Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, September 4, 2012
2012 Are We Better Off Than We Were Four Years Ago?
Posted by Eli Sanders on Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:00 AM
Democrats say yes. Nate Silver says that's not really the right question. And Slog says?
1
from the article:
"It’s a smart question for Mitt Romney’s campaign to be asking, and one that President Obama needs to develop a better answer to...."
'cause HELL NO just doesn't sing......
"It’s a smart question for Mitt Romney’s campaign to be asking, and one that President Obama needs to develop a better answer to...."
'cause HELL NO just doesn't sing......
2
Nate Silver is right. That's the wrong question. It was the wrong question in 1980 too. The question should be one of the following:
Where do you to be in four years?
What kind of society do we wish to create?
What does "America" stand for?
Do we want to build bridges to the future or look back to a nostalgic past?
The "Are you better off than you were" question is a backwards-looking question, posed by a backwards looking party when promoting a backwards looking candidate. We are at out best when we talk about creating a compassionate society and at our worst when we promote individual wealth as a benchmark for success.
Where do you to be in four years?
What kind of society do we wish to create?
What does "America" stand for?
Do we want to build bridges to the future or look back to a nostalgic past?
The "Are you better off than you were" question is a backwards-looking question, posed by a backwards looking party when promoting a backwards looking candidate. We are at out best when we talk about creating a compassionate society and at our worst when we promote individual wealth as a benchmark for success.
3
I don't know if I'm better off now than I was four years ago, but it's a dumb question.
I know that I'll be worse off if Romney is elected and starts using my social services to give money to billionaires. I know that I'll be better off if Obama stays in and the ACA is actually allowed to take effect.
I know that I'll be worse off if Romney is elected and starts using my social services to give money to billionaires. I know that I'll be better off if Obama stays in and the ACA is actually allowed to take effect.
4
Four years ago (almost to the day - I think the anniversary is next week) Wamu collapsed and put our future in doubt. It ended up working out pretty well for us because Chase's severance was pretty generous, but my wife was still out of work a very long time. But we're definitely better off now. Just imagine how well everyone would be doing if the Republican Congress would stop playing politics with the economy.
6
Four years ago, Iraq still slogged on, dictators dominated the Middle East and gays couldn't serve openly. The Dems have been on the right side of foreign policy, and Obama has shown he has some balls, working with the Israelis to troll the Iran nuke program and doing just enough to topple Libya. Obama has done more for democracy in the Middle East than Bush Or Clinton, at much less of a cost than the dreary slog of Afghanistan or Iraq.
9
It's a trick question, of course. The answer is "yes", as Matt pointed out, but if Obama says that, then Republicans will scream "23 MILLION!" and "out of touch!" And if he says "Well..." then that will make the Republicans' case. So the way he should answer the question (imo, and he does need to answer it, because they're never going to let it go) is by rattling his list of successes - that record Republicans keep saying Obama can't run on - and what better time to do that than on his party convention, particularly when the Republican convention was so devoid of policy points? Show us your trophies, man!
10
It's the exactly right question and the answer is OMG of course. We were facing a financial cliff. Wall Street was spiraling downward. Banks were collapsing. Houses were being foreclosed. Jobs were vanishing. And we had two wars we were not winning and were costing us trillions of dollars. That's an enormous hole to dig out of and Republicans have been stopping progress in getting us out. What took eight years of Republican unbridled greed and avarice and wars only took Obama two years to start to reverse. We are so lucky he came along when he did and no matter what happens in the future he will always be a hero to millions of Americans.
11
The question is not only stupid but very destructive. Tomorrow must be better than today; There are not enough resources on the planet to make that true on a material level. The lies Americans have been fed for the past 50 years are now coming out from the sewers as the monsters they are. More More More More More for every generation is just not possible.
12
The question that Reagan asked in 1984 (NOT 1980) was "Is America better off than it was 4 years ago?" It's a more interesting and more relevant question than that 1980 question.
It's also a question that Obama should be unafraid to answer directly and honestly. And it wouldn't be a bad question to remind the press corps (a.k.a the Village Idiots) that Reagan asked it as a rhetorical reminder to use as a re-election campaign. Keep in mind that the economy at the end of Reagan's first term wasn't all that great, but it was on the upswing after it hit bottom in late 1982.
It's also a question that Obama should be unafraid to answer directly and honestly. And it wouldn't be a bad question to remind the press corps (a.k.a the Village Idiots) that Reagan asked it as a rhetorical reminder to use as a re-election campaign. Keep in mind that the economy at the end of Reagan's first term wasn't all that great, but it was on the upswing after it hit bottom in late 1982.
15
Reagan was very much a feel-good president, and when he asked that question, people answered "yes" because they felt better about things than they had four years ago.
Of course, this was mostly because Reagan and the Republicans were lying to them about what was going on. But the important thing (from an election standpoint) was that people believed it. People believed the future was so bright, they had to wear shades.
Of course, this was mostly because Reagan and the Republicans were lying to them about what was going on. But the important thing (from an election standpoint) was that people believed it. People believed the future was so bright, they had to wear shades.
16
I voted no (because I'm not) but the free fall wasn't quite done at the time. I'll take a glacial recovery over free fall any day of the week.
For actual hope though: that's going to require a change in the running clown show in congress.
Seriously; I can enjoy a couple clowns there and even be glad of reasoned opposition but this group of orange led, Teabagging, wide stance, know nuthin [sic], who couldn't pass a 7th grade science class or 4th grade math test on a good day Autons....That has to change.
For actual hope though: that's going to require a change in the running clown show in congress.
Seriously; I can enjoy a couple clowns there and even be glad of reasoned opposition but this group of orange led, Teabagging, wide stance, know nuthin [sic], who couldn't pass a 7th grade science class or 4th grade math test on a good day Autons....That has to change.
17
It's absolute desperation to spin the famous "Are you..." into "Are we...." because "Are you...." will not produce the desired results. So desperate these Democrats.
20
@ 17, I feel sorry for the material you paid campaign shills have to work with. I follow other blogs, all with one distinct Romney shill, all straining to polish the Romney turd, all stretching to show that Obama's good results are bad and the bad ones horrible, all to no credible effect.
I hope the pay is worth it, because you truly have a thankless job.
I hope the pay is worth it, because you truly have a thankless job.
21
Elizabeth Warren was the perfect person to have out there answering this question on the morning shows. The difference between Obama and Romney is that Romney's approach is to cut taxes for the richest, increase taxes for the middle class and cut investment in the future.
