My personal take on palin is that she's as stupid as a fox. When she was in Alaska, she was successful. Even though her bid for VP office failed and she became a punch line, she parlayed that into making lots of money by appearing on talk shows and still sticking her nose Into the media. When people hear her name, they cannot help but comment, and she's used that to make gobs of cash. I don't think Sarah has the best interests of the Republican Party at heart when she speaks. I think Sarah is looking out for Sarah, and she's done pretty well for herself
Iraq was fumbled away, it didn't need to be. Also, Russia is planning on flying bombers in and around the gulf.... Not a direct threat?
Um, no. "Palin said she predicted that Obama’s response to Russian military action in Georgia in 2008 would encourage Russia one day to invade Ukraine. The outside experts we reached did not find her words in 2008 to be a clear prediction, but they give her credit for accurately highlighting a place where a crisis in fact emerged. They did not agree with the logic behind her claim, however, and said there's a lot more to the story -- namely a history of America avoiding confrontation with Russia in its direct spheres of influence. Ultimately, whether Obama's actions somehow encouraged Putin and Russia to invade Ukraine is something Palin cannot prove. Her claim is partially accurate but takes things out of context. We rate it Half True." http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -russian-/ As for "governing a state" Columbus Ohio has a bigger population than the entire state of Alaska and I don't exactly call quitting after two years "governing". By the way, when do you plan on refuting the numbers I posted on wages? If you have time to bloviate about Palin you have time to refute the numbers. Or are your debate skills limited to what you can find on Fox?
You know I read that Politifact article before I even posted my original post. I don't think Politifact is hardly fair btw. Not really close to unbiased. And what are you referring to? When you were replying to Pup Devil?
You're right, it didn't. Let's look at who did the fumbling. Without getting into the fact that it was stupid to invade in the first place, who was in charge when the decision was made to fire the entire Iraqi army in 2003? Bush. Who was in charge when we were spending billions to train a brand new army? Bush. Who was it that made the decision in 2006 to put Nouri al-Maliki in charge of Iraq? You remember him, he was the guy who alienated half the population and is mostly responsible for conditions in Iraq today? Bush. Though I will be fair and say the CIA recommended him to Bush, but hey, Bush was the decider. And finally, who signed the agreement that pulled all the troops out of Iraq in 2011? Bush. The fact is, your team was in charge when all those decisions were made. Obama's the guy who inherited the results. And that everything's gone to crap you guys want to whine and moan and point fingers at Obama, as if he made all those decisions. Go figure. So yeah, Iraq was fumbled away. And your side was responsible.
Funny how they weren't biased when they gave Obama the 'Lie of the Year' award in 2013. Then you guys were more than happy to quote Politifact. That's another thing that annoys me about conservatives like you. You're flippin' hypocrites.
That would be the one, as you well know. You made the snarky comment about it. Well, when do you plan to refute it? Making a snarky comment implies you don't agree with it. If your gonna snark about it, please, tell us all why. Don't just say it sounds like a "vox talking point" Tell us why I'm wrong.
It was one lie that even they could not "overlook". Idk how that is supposed to change the way they lean the majority of the time.
Black, the sad thing is that your sound arguments will likely fall on deaf ears. People will vote for whoever is most like them. In other words, who would I like to have a drink at the bar with... Go back and look at past presidential elections. Although I have to admit the Bush/Gore should have proven this theory wrong back in 2000 election.
And it is for this reason that 2014 is the first year in my adult life in which i have not voted in a single election. People are just too stupid/gullible to be allowed to vote.
They don't lean. Your side lies more. You guys say the same thing about ALL the best known fact checking sites. Snopes, Factcheck, Politifact, and Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post. Conservatives claim they're ALL biased. Hell it got so bad you guys started your own fact check site, CFC, or Conservative Fact Check. Kinda like how you guys started your own version of Wikipedia, Conservapedia, because Wiki was biased against you too.
