Democrat wins Long Held GOP seat

[Dogger]

you must think you're cute altering people's posts all the time...you have no leg to stand on when it comes to how anyone posts given your track record of running from posts that prove you wrong

Ignoring garbage is not the same as running.

it is clear that you continue to state that Bush has achieved zero accomplishments during his tenure as president...as i already said, that is a lie and anyone with half a brain will tell you that

That last clause is absolutely true. Anyone with a whole brain, however, will agree with me.

 

[Shogun]

Bob Geldof in Rwanda gives Bush his props

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/02/bob_geldof_in_rwanda.html

 

[Yurt]

Ignoring garbage is not the same as running.

That last clause is absolutely true. Anyone with a whole brain, however, will agree with me.

so you are skeeered what an intellectual giant you must be to merely insult and dismiss ideas without ever reasoning as to why....

...thats stupid...

yay, case over, dogger ingeniously proves his point ladies and gents of the jury

 

[Ravi]

the first tax refund that staved a worsening economy and in fact boosted it Proof?

his aids relief for africa, largely ignored by liberals With strings attached, but not too bad.

That's it? He's lamer than I gave him credit for.

 

[Dogger]

yap, yap, yap, yurt, yurt, yurt, . . .

If you're going to steal from Bill O'Reilly, it's only fair to give him credit.

 

[Yurt]

the first tax refund that staved a worsening economy and in fact boosted it Proof?

his aids relief for africa, largely ignored by liberals With strings attached, but not too bad.

That's it? He's lamer than I gave him credit for.

there is more as i said and you are free to look it up...i was asked to provide proof of "one" accomplishment as the claim was that Bush had zero...so mission accomplished

 

[Dogger]

there is more as i said and you are free to look it up...i was asked to provide proof of "one" accomplishment as the claim was that Bush had zero...so mission accomplished

Wrong again. My original claim was that Bush had one positive accomplishment: destroying the Republican Party. I gave credit where credit was due.

Like Bush himself, your declaration of "mission accomplished" is premature.

 

[Ravi]

Wrong again. My original claim was that Bush had one positive accomplishment: destroying the Republican Party. I gave credit where credit was due.

Like Bush himself, your declaration of "mission accomplished" is premature.

I have to agree with you on this.

 

[Yurt]

Wrong again. My original claim was that Bush had one positive accomplishment: destroying the Republican Party. I gave credit where credit was due.

Like Bush himself, your declaration of "mission accomplished" is premature.

are you that intellectually challenged? 1. the republican party is not destroyed; 2. assuming arguendo the republican party is destroyed, the other republicans necessarily had to destory it as well, for more than just Bush make up the republican party. look at john mccain, are you saying bush is responsible for JM being a total tool and liberal? of course not, thus your claim is utter BS.

further, if you go back up the thread i said twice that you are claiming bush has zero accomplishments and you did not dispute that in your replies earlier, thus your ommission shows you clearly understood your "accomplishment" to be tongue in cheek and not really a true accomplishment at all. also, i listed more than one accomplishment and it was in response to jillian who asked for only one.

 

[Ravi]

Yurt, your two examples were one that's unproven (a pissy tax loan stimulated the economy which you are pitting against the probable fact that Americans aren't crybabies and actually weren't as terrorized as the Bushbots were counting on) and AIDs relief to Africans (which liberals didn't like because it included the stick of abstinence only, conservatives didn't like because it was helping someone, and social conservatives didn't like because it had something to do with SEX).

 

[Yurt]

Yurt, your two examples were one that's unproven (a pissy tax loan stimulated the economy which you are pitting against the probable fact that Americans aren't crybabies and actually weren't as terrorized as the Bushbots were counting on) and AIDs relief to Africans (which liberals didn't like because it included the stick of abstinence only, conservatives didn't like because it was helping someone, and social conservatives didn't like because it had something to do with SEX).

his tax refund certainly did not hurt the economy, that is a fact. if i recall at the time people were predicting the imminent demise of the economy, so bush proposed the tax stimulus plan that later became our tax refund and as we now know, the economy did not collapse as predicted in 2001.

Those proposals make economic sense because the more relief that is provided to lower income households, the more money that will get spent quickly, meaning a faster and bigger boost for consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of economic activity.

A study showed that Bush's 2001 stimulus package was a success in this regard, with two-thirds of the tax refund payments getting spent in the first six months. The recession that year was mild. It began in March but was over by November even though the country got hit during that period by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-01-18-stimulus-impact_N.htm

interestingly, many dems this time believe the tax refunds WILL help and some dems called for even more money in the stimulus package. the fed chair also supports Bush's tax refund.

regardless of the politics of the african aid money, the fact remains that the aid has helped. just because people bicker of the politics of the package here, does not lessen the positive impact bush's aid package had in africa. i think i even heard air america admit that the african aid package was the only good thing bush has ever done....

 

[Dogger]

are you saying bush is responsible for JM being a total tool and liberal?

Calling me "intellectually challenged" and then calling McCain a liberal? Are you that intellectually challenged?

further, if you go back up the thread i said twice that you are claiming bush has zero accomplishments and you did not dispute that in your replies earlier, . . .