Also, watching Matt Lauer destroy Paul Ryan this morning was pretty insightful into the quality of that candidate.
Also, watching Matt Lauer destroy Paul Ryan this morning was pretty insightful into the quality of that candidate.
22
Completely agree with @20. It's pathetic that they are paying sock puppets, and the quality of their comments is pretty indicative of the quality of their candidate. Romney=Dukakis.
23
Four years ago to this day, I lost my job when the place I was working at had to cut budgets. I applied to hundreds of jobs all over the country and was getting seriously desperate because I was getting no reponses.
Today I have a great job with a promising future. The company is in a hiring frenzy, growing fast, and my economic situation is better now than when I was employed at my old place four years back.
So yeah, anecdotally, I'm doing WAY better now.
Today I have a great job with a promising future. The company is in a hiring frenzy, growing fast, and my economic situation is better now than when I was employed at my old place four years back.
So yeah, anecdotally, I'm doing WAY better now.
24
@20: Which is it Matt? A while back you (I think - or maybe it was Theodore) concluded that I was not being paid as surely the Republicans wouldn't waste their money in some one as inarticulate as I.
What changed?
What changed?
25
I'm better off in almost every way. Except one, and Obama is probably not to blame for that one.
The Republicans, under that master propagandist, Karl Rove, with lots of help from Roger Ailes, Grover Norquist, the Kochs, and other oligarchs, are destroying our democracy. Watching their tactics, and their success so far, I can't help feeling we're living in an environment like pre-Nazi Germany as Goebbels and company consolidate their strategy for taking power.
I'm personally very lucky, and grateful for it. I've got more money, more stuff, more peace, more friends, more activities, more sense of belonging to my country, and way more pride in our President. The only thing I haven't got is more confidence that our democracy will survive the subversive Republican takeover strategy.
The Republicans, under that master propagandist, Karl Rove, with lots of help from Roger Ailes, Grover Norquist, the Kochs, and other oligarchs, are destroying our democracy. Watching their tactics, and their success so far, I can't help feeling we're living in an environment like pre-Nazi Germany as Goebbels and company consolidate their strategy for taking power.
I'm personally very lucky, and grateful for it. I've got more money, more stuff, more peace, more friends, more activities, more sense of belonging to my country, and way more pride in our President. The only thing I haven't got is more confidence that our democracy will survive the subversive Republican takeover strategy.
26
@17 this isn't the only reason, though i'm sure you'll persist in slandering me as a 'single issue voter' but to pick one that hadn't mentioned when i sat down to feed you....
i have a 'husband.' i didn't 4 years ago. of course we were engaged then.. no no.. come to think of it, we weren't engaged but we were talking about it. we got 'married' 3 years ago. both sets of parents were there and about 2oo other fine folks. my mother calls him 'your husband'. she makes her friends call him that as well. as we watch dadt fall and doma get rigorously challenged, most on the opposition can't figure out why marriage rights are 'rights' at all. i was hospitalized twice last year 11 days in all to the tune of close to $80, 000, because i'm LEGALLY on my 'husband's' insurance,insurance that i didn't have 4 years ago the company took care of roughly $76, 000 of it without hesitation, without batting an eye. the opposition clamour their promise mightily that they would have have both 'privileges' taken away or rescinded..or something or yeah.. 'let the states decide' then i think how fortunate that i live in a state ( governed enough by dems in fact ) that have diligently worked so i can have these 'rights', so i wouldn't think of thinking about voting for a republican because of that.. but, yeah 'gay dude', it occurs to me that my better could be your better-. should you choose to partner or marry - and that my rights OUGHT to be yours as well. in spite of the fact that you say you'll vote against these interests, because ...? i can't remember why..
i have a 'husband.' i didn't 4 years ago. of course we were engaged then.. no no.. come to think of it, we weren't engaged but we were talking about it. we got 'married' 3 years ago. both sets of parents were there and about 2oo other fine folks. my mother calls him 'your husband'. she makes her friends call him that as well. as we watch dadt fall and doma get rigorously challenged, most on the opposition can't figure out why marriage rights are 'rights' at all. i was hospitalized twice last year 11 days in all to the tune of close to $80, 000, because i'm LEGALLY on my 'husband's' insurance,insurance that i didn't have 4 years ago the company took care of roughly $76, 000 of it without hesitation, without batting an eye. the opposition clamour their promise mightily that they would have have both 'privileges' taken away or rescinded..or something or yeah.. 'let the states decide' then i think how fortunate that i live in a state ( governed enough by dems in fact ) that have diligently worked so i can have these 'rights', so i wouldn't think of thinking about voting for a republican because of that.. but, yeah 'gay dude', it occurs to me that my better could be your better-. should you choose to partner or marry - and that my rights OUGHT to be yours as well. in spite of the fact that you say you'll vote against these interests, because ...? i can't remember why..
27
@24
You defend racists and bigots and cannot identify one of Romney's policies and defend it.
That's been your MO since you first appeared here.
Whatever they're paying you is too much.
And you're such a sad person that you have to try to troll The Stranger.
That's your life.
You defend racists and bigots and cannot identify one of Romney's policies and defend it.
That's been your MO since you first appeared here.
Whatever they're paying you is too much.
And you're such a sad person that you have to try to troll The Stranger.
That's your life.
28
As a woman and seeing my civil liberties slowly being eaten away across the country, I am doing worse. But I'm white, so no one is trying to take away my voting rights, so that good. I work for a large corporation that does some bad things in the name of profit and never saw their stock price drop in the recession so they will continue to do bad things. I pay more for health insurance and my deductible is getting pretty large (which is a problem since I have a chronic medical condition). But I've gotten a raise every year. I get taxed higher than any of the executives in my company. My country is involved in an un-winnable war, kills civilians by drones, and picks and chooses which middle east countries to help as they struggle towards democracy. There is an angry, well-funded group in this country that wants to turn our government into a Theocracy and unbelievably continues to win little battle after little battle.
Objectively, I'd say I'm doing a little worse, but seeing how horribly things could be in another 4-8 years, leaves me a little panicked.
Objectively, I'd say I'm doing a little worse, but seeing how horribly things could be in another 4-8 years, leaves me a little panicked.
31
@26: I can't negate what you said. I'm happy for your marriage and I plan to vote for same-sex marriage in Washington State; and I'm sure it will pass. Mitt Romney once told the Boston gay press that he'd be strong advocate for gay rights and same sex couples. Of course he had to swing right to pick up the base; but there's no reason to think that Mitt will not moderate his views after his election. But the executive branch has limited influence in these matters. I think the Supreme Court will decide on same sex marriage next summer.
