CNN/ORC Poll: Bush surges to 2016 GOP frontrunner

[Vigilante]

And Synthahol isn't arguing that, he's arguing that Reagan was unelectable even though he won.

No I'm not. I'm arguing that Carter could very well have beaten Reagan if he had a united Democratic Party behind him throughout his presidency, which he never did, just like Obama now.

When Oliver North's mission to rescue the hostages failed, Carter didn't have Democrats defending him, the way Republicans defend their presidents, or even as much as Clinton got. Carter was always the outsider, the peanut farmer from Georgia. Kennedy fractured the Party with his candidacy. Who the hell challenges a sitting president of their own Party? An privileged egomaniac, that's who.

But I never said that Reagan was unelectable. He was an actor, after all.

OK, so my point was that Reagan was considered "unelectable" because he wasn't moderate. You actually were arguing with me without actually disagreeing with the point I made. How stupid is that? Why were you wasting my time with that?

No, you misread what I said.

I never implied Reagan was unelectable. I said that he was beatable with a unified Democratic Party.

The problem was that Carter was unelectable

With runaway inflation, a horrible economy and the Iran Hostage crisis....any Republican would have won in 1980

And just think (I know that's funny, but try!) ALL of those were caused by a DemocRAT!

 

[kaz]

Teabaggers aren't fiscal conservatives, they are anarchists willing to expose the nation to enormous damage based on half-baked ideas.

Anarchists? What an idiot you are. None of the tea baggers are anarchists. You're just make it up.

People who want to default on America's debts are anarchists.

Sorry to break it to you.

TeaTard motto:
Let the economy crumble, let millions suffer, let the unemployment lines grow

Just as long as billionaires get to pay low taxes

Typical parasite reaction to any indication the host you are feeding on is tired of paying you to not work.

Actually, most Americans are working

But they are finding that their labor is valued less and less. They have less free time, fewer benefits, no job security. For the first time in generations, children realize they will not be better off than their parents

You're just making up all that crap, big guy.

 

[kaz]

As for why that data was irrelevant, I already answered that.

No you didn't. Not with any counter-data or counter-facts.

What was my argument?

I didn't see where you made any. You just dismissed the data as irrelevant.

If I missed a post, I apologize.

OK, fair enough. I pointed out that it's self described "conservatives." I also pointed out Hillary Clinton calls herself a fiscal conservative. It's not self described conservatives who stayed home, it's actual conservatives, particularly social conservatives and libertarian leaning fiscal conservatives. Self described conservatives means nothing. It doesn't prove me right either, it proves nothing. That data is irrelevant.

Your statement was that I said "data is irrelevant" as a sweeping statement. I never said that, it's a ridiculous statement. Data can be good or bad. Just showing stats on what "conservatives" do without looking at how that is measured is not critical thinking.

But it's been shown that conservatives did not stay home, unless those same conservatives stayed home in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, & 1980.

The numbers don't lie.

begging the question

 

[rightwinger]

And Synthahol isn't arguing that, he's arguing that Reagan was unelectable even though he won.

No I'm not. I'm arguing that Carter could very well have beaten Reagan if he had a united Democratic Party behind him throughout his presidency, which he never did, just like Obama now.

When Oliver North's mission to rescue the hostages failed, Carter didn't have Democrats defending him, the way Republicans defend their presidents, or even as much as Clinton got. Carter was always the outsider, the peanut farmer from Georgia. Kennedy fractured the Party with his candidacy. Who the hell challenges a sitting president of their own Party? An privileged egomaniac, that's who.

But I never said that Reagan was unelectable. He was an actor, after all.

OK, so my point was that Reagan was considered "unelectable" because he wasn't moderate. You actually were arguing with me without actually disagreeing with the point I made. How stupid is that? Why were you wasting my time with that?

No, you misread what I said.

I never implied Reagan was unelectable. I said that he was beatable with a unified Democratic Party.

