Why "Moderates" can kiss my ass

[G.T.]

I don't know that I can consider "How do I compromise on everything?" an actual stance.

That's not what Independant means, to me.

It means that your "stances" are a mixed bag and don't match any particular party, it doesn't mean that you compromise principles. How is that difficult to figure out?

The so-called Independent Party is not the same thing as being a political "moderate."

What political positions do "Independents" actually agree upon?

If they are free, regardless of Party platform, to adopt their own respective positions on political matters, then they aren't really a "Party" at all. Why even bother to identify as a member of a Party (which is intended to denote the banding together of people with similar objectives) when the premise of membership denies any unifying common purpose?

For that matter, what political principles do moderates even stand for?

Not all conservatives agree on ALL things. Not all Republicans agree on all things, either. And there is no reason that they should have to. But there ought to be at least a BASIS of common interest and common goal or objective. For if there isn't, then the reason to join a Party disappears.

I don't know, I didn't invent the party aND I don't donate to it. When I say I'm independant, it means independant of joining a corny assed party.

My interest/goal/objective is for people to get over the "my side vs. your side" bullshit which poisons the well of discussion because the discussions to be had are never cordial thus never productive, and maybe, just MAYBE we could all see through the fog that Big Business, Bankers & Wallstreet run America.......not a "party."

 

[Liability]

That's not what Independant means, to me.

It means that your "stances" are a mixed bag and don't match any particular party, it doesn't mean that you compromise principles. How is that difficult to figure out?

The so-called Independent Party is not the same thing as being a political "moderate."

What political positions do "Independents" actually agree upon?

If they are free, regardless of Party platform, to adopt their own respective positions on political matters, then they aren't really a "Party" at all. Why even bother to identify as a member of a Party (which is intended to denote the banding together of people with similar objectives) when the premise of membership denies any unifying common purpose?

For that matter, what political principles do moderates even stand for?

Not all conservatives agree on ALL things. Not all Republicans agree on all things, either. And there is no reason that they should have to. But there ought to be at least a BASIS of common interest and common goal or objective. For if there isn't, then the reason to join a Party disappears.

I don't know, I didn't invent the party aND I don't donate to it. When I say I'm independant, it means independant of joining a corny assed party.

My interest/goal/objective is for people to get over the "my side vs. your side" bullshit which poisons the well of discussion because the discussions to be had are never cordial thus never productive, and maybe, just MAYBE we could all see through the fog that Big Business, Bankers & Wallstreet run America.......not a "party."

But you had just finished discussing the distinction between independent and moderate in TERMS of Party.

You: "the meme that being a moderate (I like to say independant, I don't know the "moderate" paRTY)"

You are never required to join a Party (except in some cases when you would like a say as to which candidate gets the nod from a particular Party). And if your political positions are all over the map, then you probably shouldn't join a party. For in that case, your positions would not be "in common" with the the other members of that "Party."

As for you petty little contention that Big Business actually runs the world and puts up a fascade by which they cover their own power by pretending that others run things, that's just conspiracy theory silliness. Absolutely childish babble.

In reality, there is often very good reason to have a "my side versus your side" debate. If the debate is not conducted on a sufficiently mature level, that's another problem and another issue. But it is often the case that the sharpness of the debate is a result of the radically different underlying political principles of those engaged IN the debate. Therefore, the debate can be illuminating and quite beneficial.

 

[G.T.]

The so-called Independent Party is not the same thing as being a political "moderate."

What political positions do "Independents" actually agree upon?

If they are free, regardless of Party platform, to adopt their own respective positions on political matters, then they aren't really a "Party" at all. Why even bother to identify as a member of a Party (which is intended to denote the banding together of people with similar objectives) when the premise of membership denies any unifying common purpose?

For that matter, what political principles do moderates even stand for?

Not all conservatives agree on ALL things. Not all Republicans agree on all things, either. And there is no reason that they should have to. But there ought to be at least a BASIS of common interest and common goal or objective. For if there isn't, then the reason to join a Party disappears.

I don't know, I didn't invent the party aND I don't donate to it. When I say I'm independant, it means independant of joining a corny assed party.

My interest/goal/objective is for people to get over the "my side vs. your side" bullshit which poisons the well of discussion because the discussions to be had are never cordial thus never productive, and maybe, just MAYBE we could all see through the fog that Big Business, Bankers & Wallstreet run America.......not a "party."