As citizens we must weigh our personal situation, our experiences, and our political philosophy against the choice between two flawed mortals. Both Obama and Romney are admirable men. Even though I disfavor Obama, he is a great patriot who has dedicated his life to public service. And even though I wish the Republican nominee was a more refined visionary with the political skills of a Ronald Reagan or even George HW Bush, Romney is also a great patriot who has dedicated his life to public service.
Consequently, there are compromises in not only in who to vote for but in the core issues we feel passionately about. I have never personally heard of a gay couple moving out of the United States to a society more accepting of same sex couples for that reason alone. I’m sure there are few. The reason being is that freedom not only includes the ability to marry one’s soul mate, but freedom from expanding government into our personal and financial lives, freedom from unwarranted and inefficient regulations, freedom in our health choices, freedom in how we responsibly use our land, and perhaps most importantly for the candidate best suited for handling geopolitical relations and the economy.
As citizens we must weigh our personal situation, our experiences, and our political philosophy against the choice between two flawed mortals. Both Obama and Romney are admirable men. Even though I disfavor Obama, he is a great patriot who has dedicated his life to public service. And even though I wish the Republican nominee was a more refined visionary with the political skills of a Ronald Reagan or even George HW Bush, Romney is also a great patriot who has dedicated his life to public service.
Consequently, there are compromises in not only in who to vote for but in the core issues we feel passionately about. I have never personally heard of a gay couple moving out of the United States to a society more accepting of same sex couples for that reason alone. I’m sure there are few. The reason being is that freedom not only includes the ability to marry one’s soul mate, but freedom from expanding government into our personal and financial lives, freedom from unwarranted and inefficient regulations, freedom in our health choices, freedom in how we responsibly use our land, and perhaps most importantly for the candidate best suited for handling geopolitical relations and the economy.
32
Four years ago I had been forced to move out of my 1 bedroom apartment and back in with my parents after losing my job and running out of money. Today my income has is approx. 53% higher than it was at the job I lost, I can afford to live in a 3 bedroom, 2 1/2 bath house on 5 acres, and I have enough disposable income to to pursue a sport that is pretty spendy. Definitely better off now than I was 4 years ago.
33
I'm better off because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice were constantly telling me how afraid I should be. Obama put an end to the fear-mongering.
34
@31
"Of course he had to swing right to pick up the base; but there's no reason to think that Mitt will not moderate his views after his election."
So you are claiming that a person will 100% completely change his position once elected.
Because he only said that so he could be elected.
So not only do you defend racists and bigots but now you're advocating for lying?
"Even though I disfavor Obama, he is a great patriot who has dedicated his life to public service."
And Obama has publicly stated that he supports gay rights.
But, instead, you're going to HOPE that Romney is LYING about his opposition to gay rights.
"... Romney is also a great patriot who has dedicated his life to public service."
Romney ships US jobs overseas and then hides the profits in off-shore tax havens. Not to mention that you're claiming that he is LYING about his opposition to gay rights.
That's the problem with just being a troll.
You cannot hold consistent views because reality keeps getting in the way.
You have a very sad life.
"Of course he had to swing right to pick up the base; but there's no reason to think that Mitt will not moderate his views after his election."
So you are claiming that a person will 100% completely change his position once elected.
Because he only said that so he could be elected.
So not only do you defend racists and bigots but now you're advocating for lying?
"Even though I disfavor Obama, he is a great patriot who has dedicated his life to public service."
And Obama has publicly stated that he supports gay rights.
But, instead, you're going to HOPE that Romney is LYING about his opposition to gay rights.
"... Romney is also a great patriot who has dedicated his life to public service."
Romney ships US jobs overseas and then hides the profits in off-shore tax havens. Not to mention that you're claiming that he is LYING about his opposition to gay rights.
That's the problem with just being a troll.
You cannot hold consistent views because reality keeps getting in the way.
You have a very sad life.
35
I am better off today than I was 4 years ago, but since I work in NIH-funded scientific research I would probably be out of a job within a year if Romney wins.
If we are to take the man at his word and he repeals health care reform and replaces it with [TBD at a later date] every last one of us will be fucked. If we are to take the man at his word regarding marriage equality I can kiss those rights goodbye. Also: war with Iran, expanding the deficit via decreased federal revenues and increased DoD expenditures, and extremist SCOTUS appointments that would ensure the continued erosion of women's reproductive rights and gay equality in general.
It is alarming to me that there are people other than heterosexual men who live off of stock options who would vote for these people. These are strange and scary times we're living in.
If we are to take the man at his word and he repeals health care reform and replaces it with [TBD at a later date] every last one of us will be fucked. If we are to take the man at his word regarding marriage equality I can kiss those rights goodbye. Also: war with Iran, expanding the deficit via decreased federal revenues and increased DoD expenditures, and extremist SCOTUS appointments that would ensure the continued erosion of women's reproductive rights and gay equality in general.
It is alarming to me that there are people other than heterosexual men who live off of stock options who would vote for these people. These are strange and scary times we're living in.
36
@24: It was me actually. I am essentially the only person on here who thinks you are not getting paid, but simply trying to muddy the waters with lies.
It is not because you are inarticulate, as you certainly are, but rather because you demonstrate a very poor ability to respond to arguments, and you tell an awful lot of easily demonstrable lies.
Like this one @31: "Romney is a great patriot who has dedicated his life to punblic service"
What? You mean those four years he was governer of Massachusetts? He is 65. Four years is not his "lifetime" by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe you could count the few years he served on the board of the winter olympics. Still not much of a "lifetime."
Easily demonstrable lies.
It is not because you are inarticulate, as you certainly are, but rather because you demonstrate a very poor ability to respond to arguments, and you tell an awful lot of easily demonstrable lies.
Like this one @31: "Romney is a great patriot who has dedicated his life to punblic service"
What? You mean those four years he was governer of Massachusetts? He is 65. Four years is not his "lifetime" by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe you could count the few years he served on the board of the winter olympics. Still not much of a "lifetime."
Easily demonstrable lies.
37
@31, first off, human rights shouldn't be compromised or voted on. Second, there is no reason to believe Mitt Romney will moderate his views after the election. He wouldn't get re-elected if he suddenly turned his back on his base after just getting him elected. His flip-flopping that you've noted may be a positive quality to you, but any woman, immigrant, minority, gay who believes it will work to their advantage after Mitt Romney has run a campaign of fear and lies against them to rev up his base is a optimisitic fool at best.