The problem was that Carter was unelectable

With runaway inflation, a horrible economy and the Iran Hostage crisis....any Republican would have won in 1980

And just think (I know that's funny, but try!) ALL of those were caused by a DemocRAT!

Carter and the Democrats paid a price in 1980

Just like Republicans paid a price for the economy and Iraq in 2008

 

[rightwinger]

Anarchists? What an idiot you are. None of the tea baggers are anarchists. You're just make it up.

People who want to default on America's debts are anarchists.

Sorry to break it to you.

TeaTard motto:
Let the economy crumble, let millions suffer, let the unemployment lines grow

Just as long as billionaires get to pay low taxes

Typical parasite reaction to any indication the host you are feeding on is tired of paying you to not work.

Actually, most Americans are working

But they are finding that their labor is valued less and less. They have less free time, fewer benefits, no job security. For the first time in generations, children realize they will not be better off than their parents

You're just making up all that crap, big guy.

You think that is made up?

Which cave are you inhabiting?

 

[Vigilante]

No I'm not. I'm arguing that Carter could very well have beaten Reagan if he had a united Democratic Party behind him throughout his presidency, which he never did, just like Obama now.

When Oliver North's mission to rescue the hostages failed, Carter didn't have Democrats defending him, the way Republicans defend their presidents, or even as much as Clinton got. Carter was always the outsider, the peanut farmer from Georgia. Kennedy fractured the Party with his candidacy. Who the hell challenges a sitting president of their own Party? An privileged egomaniac, that's who.

But I never said that Reagan was unelectable. He was an actor, after all.

OK, so my point was that Reagan was considered "unelectable" because he wasn't moderate. You actually were arguing with me without actually disagreeing with the point I made. How stupid is that? Why were you wasting my time with that?

No, you misread what I said.

I never implied Reagan was unelectable. I said that he was beatable with a unified Democratic Party.

The problem was that Carter was unelectable

With runaway inflation, a horrible economy and the Iran Hostage crisis....any Republican would have won in 1980

And just think (I know that's funny, but try!) ALL of those were caused by a DemocRAT!

Carter and the Democrats paid a price in 1980

Just like Republicans paid a price for the economy and Iraq in 2008

And it will happen again in 2016 with all the RACIST junk the Democrats are pushing.... Order is ALWAYS more preferable to the citizenry than CHAOS!

 

[kaz]

First of all, no one wanted to default on the debt

You're so fucking easy!

Mike Lee: I Want America’s ‘House To Come Down’ Unless Congress Votes To Rewrite Constitution

Easy because you don't read your own links. Nowhere did he say we would default on the debt. You never get tired of repeating a lie, do you?

That was the whole premise of the conversation - that in 10 days we were going to have that debt-ceiling crisis if he (and the other teabaggers) didn't get a Constitutional Amendment!

Here ya go:

The Republican positions on raising the debt ceiling included:

• A Dollar-for-dollar deal; that is, raise the debt ceiling to match corresponding spending cuts[62]
• More of the budget cuts in the first two years[62]
• Spending caps[62]
• A Balanced Budget Amendment – to pass Congress and be sent to states for ratification[63][64]
• No tax increases but tax reform could be considered[65]

(One representative, Ron Paul, proposed transferring $1.6 trillion of Federal Reserve assets to the government and destroying those bonds, thereby reducing the United States gross federal debt by the same amount[66] This would violate the property rights of national banks who own the Federal Reserve Banks.[67])​

It was blackmail against the nation with a ransom that Americans opposed.

OK, I'll explain it again. You said "default" on the debt. Interest on the debt is the first thing government has to pay. Let's say:

- Revenues coming are $1T.

- Debt payments are $200B

- In your ongoing government spending orgy, you want to spent $1.5T.

- The total outstanding debt is $15T.

- The debt ceiling is $15T.

We can still spend the $1T coming in, we just can't borrow the other $500B you want to spend. So, we pay $200B, then you still have $800B ($1T-$200B) of money earned by other people to waste. What you can't do is borrow the other $500B ($1.5T-$1T) of money earned by other people you want to waste.

