If you’re not interested in reading it, let me sum up the conversation:
“A simple observation is stated.”
“Bullshit is smeared over the observation.”
“Facts are introduced, backed up with references.”
“Facts and references are ignored. More bullshit is produced. No references cited.”
“More facts with references are presented.”
“Denial of facts. Laughter. Insults. No counter argument or references presented.”
Or, you could just enjoy the real thing…
October 22, 2012
How many times does Romney need to say "trust me?” Life's taught me that when someone tries to convince you to trust them, it's because you shouldn't.
|screencap from DNC ad, "Maybe"|
Of course it will work........
Did you watch Biden? [A reference to the awesome job VP Biden did in his debate.]
For some reason, when Biden says "Trust Me," it sounds more like a father warning a child about a bad choice the kid made. When Romney says "Trust Me,” it feels like a guy on my porch trying to sell me a bag full of bullshit.
[Speaking of “bag full of bullshit,” I hope you remember this next guy from my "Gun Regulations Kill" post. This was actually our first encounter. It’s short but sweet.]
ha ha, I think they are both full of it. To get elected i guess you have to be like that. [When he knows the truth, the closest a Republican constituent will come to admitting a Republican politician is a “bag full of bullshit” is by claiming both candidates are equally bad.] The part that really bothers me about Obama and why im voting Romney by default is that Obama thinks that by taxing the top 1% we are going to balance the budget? [No. He doesn’t.] It is idiotic to even think that we are going to balance our budget by taxing the top 1%. [It’s idiotic to think he thinks that.] They have the money to spend millions on lawyers to transfer assets and figure out how to not pay taxes. Will only hurt the middle class and small business owners by discouraging the super rich from investing in the USA. [The super rich are already not investing in the USA. The notion that the super rich only making a 75% profit instead of an 80% profit will deter them from investing is a fucking dumb Republican talking point. And only serves to protect the super greed of the super rich yet again at the cost to the super poor.]
[And re-speaking of “bag full of bullshit,” we also know Klink from “Gun Regulations Kill.” Oscar was the main character from that post, Klink is our main sparring partner for this bout.]
Funny, I've felt the same way about Hussain Obama. Can't be trusted for another four years. [Because when you have actual facts as opposed to unsubstantiated "bags full of bullshit" to be angry over, you naturally lower yourself to simple name calling. You dumb dick-hole.]
Well all we can do is "trust" Romney, we have already seen all the damage Obama has done. [All we can do is “trust” Romney? Why? The only thing that “bag full of bullshit” has ever done is lie about everything. Always. He lied about things he’s done. He lied about things he hasn’t done. All he’s concerned with is getting what he wants. He’s not concerned about the American people. Yeah, that’s someone I can “trust.”]
Could you go into specifics about this "damage" Obama has done? Is it creating more jobs in 4 years than Bush did in 8 - all while during a recession and against 100% Republican obstructionism? In fact there are more jobs now than when he took office. Is it the stock market that has gone up 81%? Maybe it's that our importing of foreign oil has gone down 23%. Or is it that there are 23% more US oil rigs in production, turning us toward becoming more energy independent. Is it that renewable energy generation has doubled? Maybe it's that housing is at a 4-year high and continuing on an upward swing. Perhaps it's rescuing the auto industry. Or how about ending DADT? Could it be signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act? Could it be that he greatly improved America's standing in the world after becoming the butt of world jokes during the previous cowboy hick's administration (you have to look to what foreign nations actually say as opposed to what FOX tells you they say)? Is it that he actually went after bin Laden, since Bush never did (Bush never once sent American troops after bin Laden, instead always letting tribal leaders and their militias do it)? Maybe it was also killing the next 30 Al Qaeda leaders as well, plus capturing or killing more terrorists in his first 2 years than Bush did in 8? Is it that he brought the federal budget deficit down from $1.3T to $1.1T - you know, according to actual facts? Is it that he's responsible for the lowest government spending growth in 60 years because he signed the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act? Maybe it's enabling 30 million more people to enjoy health care?