38
@31
thanks.. i'll leave it to others to challenge your beliefs but thanks..
( except romney , being the mormon he is will in no way 'swing' to providing any support for gay issues http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/29/…
"From Day One, I've opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions," he told South Carolina Republicans in 2005. Calling the ruling "a blow against the family," he said that some gay couples "are actually having children born to them."
Romney backed up his rhetoric with money, donating $10,000 from his political action committee to a 2006 campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in South Carolina. The same year, he directed tens of thousands of dollars from his personal family foundation to several conservative groups, including $10,000 to the Massachusetts Family Institute. Mineau said the funds helped defray the $500,000 the group spent on its petition drive for the constitutional amendment.".. should he win, he'd have to have a mighty swing)
thanks.. i'll leave it to others to challenge your beliefs but thanks..
( except romney , being the mormon he is will in no way 'swing' to providing any support for gay issues http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/29/…
"From Day One, I've opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions," he told South Carolina Republicans in 2005. Calling the ruling "a blow against the family," he said that some gay couples "are actually having children born to them."
Romney backed up his rhetoric with money, donating $10,000 from his political action committee to a 2006 campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in South Carolina. The same year, he directed tens of thousands of dollars from his personal family foundation to several conservative groups, including $10,000 to the Massachusetts Family Institute. Mineau said the funds helped defray the $500,000 the group spent on its petition drive for the constitutional amendment.".. should he win, he'd have to have a mighty swing)
39
@ 24, What I did was ask you straight up if you were working for a campaign (doesn't have to be Romney's - it could be the GOP or a 527), and said I would be willing to take you at your word. But your ridiculous comments (Romney's the better foreign policy candidate? Really?) echo the ones the other shills at the other blogs say way too frequently. So I now conclude that you're definitely a shill in the employ of either the Romney campaign, the GOP itself, or an allied and interested third party. As I said, what a thankless job that must be.
Now, it could be that Theodore has it right, that you're here all on your own volition, trying to make a difference without direction or request from anyone campaigning for Romney. Perhaps your comments echo the others I've seen because you read the same blogs and pick up the same talking points. You don't strike me like that, though. Usually the people who do that are complete idiots who believe they're taking on the "dark side" or some such shit, and get caught up in endless flame wars because they're so sure of themselves (think Seattleblues or Loveschild). You, OTOH, drop in, have your say, sometimes engage but frequently bail. Pretty much the MO of blog shills I've encountered every election cycle since I discovered this "blog" thing, which will end with your total disappearance (at least using this account) once the election is over.
Now, it could be that Theodore has it right, that you're here all on your own volition, trying to make a difference without direction or request from anyone campaigning for Romney. Perhaps your comments echo the others I've seen because you read the same blogs and pick up the same talking points. You don't strike me like that, though. Usually the people who do that are complete idiots who believe they're taking on the "dark side" or some such shit, and get caught up in endless flame wars because they're so sure of themselves (think Seattleblues or Loveschild). You, OTOH, drop in, have your say, sometimes engage but frequently bail. Pretty much the MO of blog shills I've encountered every election cycle since I discovered this "blog" thing, which will end with your total disappearance (at least using this account) once the election is over.
40
@31 The Orwellian nature of the right's 'freedom' mantra cannot be pointed out too many times.
The right in this country is responsible for just about every egregious assault on civil liberties for at least the last 100 years. The drug war would be the most glaring example. The Patriot Act, 3 strikes your out laws. The right believes the government belongs in a woman's uterus but it is a great offense against 'freedom' when it prevents a mining conglomerate from poisoning a public watershed.
Your 'freedom' is a complete fraud. The freedom for oligarchs to do as they please pretty much always means less freedom for the rest of us. Who is free when the health care they depend on is inextricably bound to a job they despise and would like to leave? Who is free when they can't choose where they want to live because landlords have been given the 'freedom' to discriminate? Who is free when their air and water have been made toxic by corporations given the 'freedom' to pollute?
Complete bullshit.
The right in this country is responsible for just about every egregious assault on civil liberties for at least the last 100 years. The drug war would be the most glaring example. The Patriot Act, 3 strikes your out laws. The right believes the government belongs in a woman's uterus but it is a great offense against 'freedom' when it prevents a mining conglomerate from poisoning a public watershed.
Your 'freedom' is a complete fraud. The freedom for oligarchs to do as they please pretty much always means less freedom for the rest of us. Who is free when the health care they depend on is inextricably bound to a job they despise and would like to leave? Who is free when they can't choose where they want to live because landlords have been given the 'freedom' to discriminate? Who is free when their air and water have been made toxic by corporations given the 'freedom' to pollute?
Complete bullshit.
41
@38 It wouldn't just be Romney who would have to swing on gay rights; the entire Republican Party would have to completely re-structure their platform and alienate the majority of their base in the process. The change will happen at some point (they will have no choice) but if the GOP wins in November that will not happen in the next four years. If Romney wins on a platform that seeks to ban same-sex marriage via a constitutional amendment (not to mention reinstating DADT) it will be taken as a mandate by the public. Granted, he will not be able to amend the Constitution (girl, please!) but regardless he will have no room to maneuver on these issues.
Hostility towards gay equality is one of the GOP's core beliefs. A vote for Romney is a vote against gay equality, regardless of one's own personal feelings.
Hostility towards gay equality is one of the GOP's core beliefs. A vote for Romney is a vote against gay equality, regardless of one's own personal feelings.
42
@39: It should be noted though, that partially why I feel he is not being paid is because of a 30 or so back and forth comment war he had with fairly.unbalanced about racism. It was a total circle jerk, and went nowhere (but where could it go really) where fairly.unbalanced pretty much just trolled him to death. Pretty funny though.
My thing was, no employer who saw that momentous waste of time would have kept that employee on the payroll. Although you are correct, the MO is usually drop in, tell some lies, then leave.
Paid or not, he will vanish after the election anyway, as his purpose will be over.
My thing was, no employer who saw that momentous waste of time would have kept that employee on the payroll. Although you are correct, the MO is usually drop in, tell some lies, then leave.
Paid or not, he will vanish after the election anyway, as his purpose will be over.
43
@39: Just one note. Don't confuse 'frequently bailing' with the fact that people have to get back to work, are off line, and by the time you get back the post and comments have been pushed down into the archives - and once collapsed, I seldom bother.