But you had just finished discussing the distinction between independent and moderate in TERMS of Party.

You: "the meme that being a moderate (I like to say independant, I don't know the "moderate" paRTY)"

You are never required to join a Party (except in some cases when you would like a say as to which candidate gets the nod from a particular Party). And if your political positions are all over the map, then you probably shouldn't join a party. For in that case, your positions would not be "in common" with the the other members of that "Party."

As for you petty little contention that Big Business actually runs the world and puts up a fascade by which they cover their own power by pretending that others run things, that's just conspiracy theory silliness. Absolutely childish babble.

In reality, there is often very good reason to have a "my side versus your side" debate. If the debate is not conducted on a sufficiently mature level, that's another problem and another issue. But it is often the case that the sharpness of the debate is a result of the radically different underlying political principles of those engaged IN the debate. Therefore, the debate can be illuminating and quite beneficial.

You can call it a conspiracy theory all you'd like, but to me it's pretty obvious. And for you to comment on the level of discourse.....I mean, your opinion means nothing to me. If you want truth, the truth is, you're an ass hole. You've been an ass hole for years, I've seen you on Hannity, here, etc. and if you care to read through any particular conversation in which you disagree with someone, the conversation always necessarily devolves because you always take on the adolescent approach. That's not an opinion, but hey, maybe you're not an ass hole and it's just how you get down, how you get your entertainment. To each his own, but me personally? For me, it makes it so I learn nothing from what you type because once you type like THAT, it's an eye-roll and "oooo..key dokey...moving on."

Our Government is wholly OWNED. The two party arguments are a guise for the actual puppet-masters who line the pockets of politicians who, in-turn, line THEIR pockets. I think that if you do a "man on the street" interview, most would say the same and so I think it rises quite a bit above the level of conspiracy.

The reason most typical NON voters came to vote for Obama was likely because his rhetoric said he wouldn't be like the rest. "Change," remember? What do you think the puclic's perception of "the rest" is? Corruption, big money, etc.

 

[konradv]

As for you petty little contention that Big Business actually runs the world and puts up a fascade by which they cover their own power by pretending that others run things, that's just conspiracy theory silliness. Absolutely childish babble.

The power of money to influence votes in Congress isn't childish babble. It's the same if you're talking corporations or unions. The answer is to make our representitives listen to us, instead of whomever can get them the most campaign contributions. To do that, we're going to have to pay for it by public financing.

 

[G.T.]

S & P lowers our credit rating and Wallstreet has giant losses, supposedly as a result.
People lose big. Nothing in the real-world, in effect, changed. We didn't produce less or more over that weekend. Supply and Demand of real products didn't change, over that weekend. There wasn't a mass-exodus of jobs that weekend. We didn't change our trade policy over that weekend.....

Yet, Wallstreet "plunges" as its said we are on the brink of another recession and it's a "sign" of the Economy.

Interesting.

I thought the Economy drives Wallstreet, not Wallstreet drives the economy, yet, over a weekend nothing in what we call "reality" changes and Wallstreet plunges on "fears" of a new Recession.

The country is not run by big money. It's just a conspiracy theory, children talk.


The big national debate shouldn't be the people taking the Country back from big money.........NOOO000o.

The argument should be gay marriage, a couple percent quibble in taxes..............arguing over our drastically SIMILAR records on Foreign policy (despite the rhetoric). Over who fucked who and cheated on who's wife and has no "ethics." And of course, over which party will add to the national debt the least while, in effect, on a visual graph the line just goes: ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^


There was a mass change in Congress in 2010, eh? Did it help unemployment? Did it change foreign policy? Did it reduce the debt or deficit? Did it change anyone's taxes significantly?





"Conspiracy"......"child's talk"


Yes, keep listening to political pundits on TV and radio and looking THAT way, while Washington slips money out of your pocket and gives it to Bankers in the other direction. Strong work, Liability, you're such a political genius I don't know if you deserve a prize or what not but my taxes changed like a 1/2 percent so I'm not sure I could afford to hire anyone to make it. pffffft

 

[kaz]

I thought the Economy drives Wallstreet, not Wallstreet drives the economy, yet, over a weekend nothing in what we call "reality" changes and Wallstreet plunges on "fears" of a new Recession

Where you're going wrong is in thinking that one happens in isolation from the other. The reality is that both economy drives wall street and wall street drives the economy. They are both factors influencing the other. Clearly the economy drives wall street in terms of expectations. But wall street drives consumer and business behavior as well. Economic prophesies can be self fulfilling.

