THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

[Phatscotty]

Scotty thinks America has been in decline since Woodrow Wilson a century ago:

I know, I have failed to find solid evidence of that actual statement. However, if you look at progressive ideals and Communists ideals, they are 2 peas in a pod, and the statement is based on that. The substance of the ideals is far more important than an official name change.

I should rephrase: Communists and Progressives share the same ideology. As related to BVP, it's easy to call it silly that Communists are teaching in our schools. But everyone knows the Progressives and the Liberals DOMINATE academia, especially at the union level.

Been going on since Woodrow Wilson started shipping in European Professors, and it only took a generation to get to the great depression.

Link

... And he would be right in that assessment.

...

So it would not be unfair to accuse Phatscotty or NS of wanting to put the US back 100 years?

I.e, before Woodrow Wilson?

All of a sudden Symmetry changes the subject to.....Woodrow Wilson? Okay, fine....let's play Symmetry games


I will meet you half-way, but you have to realize you are not even close to understanding anything about me or what I believe in, and you should by now, because you have been pretending for years......I can realize I don't know that much about you our your country or your people, which is why you will barely ever find me harping on and on like I do.

However, the only thing I would like to set back 100 years is the income tax, and no you do not get to throw all your worst historic fears about every other issues besides income taxes onto me. For the record, I would like to move back to a time when people were able to keep the fruits of their own labor, and it was understood as fundamental to the idea of Freedom, Liberty, and America.

in other words.....


btw, your edit is WAYYYYYYYYYYY out of context. You start editing me out of context again, and I will never speak with you again. I find it highly disgusting and find no reason to communicate with a person who does such things. Fair warning

[CreepersWiener]

I support people who work to EARN money and things to be actually bought and paid for...not handed out to lazy losers who sit at home all day and collect a check from Obama that comes out of my pocket.

Pray tell...who are these people? And how exactly is Obama cutting them a check? If Obama cuts them a check...that seems to be Obama's business and not yours. Seems that Obama's checkbook would be located in Obama's pocket, not yours.

Certainly a reference to Obama Buck's is not meant towards Obama's own money. Therefore it is a misconstrued term being peddled as a term for Welfare. Welfare existed WAY BEFORE OBAMA!

If I remember right, Bush increased Food Stamps by almost a hundred dollars.

Welfare has nothing to do with Obama, Welfare is agreed upon through ALL our elected officials. Have fun trying to vote all them out!

[Symmetry]

Scotty thinks America has been in decline since Woodrow Wilson a century ago:

I know, I have failed to find solid evidence of that actual statement. However, if you look at progressive ideals and Communists ideals, they are 2 peas in a pod, and the statement is based on that. The substance of the ideals is far more important than an official name change.

I should rephrase: Communists and Progressives share the same ideology. As related to BVP, it's easy to call it silly that Communists are teaching in our schools. But everyone knows the Progressives and the Liberals DOMINATE academia, especially at the union level.

Been going on since Woodrow Wilson started shipping in European Professors, and it only took a generation to get to the great depression.

Link

... And he would be right in that assessment.

...

So it would not be unfair to accuse Phatscotty or NS of wanting to put the US back 100 years?

I.e, before Woodrow Wilson?

All of a sudden Symmetry changes the subject to.....Woodrow Wilson? Okay, fine....let's play Symmetry games


I will meet you half-way, but you have to realize you are not even close to understanding anything about me or what I believe in, and you should by now, because you have been pretending for years......I can realize I don't know that much about you our your country or your people, which is why you will barely ever find me harping on and on like I do.

However, the only thing I would like to set back 100 years is the income tax, and no you do not get to throw all your worst historic fears about every other issues besides income taxes onto me. For the record, I would like to move back to a time when people were able to keep the fruits of their own labor, and it was understood as fundamental to the idea of Freedom, Liberty, and America.

btw, your edit is WAYYYYYYYYYYY out of context. You start editing me out of context again, and I will never speak with you again. I find it highly disgusting and find no reason to communicate with a person who does such things. Fair warning

Cute, but the threat of never talking to me again kind of got old when I was in primary school. Now it's just a lame threat, and I don't like threats.

An objection that you want to put the US back 100 years would place you wanting the US pre Wilson, pretty much exactly 100 years ago. It's what you said, it seems to be what you still believe, and it's an accurate criticism.

