[turtle777]

Oh, look, it's troll fest.

*fetching popcorn*

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Stop picking a fight for once

edit: does popcorn go stale? I made popcorn this week and it tasted bland, and there were unusually high half-popped colonels. I think it might just be old. (I make it on the stove because I don't like the uneven cooking or over-butteriness of microwave popcorn). Anyone know?

[turtle777]

I find it rather amusing that Besson got pissed off at the same behavior he normally utilizes. Classic.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I find it rather amusing that Besson got pissed off at the same behavior he normally utilizes. Classic.

-t

I am a delightful mimic

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

All the troubles facing this country and you guys pick somebody who has made political inroads fussing over where penises should go?

All the troubles facing this country and on every one Santorum has offered a view socially or fiscally... yet this is your focus.

In an attempt to elevate this thread beyond the 3rd grade, I'll offer that perhaps your problem is the (R) after his name and that he likely conflicts with your views on most if not all the troubles facing this country.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Smashing. I will continue to post astute observations and insightful reactions to things I read. To each his own.

If your future conversations are anything like this one, more accurately put you'll be Big Mac minus the far right ideology - seldom having any actual conversations.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Classy.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I find it rather amusing that Besson got pissed off at the same behavior he normally utilizes. Classic.

-t

We all talk past each other at times, that's not the problem, you are just picking a fight again, probably without even knowing what the fight is about, really.

I don't make you restate your opinion 902348092348 times while pretending to be interested in it though, because when I'm in the mood to talk past others I don't care about other opinions.

That's the crux of this.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

All the troubles facing this country and on every one Santorum has offered a view socially or fiscally... yet this is your focus.

I said this is where he made *inroads* in terms of support and votes. He's the spokesperson/puppet (depending on whether you want to be derogatory) of the social conservatives. Do you disagree with this?

In an attempt to elevate this thread beyond the 3rd grade, I'll offer that perhaps your problem is the (R) after his name and that he likely conflicts with your views on most if not all the troubles facing this country.

Then where are my threads mocking Romney, Gingrich, or Ron Paul? I've mocked Palin, Trump, Santorum, and Bachmann because they are morons, not because they are Republicans. That I'm hung up on the R is the narrative that sits well with you.

[Kerrigan]

You guys have really gone off the deep end. All of you.

Ron Paul? Are you kidding me? He's right 30% of the time, insane the other 70%.

And besson, why are you so worked up about Santorum? His views are consistent with what the world's largest religion has been teaching for the last two thousand years. Why should it be a surprise that conservatives might actually like him?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

And besson, why are you so worked up about Santorum? His views are consistent with what the world's largest religion has been teaching for the last two thousand years. Why should it be a surprise that conservatives might actually like him?

Because there is social conservatism and economic conservatism, and ideologically among people the two don't necessarily go hand in hand with one another, and when you look at this country right now it seems illogical to put social conservative issues high on the list of priorities.

If Santorum built his career out of working with business and building up economic creds like Romney and *also* had these staunch social conservative viewpoints that would be one thing, but my sense is that he is winning over votes because of his social conservative viewpoints and creds.

To look at this country now and think that what we need primarily is more Jesus and less gay stuff... I think you can finish this sentence.

[Kerrigan]

Actually, Santorum is in the mainstream of Republican views on the economy: low taxes, low spending, less market regulation.

It sounds to me like you're uncomfortable with someone who is both economically conservative and socially conservative. You'd prefer someone who is merely economically conservative, which will divide the Republican party by reducing the base's enthusiasm, which will lead to four more years of liberal social and economic policy. Am I wrong here?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Actually, Santorum is in the mainstream of Republican views on the economy: low taxes, low spending, less market regulation.

Which is what they all say, this is all pretty standard Republican stuff. I haven't had any cause to believe he has any particular aptitude towards economic issues beyond any of the other candidates.

It sounds to me like you're uncomfortable with someone who is both economically conservative and socially conservative. You'd prefer someone who is merely economically conservative, which will divide the Republican party by reducing the base's enthusiasm, which will lead to four more years of liberal social and economic policy. Am I wrong here?

I think so, yes.

If you want to divide the party you pick somebody who represents the extreme spectrum of that party on steroids, because mathematically speaking most voters are ideologically moderate, or at least they self identify as such.

Appealing to the extreme spectrums of your base might be a good way to gain some ground in the caucuses, but no smart Republican will nominate somebody who can't also win in the general election when the more moderate voters and independents come out to play.

There has been no nominated presidential candidate in my memory with truly extreme viewpoints, and that includes Bush (although I might classify Dick Cheney's as such, particularly when it comes to security and foreign policy stuff).

[Kerrigan]

How is Santorum an extreme right winger? His positions are pretty standard for the Republican party: against gay marriage and against abortion. Not only are these positions standard for the Republican party, they are also the positions upheld by Santorum's religion, Catholicism, which is the single largest religious denomination in the country.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

How is Santorum an extreme right winger? His positions are pretty standard for the Republican party: against gay marriage and against abortion. Not only are these positions standard for the Republican party, they are also the positions upheld by Santorum's religion, Catholicism, which is the single largest religious denomination in the country.

He wants to rescind existing gay marriage licenses, supporting states banning contraception... If that isn't extreme in the social conservative spectrum, what is?

[besson3c]

I can't even begin to wrap my head around how idiotic allowing any state to ban contraception would be.

If contraception was illegal in any state you'd have a national epidemic in no time. You'd have a rise in unwanted pregnancies, a rise in the spread of STDs, a consequent strain on Medicare/Medicaid and welfare, an obvious affront to our civil liberties (why should Santorum or anybody else be able to prevent my wife and I ****ing without getting her pregnant?), and a whole black market emerging as a result.