44
Silver's right - but in a way that will only make sense to liberals in the first place, so is it worth worrying about? Ayn Rand has so thoroughly poisoned conservatism in this country that I really doubt anyone inclined to even consider voting Republican would see anything wrong with choosing a President based on its effects on your personal wealth.
The right question is of course, "Is the world a better place because we elected this dude than it would have been if we elected the other dude?" and the answer is, "Yes, marginally, but sufficiently to justify electing this dude again, out of the available options."
Besides, the right wing would like you to compare today to a magical fantasyland version of where you wanted today to be, not to how things actually were four years ago or how they would realistically be under President McCain.
The right question is of course, "Is the world a better place because we elected this dude than it would have been if we elected the other dude?" and the answer is, "Yes, marginally, but sufficiently to justify electing this dude again, out of the available options."
Besides, the right wing would like you to compare today to a magical fantasyland version of where you wanted today to be, not to how things actually were four years ago or how they would realistically be under President McCain.
45
@43
"Just one note."
No.
You defend racist and bigots and now you've resorted to claiming that Romney has been LYING about his beliefs just to get elected (and that doing so is laudable by your standards).
This is the best your life has to offer.
At least here, people will respond to your comments.
They won't respect you.
They won't admire your insight.
They won't even consider you to be honestly representing yourself.
But they will respond to your comments.
And in your sad life, that is the best you can hope for.
"Just one note."
No.
You defend racist and bigots and now you've resorted to claiming that Romney has been LYING about his beliefs just to get elected (and that doing so is laudable by your standards).
This is the best your life has to offer.
At least here, people will respond to your comments.
They won't respect you.
They won't admire your insight.
They won't even consider you to be honestly representing yourself.
But they will respond to your comments.
And in your sad life, that is the best you can hope for.
46
@42 - Completely agreed. He's not a paid shill. I personally believe he's Raindrop in a new skin.
Even though the reasons he provides for supporting Rmoney vs the rest of us "single issue voters" (whatever that means) are easily refutable, he clings to anything in desperation and goes through crazy contortions to justify the fact that he's a Republican. It's his brand identity. He'd be lost without it.
Why should we believe him when he says "There's no reason to think that Mitt will not moderate his views after his election." when he's also told us "President Obama deserves great credit for repealing DADT, but he (like Romeny) will never sanction same sex marriage" or all the other sorts of magical things that the he think Republicans will do that are completely contrary to what they actually do?
No way he's getting paid for this.
Even though the reasons he provides for supporting Rmoney vs the rest of us "single issue voters" (whatever that means) are easily refutable, he clings to anything in desperation and goes through crazy contortions to justify the fact that he's a Republican. It's his brand identity. He'd be lost without it.
Why should we believe him when he says "There's no reason to think that Mitt will not moderate his views after his election." when he's also told us "President Obama deserves great credit for repealing DADT, but he (like Romeny) will never sanction same sex marriage" or all the other sorts of magical things that the he think Republicans will do that are completely contrary to what they actually do?
No way he's getting paid for this.
47
@40 Thank you. Couldn't be more succinctly or effectively explained. Freedom is not only the freedom to act, it's also to be free of others acting to your detriment.
The one freedom the Republicans never want us to have is to be free of fear. For that is how they manipulate the electorate.
The one freedom the Republicans never want us to have is to be free of fear. For that is how they manipulate the electorate.
48
Re: GDfR, I don't care if he is a shill or not. I'm willing to take him at his word that he is Gay and considers himself to be a conservative. Albeit a Republican who knows not what conservative political thought and theory is but rather drinks the kool-aid of Orwellian conservatism provided by Rush, Beck, Fox News (sic), et al.
To the best of my knowledge he has yet to answer the simple question I've posted to him a couple of times in varies forms. Other then that he is not Obama, what is Romney specifically proposing that motivates you to support him GDfR?
In anticipation of his answer I'll leave you gentle readers with the following.
Reagan solicitor general Charles Fried, now a Harvard Law professor.
“Having abandoned John McCain—a decent and independent-minded man—when he picked Sarah Palin, I most certainly could not support Governor Romney, who has been pandering to the extreme wing of my party from the start of his campaign for the nomination,” Fried wrote in an email. “Napoleon said that the man who will say anything will do anything.”
Wick Allison, former publisher of National Review under William F. Buckley and current publisher of The American Conservative.
“I will probably vote for Obama, unless I have a Gary Johnson–inspiration in the voting booth. (My vote in Texas is wasted anyway.),” Allison wrote in an email. “Romney is the opposite of conservative, with a plan that is fiscally reckless and a foreign policy that is unnecessarily militant. Obama has done about the best that could have been done, considering the united GOP opposition in Congress. My questions about Obamacare and my disappointment that we are not already out of Afghanistan are not enough to make me embrace a candidacy that even George W. Bush would have been repelled by—and, having had time to reflect on his own record, perhaps is.”
Douglas Kmiec, a veteran of Reagan’s Office of Legal Counsel and a law professor at conservative Pepperdine University, he also served as ambassador to Malta during the first two years of the Obama administration.
“I am strongly in the president’s camp, even as his opposition has been doing its darnedest to overstate a few concerns about the usual subjects,” Kmiec wrote in an email. “Having served in Europe for the president, I know the very positive effect he has had on international relationships. His patience, discernment, and intelligence are much admired. Domestically, the president was handed the worst possible economic hand, and largely, though of course not perfectly, he has met the economic challenge … This is supposed to be Mr. Romney’s area of strength, but so far, his ideas are either indecipherable or a rather lame trickle-down do-over.”
These men are not liberals GDfR, they are not sophomores enthralled by mediocre novels infused with a weak gruel of sub-par and poorly reasoned "philosophy" by a hack writer.
Fried Allison and Kmiec are Conservatives who have spent their lives working and thinking in a real world of real politics. Put on your tri-corner hat if you must GDfR but don't call yourself a conservative, you know not the meaning of the word and doth shame it.
More...
To the best of my knowledge he has yet to answer the simple question I've posted to him a couple of times in varies forms. Other then that he is not Obama, what is Romney specifically proposing that motivates you to support him GDfR?
In anticipation of his answer I'll leave you gentle readers with the following.
Reagan solicitor general Charles Fried, now a Harvard Law professor.