[Phatscotty]

okay....so.........no comment about any of the subject matter you asked about??????? You also seem to have missed the essence of my post, because you continue to pretend I want to set back everything 100 years? That is just the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Luckily, only the dumbest people actually believe that. And you are the one bringing up "grade school" threats?

Don't edit me out of context, and you don't have to worry about a perma-foe......

It's a fair offer

[Symmetry]

okay....so.........no comment about any of the subject matter you asked about???????

Don't edit me out of context, and you don't have to worry about a perma-foe......

It's a fair offer

What was the context you were worried about? Do you not think that the progressive movement started a hundred years ago anymore, and do you not want to see a return to the days before the progressives anymore?

That would be a return to a century ago.

[Woodruff]

You have never heard anyone say they are voting for Obama "because he is black"? A little further, do you suspect that millions of people voted for Obama "because he is black"?

Do YOU suspect that, Phatscotty? Because I've got to tell you...anyone who believes that MILLIONS of people voted for Obama because he is black is an utter moron.

I don't find the concept all that unbelievable, I at least don't find it ridiculous. If you don't think Obama's race attracted anyone to his campaign you are mistaken.

You're actually trying to correlate "millions of people" with "anyone"? Did that actually make sense when you typed it?

This is where you, Woodruff, come back with some data or at least offer an explanation to support that this idea is moronic. Scotty at least attempted to back up his claim.
I'm thinking that while its possible that millions may have voted for Obama because he was black, there may be millions who did not vote for him for the same reason. The question is which group is larger.

Where did Phatscotty's 97% figure come from? It doesn't seem to be close to what I found, though I have no idea how accurate what I found was either, to be honest. So I'm not saying his figures are wrong, just that I didn't find them. Here's what I found that seemed relevant to the topic:

In an October 17–20, 2008, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of registered voters, 2% said race made them more likely to vote for Barack Obama, 4% said it made them less likely to do so, and 2% were not sure. Race was not a major factor for the other 92% (margin of error was ±2.9%).[127]

A July 18–21, 2008, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 20% of African American registered voters and 8% of white registered voters considered race the single most important factor when voting (margin of error was ±3.1%). This percentage increased in both groups from previous polls.[128]

A June 6–9, 2008, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 17% were enthusiastic about Obama being the first African American president, 70% were comfortable or indifferent, and 13% had reservations or were uncomfortable (margin of error was ±3.1%).[129]

[Woodruff]

one party has cleaned their own house and got rid of all those Bush Republicans and is already half way through reconstruction.

I really hope you aren't referring to the party who has gone so far to the Christian right that they want to set this country back socially 100 years?

Republicans haven't gone to the Christian right. If anything, it's moved much closer to the libertarian/constitutional right.

From where I'm sitting, I would disagree with that very strongly. It's moved A LITTLE to the Libertarian/Constitutional side of things, but it's been moving to the Christian right for quite some time and currently sits smack-dab on the far side of it.

And there's no platform to "set this country back socially 100 years".

I would agree. Unfortunately, that seems to be the intent of some.

[Woodruff]

Republicans today are not the same as the Republicans of 4 or more years ago. There are actually true conservatives and libertarians in the party now.

There were then too. Or have you forgotten Ron Paul and a couple of others so quickly?

I do hope you're not including Romney and Ryan in "true conservatives" OR "Libertarians"...

[Woodruff]

I support people who work to EARN money and things to be actually bought and paid for...not handed out to lazy losers who sit at home all day and collect a check from Obama that comes out of my pocket.

It is statements like these that show me just how deluded and misinformed some people are.

[Woodruff]

To the OP. You made YOURSELF sound so biased and unbelievably stupid that your initial post talking about how the intelligent people will vote for obama sound completely ludicrous.

Scientists have proven the following:

People who are intelligent...vote Democrat

People who are stupid as ffuck...vote Republican
source: American Political Scientist Daily

Scientific theory has established this quaint little nummy num num. Certainly you don't want to be stupid, so you must be voting Democrat...right?

That doesn't seem particularly "scientific" for a "scientific theory".