To your direct question as to why a downgrade would affect wall street when the economy didn't change, the downgrade can affect attitudes of consumers and investors, which does affect the economy which then affects wall street. To understand wall street, you frequently have to go more then one step, they are a lot smarter then that.

BTW, insiders have been buying, it's mom and pop investors who are dumping stocks

 

[Uncensored2008]

The power of money to influence votes in Congress isn't childish babble. It's the same if you're talking corporations or unions. The answer is to make our representitives listen to us, instead of whomever can get them the most campaign contributions. To do that, we're going to have to pay for it by public financing.

How do you propose that be done?

Your usual desire that Obama be declared absolute dictator for life doesn't seem like it would make government listen..

So what is your new proposal?

 

[Uncensored2008]

There was a mass change in Congress in 2010, eh? Did it help unemployment? Did it change foreign policy? Did it reduce the debt or deficit? Did it change anyone's taxes significantly?

No, there wasn't.

There was a change to the House of Representatives starting Jan. 20, 2011

Did it help unemployment? Not so far. I think that the policies of the GOP would create the confidence for businesses to hire, but one part of congress, facing down a democrat controlled Senate and an executive branch in the extreme left probably cannot effect much change.

Foreign policy is conducted by the executive, though leftists are incapable of grasping this fact. (It's the whole aversion to the constitution thing.)

Did they reduce the debt or deficit? Are you kidding? Did you sleep through the last three months? The house GOP was the ONLY voice of sanity, the only force keeping Obama from adding another $4 trillion to the debt this year AND sharply raising taxes.

 

[Divine Wind]

That's not what Independant means, to me.

It means that your "stances" are a mixed bag and don't match any particular party, it doesn't mean that you compromise principles. How is that difficult to figure out?

It's not difficult for someone with a clear head and a clear conscience. Bullies, ideologues and extremists never see anything viewpoint the particular empty toilet paper tube they are using to view the world.

You've gotta be able to adjust to the times and roll with the changes.

Remember........computers and cell phones weren't even in use over 40 years ago, if you can't adjust to that new ideal, you get left behind.

Same for people who have only 1 viewpoint, because they have the hardest time adjusting.

Agreed. It's like someone who looks at a diamond, sees only one facet and spends the rest of their life thinking that is the only facet a diamond has and that everyone else is wrong in describing other viewpoints.

 

[freedombecki]

Rather than addressing these annoying fuckers one at a time, let me make a blanket statement: If you're a political "Moderate" in 2011, you're either lying or a fucking moron.

The Government has control over every aspect of your life including your health, Social Security is totally broke, Congress shamelessly racks up annual trillion deficits like it was nothing and even though they did it for the wrong reasons, S&P Downgraded our credit.

If you can face that and say "Gee, I dunno if that's bad" you're either a Jake Starkey lying liberal or a moron.

There is no third option

Yes there is. You heard it from Ms. Right. Ms. Always Right.
I believe in government of, by and for ALL the people, including the ones who do not politically agree with me.

I do not care for government of, by, and for all the Democrat/ACORN precinct chairmen who miraculously "find" a passel of Demmie-only votes in their precincts after the votes are counted and they're slightly behind.

 

[Liability]

I don't know, I didn't invent the party aND I don't donate to it. When I say I'm independant, it means independant of joining a corny assed party.

My interest/goal/objective is for people to get over the "my side vs. your side" bullshit which poisons the well of discussion because the discussions to be had are never cordial thus never productive, and maybe, just MAYBE we could all see through the fog that Big Business, Bankers & Wallstreet run America.......not a "party."

But you had just finished discussing the distinction between independent and moderate in TERMS of Party.

You: "the meme that being a moderate (I like to say independant, I don't know the "moderate" paRTY)"

You are never required to join a Party (except in some cases when you would like a say as to which candidate gets the nod from a particular Party). And if your political positions are all over the map, then you probably shouldn't join a party. For in that case, your positions would not be "in common" with the the other members of that "Party."