“Having abandoned John McCain—a decent and independent-minded man—when he picked Sarah Palin, I most certainly could not support Governor Romney, who has been pandering to the extreme wing of my party from the start of his campaign for the nomination,” Fried wrote in an email. “Napoleon said that the man who will say anything will do anything.”
Wick Allison, former publisher of National Review under William F. Buckley and current publisher of The American Conservative.
“I will probably vote for Obama, unless I have a Gary Johnson–inspiration in the voting booth. (My vote in Texas is wasted anyway.),” Allison wrote in an email. “Romney is the opposite of conservative, with a plan that is fiscally reckless and a foreign policy that is unnecessarily militant. Obama has done about the best that could have been done, considering the united GOP opposition in Congress. My questions about Obamacare and my disappointment that we are not already out of Afghanistan are not enough to make me embrace a candidacy that even George W. Bush would have been repelled by—and, having had time to reflect on his own record, perhaps is.”
Douglas Kmiec, a veteran of Reagan’s Office of Legal Counsel and a law professor at conservative Pepperdine University, he also served as ambassador to Malta during the first two years of the Obama administration.
“I am strongly in the president’s camp, even as his opposition has been doing its darnedest to overstate a few concerns about the usual subjects,” Kmiec wrote in an email. “Having served in Europe for the president, I know the very positive effect he has had on international relationships. His patience, discernment, and intelligence are much admired. Domestically, the president was handed the worst possible economic hand, and largely, though of course not perfectly, he has met the economic challenge … This is supposed to be Mr. Romney’s area of strength, but so far, his ideas are either indecipherable or a rather lame trickle-down do-over.”
These men are not liberals GDfR, they are not sophomores enthralled by mediocre novels infused with a weak gruel of sub-par and poorly reasoned "philosophy" by a hack writer.
Fried Allison and Kmiec are Conservatives who have spent their lives working and thinking in a real world of real politics. Put on your tri-corner hat if you must GDfR but don't call yourself a conservative, you know not the meaning of the word and doth shame it.
49
@48: Turning to foreign policy.. to name a few:
It would have been the conservative position, to have honored the NATO missile agreement in Poland. Or at least to have made Russia enact sanctions on Iran in return.
It would have been the conservative position, to insist on a standing forces agreement in Iraq so that our sacrifices, not to mention Iraq's future, would have not been in vain.
It would have been the conservative position, to have answered the call of the Iranian demonstrators "Obama, are you with us or against us" instead of paying deference to the mullahs.
It would have been the conservative position, to have made unequivocal assurances to the world that the United States stands beside Israel in any self-defense military actions against Iran.
It would have been the conservative position, to call China to task on its trade, counterfeiting, and copyright violations.
It would have been the conservative position, to have at least used the office of the presidency to denounce Syria's Assad in his brutality against his own people. There have been only meek pronouncements. Not even any visible anger against Assad who even bombed a hospital where no rebels were around.
It would have been the conservative position, to have honored the NATO missile agreement in Poland. Or at least to have made Russia enact sanctions on Iran in return.
It would have been the conservative position, to insist on a standing forces agreement in Iraq so that our sacrifices, not to mention Iraq's future, would have not been in vain.
It would have been the conservative position, to have answered the call of the Iranian demonstrators "Obama, are you with us or against us" instead of paying deference to the mullahs.
It would have been the conservative position, to have made unequivocal assurances to the world that the United States stands beside Israel in any self-defense military actions against Iran.
It would have been the conservative position, to call China to task on its trade, counterfeiting, and copyright violations.
It would have been the conservative position, to have at least used the office of the presidency to denounce Syria's Assad in his brutality against his own people. There have been only meek pronouncements. Not even any visible anger against Assad who even bombed a hospital where no rebels were around.
50
My family is way, way, way better off. Obama doesn't get all the credit but I think he gets some of the credit for helping to slow the decline that would otherwise have sucked us down into the pit with so many of our friends and family members. Despite obstructions at every turn, he keeps his head up and keeps pushing against they tyranny.
51
@49:
We really can not "make" Russia do anything, unless you want to threaten war.
You want us to have a standing army in Iraq? Disaster. Would you volunteer to be there? The Iraqis do not want that either. Does not sound conservative to me to put another huge military expenditure on the balance sheets every year.
This one is just kind of bonkers, and imagined.
So whatever Israel decides to do, we are just going to go with? You don't want an independent country, but one whose military rests on what Israel wants? What the hell?
What do you mean by "call China to task?" The administration has made many such requests of China, and once again, we can only truly "make" other nations do things by threatening military action. Would you volunteer to invade China?
So you want MORE foreign military action? Damn dude, you sure do revel in sending other Americans overseas to die and kill. Oh, and a leader is supposed to be calm and rational, not become angry and bellicose in public. There have been round denouncements of Assad by the administration.
We really can not "make" Russia do anything, unless you want to threaten war.
You want us to have a standing army in Iraq? Disaster. Would you volunteer to be there? The Iraqis do not want that either. Does not sound conservative to me to put another huge military expenditure on the balance sheets every year.
This one is just kind of bonkers, and imagined.
So whatever Israel decides to do, we are just going to go with? You don't want an independent country, but one whose military rests on what Israel wants? What the hell?
What do you mean by "call China to task?" The administration has made many such requests of China, and once again, we can only truly "make" other nations do things by threatening military action. Would you volunteer to invade China?
So you want MORE foreign military action? Damn dude, you sure do revel in sending other Americans overseas to die and kill. Oh, and a leader is supposed to be calm and rational, not become angry and bellicose in public. There have been round denouncements of Assad by the administration.
52
@51: So please tell me then what is the proper response when Ahmadinejad calls for wiping Israel off the face of the earth? Either you return the volley with a strong dose of diplomacy, rhetorical is it all may be, or you appear very weak to your adversaries. That is what is meant by peace through strength, and that is a conservative position.
53
@49
More evidence that you're nothing but a racist defending troll.
WHERE WOULD WE BORROW THE MONEY TO FUND YOUR INVASION FANTASIES?
"Or at least to have made Russia enact sanctions on Iran in return."
Russia has nukes and an army. How, exactly, do you advise making them do anything?
"It would have been the conservative position, to insist on a standing forces agreement in Iraq so that our sacrifices, not to mention Iraq's future, would have not been in vain."
That was tried. The Iraqis did not agree to it. Are you saying that the current Iraqi government should have been overthrown so that the NEXT Iraqi government would agree with that?
"It would have been the conservative position, to have answered the call of the Iranian demonstrators 'Obama, are you with us or against us' instead of paying deference to the mullahs."
