2014 18:17:34 GMT -5
e·lec·tor·al iˈlektərəl adjective of or relating to elections or electors. "electoral reform" i am familiar with the term, thanks. thus, my statement, "electors don't vote in midterms". edit: i DO like that website, btw. they have an excellent analysis of why Rasmussen sucks, there.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,179
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2014 18:19:01 GMT -5
Stockman. if you think i am misinterpreting what he said, then help me understand what he meant. The "Democratic party base" is the voters that are registered Democrat. And Voters will be voting in mid-terms. yes. what does that have to do with their "electoral chances"? electors are designated on the basis of presidential election turnouts, not midterms. edit: oh, and by the way, elections are not determined by party affiliation, except in closed primaries. edit2: ok, i think i see what he was TRYING to say, now. he was using "electoral" the way most people use "election"- in the GENERAL sense. so, that was a very awkward and confusing way of putting it- but he wasn't referring to electors, i guess. what made it EXTRA confusing is that he said "electoral" and Obama in the same statement. that IMPLIED that he was talking about presidential elections. thanks. i figured that Stockman was trying to say something that was not obvious. but apparently he is simply saying what everyone else is: that impeachment is bad politics for the GOP. DUH.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 10, 2024 5:07:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 18:28:05 GMT -5
The "Democratic party base" is the voters that are registered Democrat. And Voters will be voting in mid-terms. yes. what does that have to do with their "electoral chances"? electors are designated on the basis of presidential election turnouts, not midterms. edit: oh, and by the way, elections are not determined by party affiliation, except in closed primaries.edit2: ok, i think i see what he was TRYING to say, now. he was using "electoral" the way most people use "election"- in the GENERAL sense. so, that was a very awkward and confusing way of putting it- but he wasn't referring to electors, i guess. what made it EXTRA confusing is that he said "electoral" and Obama in the same statement. that IMPLIED that he was talking about presidential elections. thanks. Never said they were... but a REGISTERED Democrat is more likely (not "100% guaranteed"... but "more likely") to vote Democrat... otherwise why would he/she be registered that way?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,179
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2014 18:30:59 GMT -5
yes. what does that have to do with their "electoral chances"? electors are designated on the basis of presidential election turnouts, not midterms. edit: oh, and by the way, elections are not determined by party affiliation, except in closed primaries.edit2: ok, i think i see what he was TRYING to say, now. he was using "electoral" the way most people use "election"- in the GENERAL sense. so, that was a very awkward and confusing way of putting it- but he wasn't referring to electors, i guess. what made it EXTRA confusing is that he said "electoral" and Obama in the same statement. that IMPLIED that he was talking about presidential elections. thanks. Never said they were... but a REGISTERED Democrat is more likely (not "100% guaranteed"... but "more likely") to vote Democrat... otherwise why would he/she be registered that way? if we are not talking about electoral politics then i have already conceded the point. thanks for helping.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 27, 2014 18:40:17 GMT -5
e·lec·tor·al iˈlektərəl adjective of or relating to elections or electors. "electoral reform" i am familiar with the term, thanks. thus, my statement, "electors don't vote in midterms". edit: i DO like that website, btw. they have an excellent analysis of why Rasmussen sucks, there. I'd like to know- Rasmussen used to be respectable. Why would any polling group want bias? If anything it turns out the other side. And of course it sometimes makes Karl Rove look like a complete idiot
How are we losing!!!!!! The numbers man!!!!!It can't be happening!!!!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,179
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2014 18:53:52 GMT -5
i am familiar with the term, thanks. thus, my statement, "electors don't vote in midterms". edit: i DO like that website, btw. they have an excellent analysis of why Rasmussen sucks, there. I'd like to know- Rasmussen used to be respectable. Why would any polling group want bias? If anything it turns out the other side. And of course it sometimes makes Karl Rove look like a complete idiot
How are we losing!!!!!! The numbers man!!!!!It can't be happening!!!!
sure, i will go grab the link. but here are the facts: since Rasmussen was acquired by News Corp, their polling quality has steadily dropped, to the point where a lot of poll surveyors now use "Rasmussen Free" aggregations. i have taken the cue from them, and now do the same. if a polling service allows for recompiling without Rasmussen, i do that, and generally get a more accurate result (ie, the 2012 election). www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Info/rasmussen.htmledit: Rasmussens polls were off by an AVERAGE of 5.8% (well beyond the margin of error), with a 3.9% GOP bias (also beyond margin of error). when you are off that much, you pretty much suck as a pollster. anything outside of MOE indicates a flawed methodology, and Rasmussen very much has that. the reasons why are discussed above.
|
|