|
2 years ago ::
Nov 04, 2010 - 11:00AM
#81
|
|
|
Arroot says--
"While I admit I don't know the makeup of the state, I am willing to say BS to such a bald face lie as this. AZ is not some radical right state that has 55% R's."
You're right--you don't know about the state.
You are the one who obviously either a: knows nothing about your own state or b: are a bald faced liar.
I was spent all of 5 minutes blowing up your idiotic ideas about the makeup of your own state. Bottomline even split in the state between R's, D's and unaffiliated. And Brewer kicked the ass of the D's in your state.
From Gallup: AZ one of the top 10 conservative states with a...get ready for it...0 percent lead over democrats
link
From ABC in a "independent view"...In 1960, Arizona’s voter registration was 66 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican and two percent Independent. Fifteen years ago the Democrats and Republicans were evenly split with about one in ten identifying themselves as Independent. Now, the numbers are nearly split in thirds."
link
The point here is that WG's original rebuttal tried to claim that a 45-55 split in the vote count represented the numerical split in the registration of Democrats and Republicans in the state. Anyone familiar with the political landscape in the US knows that is wrong. Even if there is no third option on the ballot, some of the final vote count represents unaffiliated voters.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 04, 2010 - 10:49AM
#80
|
|
|
Arroot says--
"While I admit I don't know the makeup of the state, I am willing to say BS to such a bald face lie as this. AZ is not some radical right state that has 55% R's."
You're right--you don't know about the state.
You are the one who obviously either a: knows nothing about your own state or b: are a bald faced liar.
I was spent all of 5 minutes blowing up your idiotic ideas about the makeup of your own state. Bottomline even split in the state between R's, D's and unaffiliated. And Brewer kicked the ass of the D's in your state.
From Gallup: AZ one of the top 10 conservative states with a...get ready for it...0 percent lead over democrats link From ABC in a "independent view"...In 1960, Arizona’s voter registration was 66 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican and two percent Independent. Fifteen years ago the Democrats and Republicans were evenly split with about one in ten identifying themselves as Independent. Now, the numbers are nearly split in thirds." link
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 04, 2010 - 10:05AM
#79
|
|
|
The Elections Are Over - Now What? Well, eveything will be pretty much the same as it always has been. Oh, the promises have been bold and far-reaching. Some 300 candidates nationally have signed the Tea Party "Contract from America" calling for a balanced budget, radical simplification of the tax code, and strict limits on federal spending. The chance that any of those will come to pass in the next two years? Zero. Our campaigns are generally a matter of theater, not to be taken literally. We like to be the kind of people who vote for drastic change, but we don't want to be the kind of people who actually experience it. The gesture is generally enough.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 04, 2010 - 9:49AM
#78
|
|
|
I guess we'll see more drones over Yemen, and a return to the sellout of US politics to big business as we had it for the past decades. A blast from the past, this election result.
Do you feel the election of Obama was a 'sellout' also?...or was that not 'same ole, same ole'?
It was something new, compared to how America worked over the past 50 years. Obama's projects (universal health care, regulation of financial markets, ecology) are nontypical for America. Because they don't sell the people to the corporations, they instead empower the people. It was change I couldn't believe in. I remain positively surprised that Obama actually got quite far with some of these projects.
“The problem with quotes on the Internet is
that it is hard to verify their authenticity”
- Abraham Lincoln.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 04, 2010 - 9:23AM
#77
|
|
|
Well, if this thread is representative of our fed gov then gridlock here we come. I hope I am wrong about that.
Peace!
------
Christian LIES wed Christian HATE......Begot a child....it’s named Prop 8!
Supreme Court let it stand.....which means we can vote away the rights of others in our land.
Sad as that may be...it hurts all of us.....not just me.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 04, 2010 - 9:10AM
#76
|
|
|
what part are you saying is false? the 'enemies' reference comes from another speach that was on Univision I believe...
Got a source other than "I believe"?
Will the NYT do? www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/us/politics/0...
Mr. Obama called on the Univision listeners to vote, and in the process, gave some fodder to critics. “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder” to pass immigration reform, he said.
That'll do nicely, thanks. But I don't believe the actual quote says what the earlier post implies about "Obama and enemies."
The earlier post appeared to contrast the post-election speeches of Boehner and Obama:
I believe Boehner has already spoken of bi-partisanship and compromise. Obama, on the other hand, spoke of his "enemies"...modified later to "opponents".
In reality it quoted Boehner's post election speech and then cherry-picked an Univision interview with the president that was conducted well before the elections. It also maliciously misquoted him: President Obama did indeed refer to "enemies (and did indeed modify his statement later)," but he referred to the "enemies" of Latino voters, not his own enemies.
We can argue whether Latino Americans have "enemies" or "opponents" amongst the far right political hacks who poisoned the political discourse in this election; I happen to think they have plenty. But all President Obama was doing was exhorting Latinos to vote.
Gail may or may not have a problem with Latinos voting, but she certainly misquoted the president in a damaging way to make a bogus point about post-election bi-partisanship. Hence my accusation of false witness.
¿Por qué no te callas?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 03, 2010 - 8:00PM
#75
|
|
|
Arroot says-- "While I admit I don't know the makeup of the state, I am willing to say BS to such a bald face lie as this. AZ is not some radical right state that has 55% R's." You're right--you don't know about the state.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 03, 2010 - 5:46PM
#74
|
|
|
I believe Boehner has already spoken of bi-partisanship and compromise. Obama, on the other hand, spoke of his "enemies"...modified later to "opponents".
I heard President Obama's speech today and you are bearing false witness.
what part are you saying is false? the 'enemies' reference comes from another speach that was on Univision I believe...
Got a source other than "I believe"?
Will the NYT do? www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/us/politics/0... Mr. Obama called on the Univision listeners to vote, and in the process, gave some fodder to critics. “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder” to pass immigration reform, he said.
That'll do nicely, thanks. But I don't believe the actual quote says what the earlier post implies about "Obama and enemies."
I edited my response...and added another link - spin it however you like.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 03, 2010 - 5:44PM
#73
|
|
|
I believe Boehner has already spoken of bi-partisanship and compromise. Obama, on the other hand, spoke of his "enemies"...modified later to "opponents".
I heard President Obama's speech today and you are bearing false witness.
what part are you saying is false? the 'enemies' reference comes from another speach that was on Univision I believe...
Got a source other than "I believe"?
Will the NYT do? www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/us/politics/0...
Mr. Obama called on the Univision listeners to vote, and in the process, gave some fodder to critics. “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder” to pass immigration reform, he said.
That'll do nicely, thanks. But I don't believe the actual quote says what the earlier post implies about "Obama and enemies."
Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 03, 2010 - 5:42PM
#72
|
|
|
Now what?
More of the same old.
Obama didn't do much, but apparently that already overburdened his poor nation.
I guess we'll see more drones over Yemen, and a return to the sellout of US politics to big business as we had it for the past decades.
A blast from the past, this election result.
Alright.
Do you feel the election of Obama was a 'sellout' also?...or was that not 'same ole, same ole'?
|
|
|