As for you petty little contention that Big Business actually runs the world and puts up a fascade by which they cover their own power by pretending that others run things, that's just conspiracy theory silliness. Absolutely childish babble.

In reality, there is often very good reason to have a "my side versus your side" debate. If the debate is not conducted on a sufficiently mature level, that's another problem and another issue. But it is often the case that the sharpness of the debate is a result of the radically different underlying political principles of those engaged IN the debate. Therefore, the debate can be illuminating and quite beneficial.

You can call it a conspiracy theory all you'd like, but to me it's pretty obvious. And for you to comment on the level of discourse.....I mean, your opinion means nothing to me. If you want truth, the truth is, you're an ass hole. You've been an ass hole for years, I've seen you on Hannity, here, etc. and if you care to read through any particular conversation in which you disagree with someone, the conversation always necessarily devolves because you always take on the adolescent approach. That's not an opinion, but hey, maybe you're not an ass hole and it's just how you get down, how you get your entertainment. To each his own, but me personally? For me, it makes it so I learn nothing from what you type because once you type like THAT, it's an eye-roll and "oooo..key dokey...moving on."

Our Government is wholly OWNED. The two party arguments are a guise for the actual puppet-masters who line the pockets of politicians who, in-turn, line THEIR pockets. I think that if you do a "man on the street" interview, most would say the same and so I think it rises quite a bit above the level of conspiracy.

The reason most typical NON voters came to vote for Obama was likely because his rhetoric said he wouldn't be like the rest. "Change," remember? What do you think the puclic's perception of "the rest" is? Corruption, big money, etc.

It is not "obvious" and it's not even remotely true.

It is childish conspiracy theory pablum, and guys like you love to lap it up and spew it out.

No big thang.

As for your opinion of me, eat shit, dingleberry. I fart in your general direction. You are the asshole and always have been. Your posts simply prove it over and over again like a broken record.

Also, since you are clearly deficient on an intellectual level, I shall now deign to give you a free hint: It would serve any hope you might harbor of ever achieving any hint of credibility if, before you pretend to lecture anybody about adolescent commentary, you make sure that you aren't doing your own commentary on such a level!

True story, assface!

 

[Liability]

As for you petty little contention that Big Business actually runs the world and puts up a fascade by which they cover their own power by pretending that others run things, that's just conspiracy theory silliness. Absolutely childish babble.

The power of money to influence votes in Congress isn't childish babble. It's the same if you're talking corporations or unions. The answer is to make our representitives listen to us, instead of whomever can get them the most campaign contributions. To do that, we're going to have to pay for it by public financing.

The idiot G.T. had not said that money has power to corrupt. No shit Sherlock.

Of course it has the power to "influence" votes. Greed has always been at the heart of any prospect of public corruption.

But what the asshole, G.T., had said was far more universal. He declared (in his typically semi-coherent fashion) was that America already is run by Big Business, Bankers & Wall Street.

It is one thing to put up barriers to protect against the prospects of public corruption, and to be vigilant and to enforce such laws and to zealously prosecute miscreants in that realm. It is quite another thing to make the childish claim that because money has the power to corrupt, that Big business already "runs" America." And it is equally stupid (but a liberal Democrat standby) to insist that political contributions from "Big Business" must be strictly limited (i.e., to interfere with free speech) to "protect" the People from "corruption."

Liberal Democrats who espouse such stupid shit are pretty thoroughly transparent. Like that asshole, G.T.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's not difficult for someone with a clear head and a clear conscience. Bullies, ideologues and extremists never see anything viewpoint the particular empty toilet paper tube they are using to view the world.

Thank you for explaining why you hold your view points...

 

[IndependntLogic]

There was a mass change in Congress in 2010, eh? Did it help unemployment? Did it change foreign policy? Did it reduce the debt or deficit? Did it change anyone's taxes significantly?

No, there wasn't.

There was a change to the House of Representatives starting Jan. 20, 2011

Did it help unemployment? Not so far. I think that the policies of the GOP would create the confidence for businesses to hire, but one part of congress, facing down a democrat controlled Senate and an executive branch in the extreme left probably cannot effect much change.

Foreign policy is conducted by the executive, though leftists are incapable of grasping this fact. (It's the whole aversion to the constitution thing.)