"Defaulting on the debt" means we don't make debt payments. We would make debt payments. Which means we would not default on the debt. Democrats know that. Here's the 411, it's a lie. Wow, politicians lying to you. You just didn't see that coming, did you?

S&P downgraded the U.S. credit rating.

Do you think they were fooled by lying politicians, too?

The S&P was trying to get the attention of both political parties who were endlessly threatening each other.

The S&P move was also political. If the US government went down, then the entire western economy would collapse. Picture an insurance company insuring a dam and also a house downstream from the dam that if the dam goes it will take out the house.

Now imagine rating insuring the house as less risky than insuring the dam. It's retarded. The S&P wasn't fooled by politicians, but it was a political move.

 

[kaz]

And Synthahol isn't arguing that, he's arguing that Reagan was unelectable even though he won.

No I'm not. I'm arguing that Carter could very well have beaten Reagan if he had a united Democratic Party behind him throughout his presidency, which he never did, just like Obama now.

When Oliver North's mission to rescue the hostages failed, Carter didn't have Democrats defending him, the way Republicans defend their presidents, or even as much as Clinton got. Carter was always the outsider, the peanut farmer from Georgia. Kennedy fractured the Party with his candidacy. Who the hell challenges a sitting president of their own Party? An privileged egomaniac, that's who.

But I never said that Reagan was unelectable. He was an actor, after all.

OK, so my point was that Reagan was considered "unelectable" because he wasn't moderate. You actually were arguing with me without actually disagreeing with the point I made. How stupid is that? Why were you wasting my time with that?

No, you misread what I said.

I never implied Reagan was unelectable. I said that he was beatable with a unified Democratic Party.

Again, that doesn't contradict what I said, so I don't know why you were arguing with me. Unelectable doesn't mean you don't win an election, it means you can't win an election. In your scenario, Reagan was still electable.

 

[Vigilante]

Jeb's entry and the problem with Common Core

Washington Examiner ^

Jeb Bush's early entry into the 2016 presidential campaign has already turned the Obama administration's Common Core education standards into one of the hottest topics among conservatives ahead of the 2016 primary. Bush, who had left office as Florida's governor by the time the standards were unveiled, doggedly supported them, both in his personal statements and through his nonprofit Foundation for Excellence in Education. The standards were and are controversial, facing ferocious opposition both from Tea Party conservatives and teachers unions. The most dramatic political manifestation of the anti-Common Core movement occurred in the 2012 election in Indiana, where conservative...

 

[kaz]

Anarchists? What an idiot you are. None of the tea baggers are anarchists. You're just make it up.

People who want to default on America's debts are anarchists.

Sorry to break it to you.

TeaTard motto:
Let the economy crumble, let millions suffer, let the unemployment lines grow

Just as long as billionaires get to pay low taxes

Paraphrasing Bill Maher, he said "Isn't it amazing that the goals of Tea Party are the exact same as the goals of the Koch Brothers?"

Too much government taxes and spending, yes it is. The problem with both of them is they don't go far enough. They don't want to put the pig on a crash diet, just cut out a couple snacks and drop a couple pounds.

Crash diets often are dangerous.

So is continuing to gorge because you don't like diets.

 

[kaz]

And Synthahol isn't arguing that, he's arguing that Reagan was unelectable even though he won.

No I'm not. I'm arguing that Carter could very well have beaten Reagan if he had a united Democratic Party behind him throughout his presidency, which he never did, just like Obama now.

When Oliver North's mission to rescue the hostages failed, Carter didn't have Democrats defending him, the way Republicans defend their presidents, or even as much as Clinton got. Carter was always the outsider, the peanut farmer from Georgia. Kennedy fractured the Party with his candidacy. Who the hell challenges a sitting president of their own Party? An privileged egomaniac, that's who.

But I never said that Reagan was unelectable. He was an actor, after all.

OK, so my point was that Reagan was considered "unelectable" because he wasn't moderate. You actually were arguing with me without actually disagreeing with the point I made. How stupid is that? Why were you wasting my time with that?

