Do Libs have anything besides "wingnut", "con", or "Faux News"

[SwingVoter]

I disagree with Republicans a lot here, but at least we go back and forth on facts. Libs don't seem to come to argument with facts, but rather labels like "wingnut" and regurgitated lines they've picked up from Robert Gibbs or MSNBC.

Republicans like to hide from facts that show how much better we did under Clinton than under Bush, but Dems seem to just hate facts altogether.

 

[Truthmatters]

got any facts to prove that?

 

[SwingVoter]

got any facts to prove that?

which do you hear more here from Dems - you oppose Obama, so you must be a wingnut teabagger con watching Glenn Beck, or, you oppose Obama, is it because you disagree with his spending proposals?

 

[Qball]

While I'd agree with your bottom line, I don't think Republicans like to run from facts. I dislike the idea that matters of politics neatly present themselves as facts, when that's actually pretty rare. There would be no point of debate if the facts were obvious. And it's not really saying much that this country was better off under Clinton than Bush. I think most Republicans would resign to the fact that Bush was ineffective. I don't think he's as bad as liberals make him out to be, but he's not winning any Nobel Peace Prizes for being awesome, either. At the same time, for most of Clinton's term, he answered to a Republican Congress. So it's not all one President and his who deserve blame or criticism.

 

[LuckyDan]

Well, there's also racist, sexist, homophobe and AGW denier. Those are pretty cool, too. Oh and hypocrite. And Nazi.

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah, why can't they use loon, kook, Libtard, PMSNBC, N Y Slimes, etc., like the always polite and respectful CON$????

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Yeah Beeeeck!!!!!

 

[rdean]

Does this help?

 

[JiggsCasey]

I disagree with Republicans a lot here, but at least we go back and forth on facts. Libs don't seem to come to argument with facts, but rather labels like "wingnut" and regurgitated lines they've picked up from Robert Gibbs or MSNBC.

Republicans like to hide from facts that show how much better we did under Clinton than under Bush, but Dems seem to just hate facts altogether.

Hating facts. ... now there's some poetic irony if there ever was some. ... The last 28 years of corporate presidents have utterly hid from facts on a daily basis.

as for more labels, they have a whole bunch more, actually. ... almost as many labels as the FACTS they clobber RW fanatics over the head with on a rather consistent basis:

let's see, i like:

Bush League
Bushie
Shrub
28 percenter
Big Dick and the Gang
the Cheney administration
Friedmanists
Soulless Neocon Cabal
WMDers
Boy George
Curious George
Boy King
Fox Snooze
State Propaganda Network disciples

on and on and on. ... Good times.

 

[Modbert]

OP is obviously trolling, or doesn't actually read any of the threads around here.

 

[rightwinger]

I disagree with Republicans a lot here, but at least we go back and forth on facts. Libs don't seem to come to argument with facts, but rather labels like "wingnut" and regurgitated lines they've picked up from Robert Gibbs or MSNBC.

Republicans like to hide from facts that show how much better we did under Clinton than under Bush, but Dems seem to just hate facts altogether.

What, in reading this board makes you think it is about a repectful exchange of ideas?

90% is about talking smack

Logic, facts, respect have very little use here

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

got any facts to prove that?

which do you hear more here from Dems - you oppose Obama, so you must be a wingnut teabagger con watching Glenn Beck, or, you oppose Obama, is it because you disagree with his spending proposals?

I personally get more of the 2nd from people here but when reading threads I see way more of the first in response to most comments.

 

[dink]

I disagree with Republicans a lot here, but at least we go back and forth on facts. Libs don't seem to come to argument with facts, but rather labels like "wingnut" and regurgitated lines they've picked up from Robert Gibbs or MSNBC.

Republicans like to hide from facts that show how much better we did under Clinton than under Bush, but Dems seem to just hate facts altogether.

I wonder about the name calling also. I'm a conservative, but still, I'm a long way from being a -wingnut, or replicunt, neo-con etc..

As for Clinton, I liked his approach to welfare reform. Too bad it didn't last through the Bush administration. Also, I think Clinton lucked up with the economy. It was kind of, inevitable after the 80's.

What, in reading this board makes you think it is about a repectful exchange of ideas?

90% is about talking smack

Logic, facts, respect have very little use here

I've been on a few political forums, and you all are pretty tame.

 

[Nosmo King]

I disagree with Republicans a lot here, but at least we go back and forth on facts. Libs don't seem to come to argument with facts, but rather labels like "wingnut" and regurgitated lines they've picked up from Robert Gibbs or MSNBC.

Republicans like to hide from facts that show how much better we did under Clinton than under Bush, but Dems seem to just hate facts altogether.

What, in reading this board makes you think it is about a repectful exchange of ideas?

90% is about talking smack

Logic, facts, respect have very little use here

As my Sainted Father would say, "Smart doesn't count for much!"

 

[editec]

As for Clinton, I liked his approach to welfare reform. Too bad it didn't last through the Bush administration. Also, I think Clinton lucked up with the economy. It was kind of, inevitable after the 80's.

It didn't?

What did Bush II change?

Clinton's wefare reform was basically the welfare reform that the Republicans had been demanding for the previous couple deades.

Did Bush II change it?

 

[dink]

As for Clinton, I liked his approach to welfare reform. Too bad it didn't last through the Bush administration. Also, I think Clinton lucked up with the economy. It was kind of, inevitable after the 80's.

It didn't?

What did Bush II change?

Clinton's wefare reform was basically the welfare reform that the Republicans had been demanding for the previous couple deades.

Did Bush II change it?

No, I didn't say he changed anything and I wasn't blaming Bush, just stating that it went lax during the his admin. This happens on the local level, when no one is governing the the one's handing out the free stuff. Clinton did openly state he was taking a conservative approach, but no one was minding the store.