Again, exactly HOW do you propose doing that?
Go ahead, say it.
Invade Iran.
"It would have been the conservative position, to have made unequivocal assurances to the world that the United States stands beside Israel in any self-defense military actions against Iran."
So what you're saying is that Israel should dictate US foreign policy?
I say America first!
If Israel wants our support for something then THEY come to US for approval BEFORE they do anything.
USA! USA! USA!
"It would have been the conservative position, to call China to task on its trade, counterfeiting, and copyright violations."
Again, again, again, exactly HOW?
By cutting trade with them?
Sanctions?
Invasion?
Sternly worded letter?
"It would have been the conservative position, to have at least used the office of the presidency to denounce Syria's Assad in his brutality against his own people."
Yeah, because words mean so much to a guy who's killing his own people.
Will you cry if he doesn't stop?
"There have been only meek pronouncements."
No. You don't get it because you're nothing but a sad troll hoping that someone will pay attention to his uninformed meandering thoughts.
Without INVASION there is no "making" any other country do anything.
We're still recovering from Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
And it does not appear that we're any better off now than before those invasions.
But go ahead.
Push Bush's doctrine.
It's failed so far in the past.
No only failed, but made the situation WORSE.
Now Iran is stronger.
Look at Egypt.
I don't think our economy could take another hit like that.
WHERE WOULD WE BORROW THE MONEY TO FUND YOUR INVASION FANTASIES?
More...
More evidence that you're nothing but a racist defending troll.
WHERE WOULD WE BORROW THE MONEY TO FUND YOUR INVASION FANTASIES?
"Or at least to have made Russia enact sanctions on Iran in return."
Russia has nukes and an army. How, exactly, do you advise making them do anything?
"It would have been the conservative position, to insist on a standing forces agreement in Iraq so that our sacrifices, not to mention Iraq's future, would have not been in vain."
That was tried. The Iraqis did not agree to it. Are you saying that the current Iraqi government should have been overthrown so that the NEXT Iraqi government would agree with that?
"It would have been the conservative position, to have answered the call of the Iranian demonstrators 'Obama, are you with us or against us' instead of paying deference to the mullahs."
Again, exactly HOW do you propose doing that?
Go ahead, say it.
Invade Iran.
"It would have been the conservative position, to have made unequivocal assurances to the world that the United States stands beside Israel in any self-defense military actions against Iran."
So what you're saying is that Israel should dictate US foreign policy?
I say America first!
If Israel wants our support for something then THEY come to US for approval BEFORE they do anything.
USA! USA! USA!
"It would have been the conservative position, to call China to task on its trade, counterfeiting, and copyright violations."
Again, again, again, exactly HOW?
By cutting trade with them?
Sanctions?
Invasion?
Sternly worded letter?
"It would have been the conservative position, to have at least used the office of the presidency to denounce Syria's Assad in his brutality against his own people."
Yeah, because words mean so much to a guy who's killing his own people.
Will you cry if he doesn't stop?
"There have been only meek pronouncements."
No. You don't get it because you're nothing but a sad troll hoping that someone will pay attention to his uninformed meandering thoughts.
Without INVASION there is no "making" any other country do anything.
We're still recovering from Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
And it does not appear that we're any better off now than before those invasions.
But go ahead.
Push Bush's doctrine.
It's failed so far in the past.
No only failed, but made the situation WORSE.
Now Iran is stronger.
Look at Egypt.
I don't think our economy could take another hit like that.
WHERE WOULD WE BORROW THE MONEY TO FUND YOUR INVASION FANTASIES?
54
A return to the pointy hats of the Bush administration. It is the same set of empty headed advisors as Bush. Why wasn't the former President at the convention? Or the former VP candidate? Talk about no consistency or ability to plan.
Bush did nothing about China. Conservatives don't care about Isreal, they want the end of days and to pander to Sheldon Adelson for some of his bribery money. Bush appeased Assad for 8 years because Russia stands in the way. He had his chance in 2007 to do something and didn't.
Obama shifted to focus forces in Afghanistan, which was popular and leaving a standing army in Iraq 8 years after Mission Accomplished would have been political suicide - maybe Bush would have even been offered a speaking role at the convention in that case.
Bush did nothing about China. Conservatives don't care about Isreal, they want the end of days and to pander to Sheldon Adelson for some of his bribery money. Bush appeased Assad for 8 years because Russia stands in the way. He had his chance in 2007 to do something and didn't.
Obama shifted to focus forces in Afghanistan, which was popular and leaving a standing army in Iraq 8 years after Mission Accomplished would have been political suicide - maybe Bush would have even been offered a speaking role at the convention in that case.
55
@53: I would like to respond to your points. You have offered some good insights, and the joys of rigorousness debate is indeed the learning experience.
But when you call me a defender or racists, you are calling me a racist. I certainly am not. Nor should I have to defend myself in your arbitrary and mean-spirited playing of the race card.
If you don't have the courtesy to at least stop doing so, then I will continue to ignore you and not answer your otherwise interesting and engaging questions.
So do you have any flexibility in that?
That's all I ask.
But when you call me a defender or racists, you are calling me a racist. I certainly am not. Nor should I have to defend myself in your arbitrary and mean-spirited playing of the race card.
If you don't have the courtesy to at least stop doing so, then I will continue to ignore you and not answer your otherwise interesting and engaging questions.
So do you have any flexibility in that?
That's all I ask.
56
@55
"But when you call me a defender or racists, you are calling me a racist."
Guess you failed English as well.
But then I've never accused you of being an EDUCATED troll.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
Weren't you the one who claimed that being called a racist was WORSE than being a racist?
Yes, it was you.
"Nor should I have to defend myself in your arbitrary and mean-spirited playing of the race card."
Then don't keep defending racists and bigots who claim that Obama needed to provide his birth certificate.
Then don't keep defending racists and bigots who claim that Obama needed to provide his long form birth certificate.
Then don't keep defending racists and bigots who claim that Obama needed to provide his real birth certificate instead of the forgery.
Hey, that birth certificate "joke" that Romney told was pretty funny, wasn't it?
Anyway, where exactly is the US going to borrow the money to fund your invasion fantasies?
"But when you call me a defender or racists, you are calling me a racist."
Guess you failed English as well.
But then I've never accused you of being an EDUCATED troll.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
Weren't you the one who claimed that being called a racist was WORSE than being a racist?
Yes, it was you.