No, you misread what I said.

I never implied Reagan was unelectable. I said that he was beatable with a unified Democratic Party.

The problem was that Carter was unelectable

With runaway inflation, a horrible economy and the Iran Hostage crisis....any Republican would have won in 1980

That's "unelectable" in an entirely different sense of the word. Carter as a candidate was clearly not unelectable since he won the Presidency.

 

[Dana7360]

No, I think you're afraid of Cruz, Sessions, Gowdy, Lee, Carson, and West. Your mention of Palin and the others is your attempt at distraction. You fear the ones you mentioned first, especially Cruz.

curz has dual citizenship with Canada.

I don't know about you but most Americans want a president who has citizenship to one nation. America.

Speaking for myself, cruz isn't even an American. I don't consider a man who was born in Canada and has citizenship to Canada an American citizen with the ability to be our president.

On top of that he's stupid and has a god complex. If you think that anyone is afraid of cruz being president I've got a wonderful bridge to sell you right in the middle of the Mojave Desert.

But you consider a communist, born in Kenya, an American citizen with the ability to be our president. There goes your credibility.

Your premise is false.

It's extremely false.

If Obama is a communist then he's the worst communist on the planet.

If he was a communist the following would have happened nearly 6 years ago:

All businesses would have been confiscated by the government. The government would own all business. All Americans would work for the government. All profits would be property of the government.

All land and real estate would have been confiscated by the government. All Americans would be paying rent to the government.

All farms would have been confiscated by the government. All farms would be turned into collectives and all profits would be the property of the government.

All health care, hospitals and clinics would be property of the government with all profits going to the government.

The stock market and nasdaq would be closed. There would be no stocks, no stockholders and no dividends to pay to anyone.

All natural resources would be confiscated by the government and nationalized. All profits would be property of the government.

All banks would be seized by the government with all profits going to the government.

None of the above has happened.

When teagaggers/birthers claim that Obama is a communist they are either lying or don't know the meaning of words in the english language. Or both.

Obama was born in Hawaii on the island of Oahu in August 1961. The records have been released. Only a person who is an extremely special kind of stupid would make the statements that teabagger/birther posted.

This is for the stupid people.

Incrementalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Wow not only are you a very special kind of stupid but you're also a liar.

You used the word COMMUNIST. Not Incrementalism.

So now that I've shown you to be a liar you lie more and claim that Obama is an incrementalist and try to change what you said.

How about trying honesty for once in your life?

 

[kaz]

No I'm not. I'm arguing that Carter could very well have beaten Reagan if he had a united Democratic Party behind him throughout his presidency, which he never did, just like Obama now.

When Oliver North's mission to rescue the hostages failed, Carter didn't have Democrats defending him, the way Republicans defend their presidents, or even as much as Clinton got. Carter was always the outsider, the peanut farmer from Georgia. Kennedy fractured the Party with his candidacy. Who the hell challenges a sitting president of their own Party? An privileged egomaniac, that's who.

But I never said that Reagan was unelectable. He was an actor, after all.

OK, so my point was that Reagan was considered "unelectable" because he wasn't moderate. You actually were arguing with me without actually disagreeing with the point I made. How stupid is that? Why were you wasting my time with that?

No, you misread what I said.

I never implied Reagan was unelectable. I said that he was beatable with a unified Democratic Party.

The problem was that Carter was unelectable

With runaway inflation, a horrible economy and the Iran Hostage crisis....any Republican would have won in 1980

And just think (I know that's funny, but try!) ALL of those were caused by a DemocRAT!

Carter and the Democrats paid a price in 1980

Just like Republicans paid a price for the economy and Iraq in 2008

The difference was Reagan bounced back the economy and lit a 25 year run while Obama has kept the economy down and the people out of work.

But hey, the rich are getting richer under Obama, you keep crowing about the stock market!

 

[Vigilante]

curz has dual citizenship with Canada.

I don't know about you but most Americans want a president who has citizenship to one nation. America.