Did they reduce the debt or deficit? Are you kidding? Did you sleep through the last three months? The house GOP was the ONLY voice of sanity, the only force keeping Obama from adding another $4 trillion to the debt this year AND sharply raising taxes.

I'm curious about this post.
1. I haven't seen any policies from the GOP (or Dems) that would do anything at all about unemployment. Bascially, the Dems policy has been "Um, I dunno" and the GOP has stated "Well, if we keep doin' what hasn't worked for almost three years, everything will be great!"
I can't believe people buy into the BS that either side is selling but I'm always curious to see if I've missed something. So please, enlighten me with specifics.

2. So fine, you couldn't resist getting a petty insult in for your counterparts and that seems the norm here. Got it. What would you change in foreign policy as POTUS? Oh and btw, you're wrong about it being solely in control of the WH but we can go with the areas in which that would apply, for now.

3. The deficit. Hmmm. What would the GOP have done to reduce it? The Ryan plan didn't. I haven't seen the idiots from the Dem or GOP come up with anything that would reduce the deficit by a penny. And BOTH SIDES just increased spending in the one area that we had a chance to make REAL cuts - instead of all this bullshit political stuff that would have less than a 5% effect. So what specifically did the magical and apparently, always right in every way, GOP offer?

btw, hope you don't mind that I challenge you a bit. I do the same thing with LibDems when their posts are as slanted as this one.

Cheers,
IL

 

[konradv]

The power of money to influence votes in Congress isn't childish babble. It's the same if you're talking corporations or unions. The answer is to make our representitives listen to us, instead of whomever can get them the most campaign contributions. To do that, we're going to have to pay for it by public financing.

How do you propose that be done?

Your usual desire that Obama be declared absolute dictator for life doesn't seem like it would make government listen..

So what is your new proposal?

What a MORON! DO you EVER answer a post where you stick to the subject and don't throw out irrelevant red-herrings? Why are the wingnuts so brain damaged?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm curious about this post.
1. I haven't seen any policies from the GOP (or Dems) that would do anything at all about unemployment.

Then you're not paying attention.

Over the last couple of weeks we've seen a significant drop in the value of the stock market. In that time, about 8 to 10% of the value of American investments has vanished.

Now, did the value of the companies behind this decline? Did CBS lose 8% of their assets? Did they increase debt so that their current ratio changed? No, it was and is driven by confidence in the ability of investors to recoup the capital employed.

When someone like Obama comes out and seeks to sharply increase taxes on business, he influences the perception of being able to recoup costs. No business with any sense at all is going to add headcount if they cannot have a reasonable assurance of capitalizing on the additional labor force.

Obama had a HUGE impact on employment, he made damned certain that no competent business would be hiring.

I can't believe people buy into the BS that either side is selling but I'm always curious to see if I've missed something. So please, enlighten me with specifics.

Honestly, you've missed nearly everything. To be enlightened, sign up for a basic finance class, followed by an economics course.

What would you change in foreign policy as POTUS?

Quit bombing Libya and engaging in further encumbrance. Seek to dissociate from current encumbrance in Iraq and Afghanistan. Withdraw ALL U.S. military from Europe and Asia. Korea can pay for their own damned defense, ditto Japan and Germany. Repeal the Income tax and replace the revenue with import duties. Want to offshore? Fine, but you'll pay a tax to bring that product onto U.S. shelves.

3. The deficit. Hmmm. What would the GOP have done to reduce it? The Ryan plan didn't.

False.

Medicare is one of the larger items in the budget. Reducing the outlay of Medicare significantly reduces the deficit incurred each year.

I haven't seen the idiots from the Dem or GOP come up with anything that would reduce the deficit by a penny.

Then you aren't paying attention.

Remember, deficit is addition to the debt. ALL of the Republican plans slowed the rate of increase to the debt.

If you are trying to say that neither party proposed a plan that reduces the DEBT, then you are correct.

btw, hope you don't mind that I challenge you a bit. I do the same thing with LibDems when their posts are as slanted as this one.

No objection at all, your challenges are thoughtful and rational, I rather enjoy them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What a MORON! DO you EVER answer a post where you stick to the subject and don't throw out irrelevant red-herrings? Why are the wingnuts so brain damaged?

Try and answer, Konrad. HOW do you propose to make government listen? What is your plan?