Oh no, wait - I know. Fucking Solyndra. Why would Bush want to fund Solyndra? And how could Obama continue his plan? He should have known better.
Unless I'm missing something?
I did not compare Romney to Bush at all....nor will any rant I may have change who you and I are voting for...all I can say is EVERYONE go Vote! [Copouts, aren’t they great?]
I did not compare Romney to Bush either. In fact, I never mentioned Romney. I compared a couple of Obama's accomplishments against those of Bush's to illustrate how much damage Obama has UNdone. But now that you mention it, Romney did hire 17 Bush/Cheney administration people onto his staff. [Maybe I should “trust” that?]
Interesting how when Bill writes a fully factual, easy to read paragraph about Obama's accomplishments, someone labels it a "rant."
"...all we can do is trust Romney"? Trust what?...that he paid his fair share in taxes? Or that his nondescript budget math will work out for you and me? No thanks. The last President who told us to trust him, he said we'd find WMD's in Iraq. For me, trust doesn't even come into the equation when I vote. If you are running for President on "trust me," I suspect it's because either you don't know or you don't want to tell. Why else would you be hiding? So obviously, I'm voting for Obama, not because I think he's going to save the world, but because I know what he's about and who he's fighting for. In that respect, I agree with everything Bill said. On the other hand, I have no idea who Romney is or what he's about. With his supposed strongest issue, his ability to improve the economy, despite the fact that his claims defy math, he won't back them up with any actual proposals...only, “we'll work it out later with Congress.” I'm sorry, but that is more insulting than reassuring. Then of course there is the fact that he has flip flopped on everything from health care, abortion, gay rights, gun rights, climate change, education, taxes, and immigration, to the point that he has shown only one thing...a willingness to say just about anything to win. I'm sorry, you don't pass the test Romney for the highest office in this great country. Obama-Biden 2012.
I would trust Romney's plan and policies over Obama's any time. What should be clear to most everyone living in this country today is that this administration has exemplified a lack of leadership which continues to burden our nation with high unemployment, record debt, a muddled and confused state of national security, failed U.S. foreign policy which has resulted in our weakened global presence of power abroad. If this sounds like something that you would like for your family's future then Obama is your man. Personally I do not and agree with Ginny. Please EVERYONE go Vote on November 6th! This Nation has arrived at a Crossroad in time and it's future depends on it. God Bless....... [Where do I start? Nothing Klinkey just said is factual. Oy.]
One thing I learned studying finance is that macroeconomic trends take time...years, even a decade, so thinking that we should be out of the catastrophic hole that Bush created is just not realistic. As for the US foreign policy the last four years, I'm happy to say we haven't started any wars...so no, I don't agree with you that our global presence is weakened. As for lack of leadership, you and I already covered this...it's called Republican Obstructionism. How can Obama compromise with thugs who are only interested in seeing him fail. And by thugs, I mean Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, & Ryan. Obama put huge cuts, historic cuts, cuts that infuriated most Democrats, on the bargaining table in order to make a debt deal and move the US forward, and these thugs wouldn't budge even slightly on raising taxes on the 1 percent. What Obama did is not a lack of leadership, it's courage, to do what's unpopular even within his own party, knowing it is the right thing for this country. Instead, these thugs decided that they didn't want to give Obama a "political victory", as Ryan called it. Instead they decided on some B.S. sequestering deal that puts us on the edge of a fiscal cliff if a deal isn't done before the end of the year. The GOP congress came up with that idea instead of doing a deal with Obama. In my humble opinion, our political system under the GOP congress has been hijacked. Call it what you want, but lack of leadership it is not. It's embarrassing, so much so that our pristine credit rating got cut. Standard & Poors cited "the effectiveness of political institutions" as one it's reasons behind the downgrade. Ineffective...the thugs in the GOP. Obama put it all on the table, and they said no "political victories" for Obama. That's playing politics with all of our lives and futures. No matter how you slice it Klink, it's lame.
Facts trump your decades-old Republican talking points, Klink.