Speaking for myself, cruz isn't even an American. I don't consider a man who was born in Canada and has citizenship to Canada an American citizen with the ability to be our president.

On top of that he's stupid and has a god complex. If you think that anyone is afraid of cruz being president I've got a wonderful bridge to sell you right in the middle of the Mojave Desert.

But you consider a communist, born in Kenya, an American citizen with the ability to be our president. There goes your credibility.

Your premise is false.

It's extremely false.

If Obama is a communist then he's the worst communist on the planet.

If he was a communist the following would have happened nearly 6 years ago:

All businesses would have been confiscated by the government. The government would own all business. All Americans would work for the government. All profits would be property of the government.

All land and real estate would have been confiscated by the government. All Americans would be paying rent to the government.

All farms would have been confiscated by the government. All farms would be turned into collectives and all profits would be the property of the government.

All health care, hospitals and clinics would be property of the government with all profits going to the government.

The stock market and nasdaq would be closed. There would be no stocks, no stockholders and no dividends to pay to anyone.

All natural resources would be confiscated by the government and nationalized. All profits would be property of the government.

All banks would be seized by the government with all profits going to the government.

None of the above has happened.

When teagaggers/birthers claim that Obama is a communist they are either lying or don't know the meaning of words in the english language. Or both.

Obama was born in Hawaii on the island of Oahu in August 1961. The records have been released. Only a person who is an extremely special kind of stupid would make the statements that teabagger/birther posted.

This is for the stupid people.

Incrementalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Wow not only are you a very special kind of stupid but you're also a liar.

You used the word COMMUNIST. Not Incrementalism.

So now that I've shown you to be a liar you lie more and claim that Obama isn't a communist and try to change what you said.

How about trying honesty for once in your life?

Wake up, stupid subversive!

 

[rightwinger]

And Synthahol isn't arguing that, he's arguing that Reagan was unelectable even though he won.

No I'm not. I'm arguing that Carter could very well have beaten Reagan if he had a united Democratic Party behind him throughout his presidency, which he never did, just like Obama now.

When Oliver North's mission to rescue the hostages failed, Carter didn't have Democrats defending him, the way Republicans defend their presidents, or even as much as Clinton got. Carter was always the outsider, the peanut farmer from Georgia. Kennedy fractured the Party with his candidacy. Who the hell challenges a sitting president of their own Party? An privileged egomaniac, that's who.

But I never said that Reagan was unelectable. He was an actor, after all.

OK, so my point was that Reagan was considered "unelectable" because he wasn't moderate. You actually were arguing with me without actually disagreeing with the point I made. How stupid is that? Why were you wasting my time with that?

No, you misread what I said.

I never implied Reagan was unelectable. I said that he was beatable with a unified Democratic Party.

The problem was that Carter was unelectable

With runaway inflation, a horrible economy and the Iran Hostage crisis....any Republican would have won in 1980

That's "unelectable" in an entirely different sense of the word. Carter as a candidate was clearly not unelectable since he won the Presidency.

Carter did not win in 1980

 

[Dana7360]

But you consider a communist, born in Kenya, an American citizen with the ability to be our president. There goes your credibility.

Your premise is false.

It's extremely false.

If Obama is a communist then he's the worst communist on the planet.

If he was a communist the following would have happened nearly 6 years ago:

All businesses would have been confiscated by the government. The government would own all business. All Americans would work for the government. All profits would be property of the government.

All land and real estate would have been confiscated by the government. All Americans would be paying rent to the government.

All farms would have been confiscated by the government. All farms would be turned into collectives and all profits would be the property of the government.

All health care, hospitals and clinics would be property of the government with all profits going to the government.

The stock market and nasdaq would be closed. There would be no stocks, no stockholders and no dividends to pay to anyone.

All natural resources would be confiscated by the government and nationalized. All profits would be property of the government.

All banks would be seized by the government with all profits going to the government.

None of the above has happened.

When teagaggers/birthers claim that Obama is a communist they are either lying or don't know the meaning of words in the english language. Or both.