It was not necessarily that specific post that I was "making a snarky comment to". Think of it as more a culmination of reading your work on the forums. I had been and continue to get those Salon/Vox vibes from you. And the reason is simple. You take every hot-button issue and say "you may think this but really it was (insert GOP scapegoat here)'s fault. And while you could say the same for people of the opposing side, it is literally every issue mentioned. Meaning, even the issues that I and others could not fathom you turning around and pointing blame at the other side on, you have done ("If you like your doctor..."). This is the equivalent to me or someone on the Right taking Watergate and finding blame for it in the Democrat's side of the aisle while completely overlooking who is really at fault. I also think the numbers and the information you use on a variety of these issues can simply be explained by what I am going to call the Unemployment Rate Theory (for the lack of better knowledge on this topic). Democrats love to applaud the falling unemployment rate under the current administration and they will gladly throw around this rate in a debate for their policies. However Republicans will argue that this fall can easily be attributed to growing number of people dropping from the unemployed, who are simply giving up on finding employment. Factor these people in and the unemployment rate is as high as ever lately. Basically, there are simply different numbers supporting different narratives. I think this is the case for virtually everything debated. Also, you preach about how people are just uninformed and ignorant on the issues. I completely agree but in a totally different fashion.
Um, no. I take issues and show you WHY it was the Republicans fault, backed with facts and data. I don't just say it is. I show HOW and WHY it is. Example, you talked about Iraq being "fumbled". I showed you who did the fumbling. Or do you deny Bush made all those decisions? So let me see if I understand this. I posted charts that show that corporations are making more profits and paying less taxes, while workers wages are stagnant and payroll taxes have increased. I also posted charts showing how incomes used to grow relatively equal before 1979, but since then the wealthy have gotten most of the gains. And your response to all that is refer to "Unemployment Rate theory" and talk about the "real" unemployment rate? What the hell does that have to do with anything I posted? Do you have a coherent answer that relates to those numbers or not? You want to talk about unemployment rates? Let's talk about unemployment rates. First of all, what you're trying to refer to is called the U6 employment rate. It includes the percentage of the labor force that does not have a job, or is part-time employed and would like full-time employment. The rate we hear about most often is the U3 rate. That's the one they're talking about when you hear on the news that unemployment is at 5.9%. So why do conservatives love to talk about the U6 rate? Because the U6 rate is always hire than the U3 rate and the one thing the conservatives can not do is allow Obama to get any credit for things getting better. Here's the historical U3 and U6 employment rates. Notice the U6 rate is always higher than the U3. And notice that the U6 rate is declining at about the same rate as the U3. However, during the recession, the gap went higher than usual and it's still a bit higher than the gap in 1994. Why? Part of it is demographics. The workforce is older, more people are retiring. A study by the Kansas City Federal Reserve found that HALF of the decline in the labor force participation rate was because of that. The rest is combination of factors including globalization send jobs overseas and automation changing the workforce. Here's the link the Fed study http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/ ... dweghe.pdf Here's the final nail in the coffin of your theory The Heritage Foundation: "the "marginally attached" category which is included in the U-6 rate is "so broad, it includes every person who has ever thought about one day having a job...The chief utility of the U-6 rate for anyone but labor economists, then, is often just its shock value." http://www.heritage.org/research/commen ... employment So no, unemployment isn't as high as ever. Both the U3 and U6 are going down. So why do conservatives still love to talk about the U6? They said it themselves. Shock value. I do, and you are. What's worse is you seem to be willful about it. You ignore information that contradicts you or you dismiss it as biased. That's one of the differences between many conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to cling to policies even though the preponderance of the evidence contradicts them. Look at Reaganomics. Look at climate change. They still think one works and deny the other is even happening. This isn't to say that liberals don't do it as well. They do. But most conservatives have practically made a religion out of it and proudly worship at the shrine of ignorance. “The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.” Bertrand Russell
Ok quick question for the conservatives about something black mentioned .. What is the basis for the conservative opposition to the climate change ? It's been widely supported by scientific data but still it's called a hoax.
Realistically it can't be disputed. The only dispute is that were accelerating it. Were in an interglacial age. Global warming has to happen due to the natural cycle of Earth's history. 85% of Earth's existence has been without ice on its polar caps.
DMC that's a counter argument with some basis in science however the levels of CO2 in polar ice samples remained stable for over a 1000yrs then have shown a 40% increase in the years since the early 19th century the time when humanity began the industrial revolution would point to a human involvement in what is happening to the climate.
I never said humans didn't have an effect. I think they do. :lol: I was simply stating it's inevitable and impossible to deny. No politics here. Just science.