Aside from that, I triple-dog dare you to explain even one of Romney's plans or policies. And I mean actual details beyond "he will create jobs," "he will strengthen our economy," "he cares about 100% of the people" and "he said he will tell us after he's elected."
And to each one of your dusted off talking points:
Record debt (yes, it's increased, but in context)...
Confused state of national security...
Failed US foreign policy/weakened global presence of power (in the view of actual foreigners, not FOX "News")...
If there are any other facts you'd like to ignore, let me know, I'll post them.
Since Romney literally has not explained anything he will do, except that he'll let us know the details after he's elected (how insulting to my intelligence), and Obama does actually have a positive and upward trending record that he can run on - opposite of everything you falsely claimed about him, what is the real reason you're so against Obama? Simple partisanship? You vote against your best interests because Romney is on your team? That's sad.
I think I forgot to mention, I really enjoy a good political debate, so I hope I didn't turn it into an argument. As to your notes Bill, all I can say is wow! Thanks for laying it all out. Light to all of you for sharing.
According to Moody's, no matter who is president, our system will create 12 million jobs. Romney is trying to set himself up as possibly being responsible for doing nothing but taking credit for following the current trends that Moody's has been predicting since long before Romney was touting that number. Someone who takes credit for something that is not their creation is BS. Romney is a liar and opportunist.
OK, I should have known better than trying to reason with the left in the first place and figured I may have been wasting my time today at lunch. [Blindly agree with me or I’ll call you unreasonable while I, myself continue to ignore facts.] Just be sure to exercise your rights to vote and let the chips fall where they may. On a side note one might suggest that you could utilize some of that financial savy to assist the State of California with their budget deficit. Heaven knows they could use it! :)
[Uh, yeah... Bloomberg: California to Post $851 Million Budget Surplus ]
The only reason you were wasting your time, is that you brought opinion to a debate rooted in facts and did not actually take part in the point by point debate. You are not reasoning. Reasoning involves listening to facts, presenting your own facts and why you chose the position you have. I don't know about the others on here, but I am a liberal independent. You won't shift me on any issue that involves peoples’ civil rights. You can sway me in terms of economy, financial systems and foreign affairs, but there has not been a single fact-based argument that has proven its merit through more research and digging farther for the deeper facts.
2016: OBAMA'S AMERICA
Really, Klink. Your reason for voting for Romney is a subjective movie that has nearly as many factual errors as Romney's debates. Wow.
LOL, intuition from a fiercely independent. Yep, you broke the code my friend. It was either this one or one of Michael Moore's which swayed me off the fence.
Klink, you seem to be completely ignoring all the facts I've presented that prove your talking points to be wildly inaccurate for the sole purpose of repeating your wildly inaccurate talking points just to unconditionally support the Republican. But, as I assume you, too, are Republican, you possess the innate characteristic of 'fact immunity' that all Republicans do. Tell me, do Republicans even notice these facts when they're presented and simply ignore them or is more like an invisibility cloak is placed around them and you never even know they're there at all?
"2016: Obama's America" by Dinesh D'Souza. Where do I start?
A conservative (which right from the start means it's biased, not fiercely independent, therefore inaccurate) film that Conservative D’Souza made about his own book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage," that he wrote about Obama's book, "The Dreams From My Father." Not, as all the ads say, a movie about Obama's book - that's a lie to sucker in blind right-wing followers. D'Souza, the conservative political commentator associated with right-wing organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution and Policy Review (founded by the Heritage Foundation) wrote a book where he tells everyone how Obama thinks, which isn't how Obama thinks but about how D'Souza thinks Obama thinks. Are you with me so far? I could write a book explaining how I think Romney thinks about wearing a dress and living in a drainpipe, then make a movie about it, but it wouldn't be true, now would it? D'Souza says Obama sympathizes with Hawaiians who felt marginalized by the American government. I could say with just as much factual evidence that D'Souza uses (his inventive mind) that Romney sympathizes with rats living in the drainpipe who feel marginalized by the squirrels who rule the street level. [It’s called ‘making shit up.]