Obama was born in Hawaii on the island of Oahu in August 1961. The records have been released. Only a person who is an extremely special kind of stupid would make the statements that teabagger/birther posted.

This is for the stupid people.

Incrementalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Wow not only are you a very special kind of stupid but you're also a liar.

You used the word COMMUNIST. Not Incrementalism.

So now that I've shown you to be a liar you lie more and claim that Obama isn't a communist and try to change what you said.

How about trying honesty for once in your life?

Wake up, stupid subversive!

Another right winger who doesn't know the meaning of the word communism. I told you all what would have happened if Obama was a communist.

Yet you still try to assert that he is.

You people are some very special kind of stupid.

But you're not very good liars. Learn the meaning of words in the english language and stop lying.

 

[rightwinger]

OK, so my point was that Reagan was considered "unelectable" because he wasn't moderate. You actually were arguing with me without actually disagreeing with the point I made. How stupid is that? Why were you wasting my time with that?

No, you misread what I said.

I never implied Reagan was unelectable. I said that he was beatable with a unified Democratic Party.

The problem was that Carter was unelectable

With runaway inflation, a horrible economy and the Iran Hostage crisis....any Republican would have won in 1980

And just think (I know that's funny, but try!) ALL of those were caused by a DemocRAT!

Carter and the Democrats paid a price in 1980

Just like Republicans paid a price for the economy and Iraq in 2008

The difference was Reagan bounced back the economy and lit a 25 year run while Obama has kept the economy down and the people out of work.

But hey, the rich are getting richer under Obama, you keep crowing about the stock market!

Obamas economic recovery exceeds that of Reagan. He was given a much worse economy and more than doubled the stock market and decreased unemployment by over 4%

Reagans 25 year run destroyed the middle class

 

[kaz]

No I'm not. I'm arguing that Carter could very well have beaten Reagan if he had a united Democratic Party behind him throughout his presidency, which he never did, just like Obama now.

When Oliver North's mission to rescue the hostages failed, Carter didn't have Democrats defending him, the way Republicans defend their presidents, or even as much as Clinton got. Carter was always the outsider, the peanut farmer from Georgia. Kennedy fractured the Party with his candidacy. Who the hell challenges a sitting president of their own Party? An privileged egomaniac, that's who.

But I never said that Reagan was unelectable. He was an actor, after all.

OK, so my point was that Reagan was considered "unelectable" because he wasn't moderate. You actually were arguing with me without actually disagreeing with the point I made. How stupid is that? Why were you wasting my time with that?

No, you misread what I said.

I never implied Reagan was unelectable. I said that he was beatable with a unified Democratic Party.

The problem was that Carter was unelectable

With runaway inflation, a horrible economy and the Iran Hostage crisis....any Republican would have won in 1980

That's "unelectable" in an entirely different sense of the word. Carter as a candidate was clearly not unelectable since he won the Presidency.

Carter did not win in 1980

So you seriously don't know what unelectable means? You never cease to amaze me with what you don't know, big guy.

 

[rightwinger]

OK, so my point was that Reagan was considered "unelectable" because he wasn't moderate. You actually were arguing with me without actually disagreeing with the point I made. How stupid is that? Why were you wasting my time with that?

No, you misread what I said.

I never implied Reagan was unelectable. I said that he was beatable with a unified Democratic Party.

The problem was that Carter was unelectable

With runaway inflation, a horrible economy and the Iran Hostage crisis....any Republican would have won in 1980

That's "unelectable" in an entirely different sense of the word. Carter as a candidate was clearly not unelectable since he won the Presidency.

Carter did not win in 1980

So you seriously don't know what unelectable means? You never cease to amaze me with what you don't know, big guy.

How did Carter do in 1980?

 

[kaz]

Obamas economic recovery exceeds that of Reagan.

The kool-aid is strong in this one. You're a hoot, big guy. I did call this one though.

He was given a much worse economy and more than doubled the stock market

Yep, already addressed this one.

But hey, the rich are getting richer under Obama, you keep crowing about the stock market!