"Nor should I have to defend myself in your arbitrary and mean-spirited playing of the race card."
Then don't keep defending racists and bigots who claim that Obama needed to provide his birth certificate.
Then don't keep defending racists and bigots who claim that Obama needed to provide his long form birth certificate.
Then don't keep defending racists and bigots who claim that Obama needed to provide his real birth certificate instead of the forgery.
Hey, that birth certificate "joke" that Romney told was pretty funny, wasn't it?
Anyway, where exactly is the US going to borrow the money to fund your invasion fantasies?
57
@GDfR, Given the comments that followed your response to my post this hardly seems necessary but wtf.
1. ROFLMAO, yeah right. Given how often and frequently Romney caves to the Tea Baggers and NeoCons hell even some fly over country right wing AM radio nut job who laughed at him after Romney caved at his feet, I'll take Obama in negotiations with Putin any day. Romney is spineless.
2. We had no business invading Iraq in the first place. The situation was contained by Clinton, turning up the heat on Saddam would have been easy just park another aircraft carrier off his shore shut down that last 3rd of his airspace and wait. Instead "he tried to kill my daddy" shrub and the neocons bogged us down in and unnecessary war.
3. The Greens in Iran specifically asked us not to get involved. They remember the CIA putting the Shaw into power even if you don't and look how well that turned out.
4. Oh good God. Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves at that suggestion. Talk about foreign entanglements. Just exactly what is conservative about subjugating our foreign policy to the will of another country?
5. Leaving aside the admittedly hard to comprehend truth that it is advantageous to the US that China pegs its currency to ours, the complaints your asking for have been made and filed time and time again going back beyond Obama. If anything, based on his business career, Romney would do less on this issue then Obama.
6. Obama has called for Assad to cease and desist, to step down. Short of sending in troops, a foolish move as evidenced by Iraq and Afghanistan, what would you have him do? The conservative move to make here is exactly the one Obama is making.
Thank you for playing, try again GDfR.
More...
1. ROFLMAO, yeah right. Given how often and frequently Romney caves to the Tea Baggers and NeoCons hell even some fly over country right wing AM radio nut job who laughed at him after Romney caved at his feet, I'll take Obama in negotiations with Putin any day. Romney is spineless.
2. We had no business invading Iraq in the first place. The situation was contained by Clinton, turning up the heat on Saddam would have been easy just park another aircraft carrier off his shore shut down that last 3rd of his airspace and wait. Instead "he tried to kill my daddy" shrub and the neocons bogged us down in and unnecessary war.
3. The Greens in Iran specifically asked us not to get involved. They remember the CIA putting the Shaw into power even if you don't and look how well that turned out.
4. Oh good God. Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves at that suggestion. Talk about foreign entanglements. Just exactly what is conservative about subjugating our foreign policy to the will of another country?
5. Leaving aside the admittedly hard to comprehend truth that it is advantageous to the US that China pegs its currency to ours, the complaints your asking for have been made and filed time and time again going back beyond Obama. If anything, based on his business career, Romney would do less on this issue then Obama.
6. Obama has called for Assad to cease and desist, to step down. Short of sending in troops, a foolish move as evidenced by Iraq and Afghanistan, what would you have him do? The conservative move to make here is exactly the one Obama is making.
Thank you for playing, try again GDfR.
58
@56: Making hay out of typos now. That's proof positive that you're an intellectual lightweight. You just peed all over my olive branch.
59
@58
"Making hay out of typos now."
You're claiming that it was a TYPO that you kept defending the racists and bigots.
:)
Or is it a TYPO that you kept claiming that being called a racist was WORSE than actually being a racist?
That's what happens when you live such a sad life that you have to troll The Stranger defending racists and bigots because, as shitty as it is, it's still better than the rest of your life.
Now you're stuck with your prior claims.
But seeing as how you're so smart an all, WHERE WOULD WE BORROW THE MONEY TO FUND YOUR INVASION FANTASIES?
"Making hay out of typos now."
You're claiming that it was a TYPO that you kept defending the racists and bigots.
:)
Or is it a TYPO that you kept claiming that being called a racist was WORSE than actually being a racist?
That's what happens when you live such a sad life that you have to troll The Stranger defending racists and bigots because, as shitty as it is, it's still better than the rest of your life.
Now you're stuck with your prior claims.
But seeing as how you're so smart an all, WHERE WOULD WE BORROW THE MONEY TO FUND YOUR INVASION FANTASIES?
60
@ GDfR. Calling "fairly.unbalanced" a lightweight? Isn't that the "pot calling the kettle beige".
Come on tough guy I'm over here.
Come on tough guy I'm over here.
61
@60: Gosh, usually you offer your nuggets of insights into each retort. Now you're becoming like fairly and just spewing insults. Sad.
62
@61
"Now you're becoming like fairly and just spewing insults."
It's not an "insult" when it is true.
You defend racists and bigots.
If you think that is insulting then maybe you should not be doing it.
But you won't stop because this is still the best part of your life.
"Now you're becoming like fairly and just spewing insults."
It's not an "insult" when it is true.
You defend racists and bigots.
If you think that is insulting then maybe you should not be doing it.
But you won't stop because this is still the best part of your life.
63
Okay, this thread has hit bottom. I'll let you have the last word @62 if you'd like to get one more dig in, but I'm outta here.
64
@63
"Okay, this thread has hit bottom."
WHERE WOULD WE BORROW THE MONEY TO FUND YOUR INVASION FANTASIES?
Could you answer that?
No.
So you're running away crying that someone is being mean to you with words.
Of course, in a real invasion (such as you seem to keep advocating) real people in our military really die.
But you run away from the discussion of financing it because someone is being mean to you with words.
Yet you have no problem defending racists and bigots.
"Okay, this thread has hit bottom."
WHERE WOULD WE BORROW THE MONEY TO FUND YOUR INVASION FANTASIES?
Could you answer that?
No.
So you're running away crying that someone is being mean to you with words.
Of course, in a real invasion (such as you seem to keep advocating) real people in our military really die.
But you run away from the discussion of financing it because someone is being mean to you with words.
Yet you have no problem defending racists and bigots.
65
Well we're sure as hell better off than we were 400 years ago, so let's not vote for the people who want to regress society back to that time.
67
Well yeah, I'm in nursing school, and I don't hate my job. My husband works for a non-publicly traded company that operates in the black and has given him generous raises every year. Even with a smaller income, we're able to buy a few nice things and vacations every now and again. So yeah. Better off.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (67) RSS