[Woodruff]

Scotty thinks America has been in decline since Woodrow Wilson a century ago:

I know, I have failed to find solid evidence of that actual statement. However, if you look at progressive ideals and Communists ideals, they are 2 peas in a pod, and the statement is based on that. The substance of the ideals is far more important than an official name change.

I should rephrase: Communists and Progressives share the same ideology. As related to BVP, it's easy to call it silly that Communists are teaching in our schools. But everyone knows the Progressives and the Liberals DOMINATE academia, especially at the union level.

Been going on since Woodrow Wilson started shipping in European Professors, and it only took a generation to get to the great depression.

Link

... And he would be right in that assessment.

...

So it would not be unfair to accuse Phatscotty or NS of wanting to put the US back 100 years?

I.e, before Woodrow Wilson?

All of a sudden Symmetry changes the subject to.....Woodrow Wilson? Okay, fine....let's play Symmetry games

All of a sudden? Are you incapable of reading the written word?

[Nobunaga]

I support people who work to EARN money and things to be actually bought and paid for...not handed out to lazy losers who sit at home all day and collect a check from Obama that comes out of my pocket.

Pray tell...who are these people? And how exactly is Obama cutting them a check? If Obama cuts them a check...that seems to be Obama's business and not yours. Seems that Obama's checkbook would be located in Obama's pocket, not yours.

Certainly a reference to Obama Buck's is not meant towards Obama's own money. Therefore it is a misconstrued term being peddled as a term for Welfare. Welfare existed WAY BEFORE OBAMA!

If I remember right, Bush increased Food Stamps by almost a hundred dollars.

Welfare has nothing to do with Obama, Welfare is agreed upon through ALL our elected officials. Have fun trying to vote all them out!

... Fair point, but I believe this is the manner of thing to which he was referring.

...

[Funkyterrance]

You have never heard anyone say they are voting for Obama "because he is black"? A little further, do you suspect that millions of people voted for Obama "because he is black"?

Do YOU suspect that, Phatscotty? Because I've got to tell you...anyone who believes that MILLIONS of people voted for Obama because he is black is an utter moron.

I don't find the concept all that unbelievable, I at least don't find it ridiculous. If you don't think Obama's race attracted anyone to his campaign you are mistaken.

You're actually trying to correlate "millions of people" with "anyone"? Did that actually make sense when you typed it?

This is where you, Woodruff, come back with some data or at least offer an explanation to support that this idea is moronic. Scotty at least attempted to back up his claim.
I'm thinking that while its possible that millions may have voted for Obama because he was black, there may be millions who did not vote for him for the same reason. The question is which group is larger.

Where did Phatscotty's 97% figure come from? It doesn't seem to be close to what I found, though I have no idea how accurate what I found was either, to be honest. So I'm not saying his figures are wrong, just that I didn't find them. Here's what I found that seemed relevant to the topic:

In an October 17–20, 2008, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of registered voters, 2% said race made them more likely to vote for Barack Obama, 4% said it made them less likely to do so, and 2% were not sure. Race was not a major factor for the other 92% (margin of error was ±2.9%).[127]

A July 18–21, 2008, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 20% of African American registered voters and 8% of white registered voters considered race the single most important factor when voting (margin of error was ±3.1%). This percentage increased in both groups from previous polls.[128]

A June 6–9, 2008, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 17% were enthusiastic about Obama being the first African American president, 70% were comfortable or indifferent, and 13% had reservations or were uncomfortable (margin of error was ±3.1%).[129]

So if 60-odd million people voted for Obama, 2% would be about one and one half million right? That being said and considering that polls can be off by varying degrees,(this can be a pretty uncomfortable question for people answer honestly) it's not really a stretch to say that millions of people could have voted for Obama because he was black. Your other statistics provided don't show Scotty's claim to be moronic either. You can split hairs on these figures if you want but its not as crazy an idea as you implied earlier.
I have to applaud you on your posting of some actual data though, Woodruff, that was very refreshing.

[Woodruff]

I have to applaud you on your posting of some actual data though, Woodruff, that was very refreshing.

As opposed to you?

[BigBallinStalin]

I have to applaud you on your posting of some actual data though, Woodruff, that was very refreshing.

As opposed to you?

If your evidence has failed to back your claim, do you avoid the possibility that you were wrong by deflecting people's attention onto others?