Maybe I'm just intellectually challenged. Or perhaps I just brushed it off until you kept belaboring the point?

I don't think Bush acted alone. The GOP lemmings followed him off the cliff. Had the GOP chosen Richard Luger or Chuck Hegel as their leader (instead of a total failure), they would have followed him off a different, less destructive cliff. A kinder, gentler plunge into the abyss, if you will.

 

[Yurt]

Calling me "intellectually challenged" and then calling McCain a liberal? Are you that intellectually challenged?

Maybe I'm just intellectually challenged. Or perhaps I just brushed it off until you kept belaboring the point?

I don't think Bush acted alone. The GOP lemmings followed him off the cliff. Had the GOP chosen Richard Luger or Chuck Hegel as their leader (instead of a total failure), they would have followed him off a different, less destructive cliff. A kinder, gentler plunge into the abyss, if you will.

mclame is more liberal than conservative...why do you think so many conservatives are against him?

so bush did not act alone, yet you attributed the republican demise solely to him until i called you on it and now you have changed your tune....how quaint

 

[Dogger]

mclame is more liberal than conservative...why do you think so many conservatives are against him?

*** moronic point ignored ***

Because McCain at one time really was something of a maverick, and he criticized Bush and the Religious Right. Once you question their leader, the right wing has no tolerance, as explained here.

 

[Yurt]

Because McCain at one time really was something of a maverick, and he criticized Bush and the Religious Right. Once you question their leader, the right wing has no tolerance, as explained here.

the intellectual giant ignores rather than debate....how quaint...maybe i intimidate you, so you blithely dismiss as if that alone makes you right

 

[Dogger]

*** moronic rant ignored ***

You asked a question, and I answered it. How is that ignoring your moronic point?

 

[Yurt]

You asked a question, and I answered it. How is that ignoring your moronic point?

mclame is a side issue...the main issue you ignored and in fact edited out of your quote of my post....as if making it disappear would help you prove you point.

so bush did not act alone, yet you attributed the republican demise solely to him until i called you on it and now you have changed your tune....how quaint

 

[Dogger]

so bush did not act alone, yet you attributed the republican demise solely to him until i called you on it and now you have changed your tune....how quaint

Here's what I said: "Destroying the Republican Party is Bush's only positive accomplishment."

Now that implies that Bush acted alone only to those who lack a rudimentary understanding of how government officers function. Other than fumbling his speeches, choking on his food and falling off his Segway, most of Bush's actions require support and action from others. Every time a president is said to act, it necessarily implies that he acted through others. That includes his role in the destruction of his own party.

As I also said: "I don't think Bush acted alone. The GOP lemmings followed him off the cliff. Had the GOP chosen Richard Luger or Chuck Hegel as their leader (instead of a total failure), they would have followed him off a different, less destructive cliff. A kinder, gentler plunge into the abyss, if you will."

Though others followed his misguided leadership, Bush set the course that led to ruin. Without Bush, the party still has enough credibility to lie its way through the next election.

 

[Yurt]

Here's what I said: "Destroying the Republican Party is Bush's only positive accomplishment."

Now that implies that Bush acted alone only to those who lack a rudimentary understanding of how government officers function. Other than fumbling his speeches, choking on his food and falling off his Segway, most of Bush's actions require support and action from others. Every time a president is said to act, it necessarily implies that he acted through others. That includes his role in the destruction of his own party.

As I also said: "I don't think Bush acted alone. The GOP lemmings followed him off the cliff. Had the GOP chosen Richard Luger or Chuck Hegel as their leader (instead of a total failure), they would have followed him off a different, less destructive cliff. A kinder, gentler plunge into the abyss, if you will."

Though others followed his misguided leadership, Bush set the course that led to ruin. Without Bush, the party still has enough credibility to lie its way through the next election.

nice try. you're being obtuse and intellectually dishonest. both accomplishments i mentioned were not accomplished solely by bush, nor did i ever state such. the difference with your false accomplishment, is that you in fact are holding bush, alone, responsible for the demise of the republican party. the end of your post bolsters this by stating that bush set the course and that others followed. you also say that without bush, the party would be ok.

your false accomplishment-not my accomplishments: passing his economic stimulus plan that necessarily required others to get it passed and the african aid package that also required others to get it passed-is about bush alone, for without bush, the party would be ok.

 

[Dogger]

you also say that without bush, the party would be ok.

No, I did not. How fucking stupid are you? I'm serious. Did someone drop you on your head?

I said the party would be less damaged, to wit: "they would have followed [Hegel or Luger] off a different, less destructive cliff. A kinder, gentler plunge into the abyss, if you will."

Having "enough credibility to lie its way through the next election" is not okay (except perhaps in the warped mind of the conservative). It's just getting by. It's exhalting their corrupt pursuit of power over national need and interest.

I'm done with you. I have no use for people who can't comprehend, so they distort and mischaracterize my arguments into pointless straw man arguments that do not reflect what I said.