I could do this deconstruction of this farcical conservative hit-piece all day. The whole movie is based on D'Souza's own invented theories based on nothing but partisan hackery and third-party opinions, which D'Souza demands his audience to believe Obama believes the same thing as they do. Third-party opinions mostly from people Obama never knew or knew briefly as a 4-year-old child.
But I do know that since you know Chevy, your opinions are exactly the same as his, right? Right? My third-party opinion, which I based on nothing, can apparently be considered irrefutable fact. In the style of D'Souza's "2016: Obama's America".
Aside from biased, unsubstantiated opinions, there are the inaccuracies (lies) that can actually be fact-checked against real events that occurred in the real world. Plus the lies of omission sprinkled liberally throughout the film.
However, were I to write a book and shoot a movie about Romney's tutu-wearing, underground adventures, I would have a bit more credibility since I'm not the hypocritical partisan hack that was caught in a hotel having an extramarital affair and getting engaged while still married and my wife doesn't even know I'm going to divorce her and get booted by a board of trustees from my evangelical college where I was the president. Did FOX "News" tell you about that? I didn't think so.
Will any of these facts penetrate the "fact immunity" shield? Or will they just be ignored? Will they even be noticed at all? Is this all a waste of time? Only the Amazing Criswell knows!
California Dreaming on such a winters day! [Fact-immunity shields holding, Captain! Firing non sequitur torpedoes!]
Clever. [You fucking clown.] Was that the Facebook version of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling, "NANANANANA I'M NOT LISTENING! I'M NOT LISTENING!"?
However, you've responded to my post, so it seems you saw what I wrote. It's looking like Republicans do actually see, but simply choose to ignore facts that they don't like. I guess there's no other option when no facts exist to support your imagineering of reality.
Like the fact that it's not winter yet. ZING!
This thread demonstrates what it must be like to legislate in Washington. One side citing facts and figures, the other laughing, making jokes, claiming they ‘just know.’ Welcome to American politics.
It is a joke Chevy and the country has never been more divided. A lot of spouting about facts and figures and pro big government with no checks and balances. [You can’t stop me from repeating things out of context, which I don’t really understand but heard on FOX “News!”]
Yes, it is a joke that the Republicans LOVE big, huge, unaccountable government run amuck and somehow convince their followers of the opposite. While Democrats mostly like a smaller, more efficient and streamlined government and Republicans convince their followers of the opposite of this fact as well.
You know, if you go by facts and figures and all.
Forbes: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
CATO Institute Store: Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution (Book)
You are correct, the country has never been more divided. Who ever counts 1861 - 1865 anyway? But your second sentence has no subject, so I was assuming you were going with the standard Republican lie that Democrats are for big government with no checks and balances. Hence, all the articles (including several Conservative sources so as not to appear biased) I posted that prove the contrary. At best, you were saying both Parties are for big government, but that would still be incorrect. I hope this clears up any confusion you may have had.
Sorry but I couldn't get past the first line where a liberal is claiming that conservatives are the real proponents of big government. That in itself told me I was dealing with blind politics here as if I didn't already know. Similar to you or another one on this tread claiming to be a "liberal independent". LOL, what the heck is a liberal independent anyway????? No, forget I even asked.....OK, I concede and shall refrain from anymore posts on this subject. I'll let you guys fight it out. You people deserve yourselves anyway.
You apparently couldn't get past the first fact laid at your feet and instead chose to desperately cling to decades-old right-wing talking points. You obviously have not bothered to read any of the links for fear of reality shattering your well-crafted fantasy world.
I'm not a liberal independent myself, but I could easily explain it to you if you wish. It's not difficult to understand.
As for dealing with blind politics, was there any point at which you ever proved one of your ill-informed talking points? No - you seem to only respond with "LOL" and "I know you are, but what am I?"
Good day, sir.
“You people?” No need to get nasty, Klink.
"Trust me" are just empty words.
Sorry, I just can't comprehend the liberal thought process. You "guys and gals" really do deserve each other. Good luck on Tuesday. Be sure and vote early.
[In conclusion, I thoroughly enjoyed the term, “bag full of bullshit.”]