And for what? If you don't want to use contraceptives, don't, but banning them poses a national risk. I mean, duh?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I said this is where he made *inroads* in terms of support and votes. He's the spokesperson/puppet (depending on whether you want to be derogatory) of the social conservatives. Do you disagree with this?

No, I disagreed with the fact that he's made political inroads because of fussing over where a penis goes. I mean, can you cite the differences between Santorum and Gingrich, Bachmann, and Romney on "where a penis should go"?

Then where are my threads mocking Romney, Gingrich, or Ron Paul? I've mocked Palin, Trump, Santorum, and Bachmann because they are morons, not because they are Republicans. That I'm hung up on the R is the narrative that sits well with you.

I've also mocked Bachmann, Palin, and Trump. If it's exclusively about morons, where are your threads mocking Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and Joy Behar?

*Hint: it's a trap door to make you look like a partisan shill bess, you can't answer. The only way to win is not to play.

[ebuddy]

What Santorum really said about laws banning birth control:

Supreme Court creating rights / "I voted against a ban because it was bad law and other states should have the right to vote on their own issues."

Let's keep it real here zealots. Besides, what are y'all afraid of, a greater than 5% showing in the remainder of caucuses? Egadz.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I can't even begin to wrap my head around how idiotic allowing any state to ban contraception would be.

If contraception was illegal in any state you'd have a national epidemic in no time. You'd have a rise in unwanted pregnancies, a rise in the spread of STDs, a consequent strain on Medicare/Medicaid and welfare, an obvious affront to our civil liberties (why should Santorum or anybody else be able to prevent my wife and I ****ing without getting her pregnant?), and a whole black market emerging as a result.

And for what? If you don't want to use contraceptives, don't, but banning them poses a national risk. I mean, duh?

Speaking of "duh", how many States do you suppose would ban birth control that it'd become a national epidemic?

His point is you don't need this to be legislated at the Federal level evidenced by his use of; "any statute".

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, I disagreed with the fact that he's made political inroads because of fussing over where a penis goes. I mean, can you cite the differences between Santorum and Gingrich, Bachmann, and Romney on "where a penis should go"?

Gingrich certainly is not the darling of the social conservative movement. Bachmann might have been, I'm not sure...

I've also mocked Bachmann, Palin, and Trump. If it's exclusively about morons, where are your threads mocking Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and Joy Behar?

*Hint: it's a trap door to make you look like a partisan shill bess, you can't answer. The only way to win is not to play.

Ahh, the official MacNN hypocrite filter!

Pelosi, Biden, and Behar are not terribly topical these days, and interesting enough to be thread worthy. You'll notice that the vast majority of these threads are about bribe making the news? When was the last time either of these people made splashy headlines?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Speaking of "duh", how many States do you suppose would ban birth control that it'd become a national epidemic?

His point is you don't need this to be legislated at the Federal level evidenced by his use of; "any statute".

That's the same flawed argument Obama used to defend his signing of the NDAA bill: "well *I* would never misuse my power by invoking this loophole that would be perfectly legal under this new bill". The point is that it is there for somebody to invoke legally, and completely needlessly. If you don't want people to invoke this, don't go out of your way to actually make new laws that create this opening.

I'm glad that we at least agree that that opening would be disasterous.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What Santorum really said about laws banning birth control:

Supreme Court creating rights / "I voted against a ban because it was bad law and other states should have the right to vote on their own issues."

Let's keep it real here zealots. Besides, what are y'all afraid of, a greater than 5% showing in the remainder of caucuses? Egadz.

This is quoting is *restating* of his position, not his original quote, but even looking at this restating it is stil mind bogglingly stupid:

- contraceptives: up to the individual states... states freedoms and shit, this is not a federal issue man!

- resinding of existing gay marriages: but this... *this* is a federal issue! Can't have any of that gay marriage by leaving this up to the states to screw up!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahh, the official MacNN hypocrite filter!

Um...

Originally Posted by besson3c 

- contraceptives: up to the individual states... states freedoms and shit, this is not a federal issue man!

- resinding of existing gay marriages: but this... *this* is a federal issue! Can't have any of that gay marriage by leaving this up to the states to screw up!

Does the "official MacNN hypocrite filter" apply to Santorum too? When did he ever post on MacNN?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've also mocked Bachmann, Palin, and Trump. If it's exclusively about morons, where are your threads mocking Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and Joy Behar?

*Hint: it's a trap door to make you look like a partisan shill bess, you can't answer. The only way to win is not to play.

Are you trying to say Besson only *LOOKS* like a partisan shill ?

Maybe I should not judge him by the looks, but by what he writes.

Oh, wait, nevermind

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Does the "official MacNN hypocrite filter" apply to Santorum too? When did he ever post on MacNN?

I was referring to ebuddy insinuating that I was a hypocrite for not creating threads about Pelosi, Biden, and Behar. Not sure how you arrived at thinking otherwise.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Are you trying to say Besson only *LOOKS* like a partisan shill ?

Maybe I should not judge him by the looks, but by what he writes.

Oh, wait, nevermind

-t

Does picking and/or involving yourself with fights on the internet bring you pleasure?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I was referring to ebuddy insinuating that I was a hypocrite for not creating threads about Pelosi, Biden, and Behar. Not sure how you arrived at thinking otherwise.

Right, and then you turn right around and accuse someone else of being a hypocrite for not supporting state's rights on gay marriage. How come you get to use the "hypocrite filter" and no one else does? What's this double standard. OOPS, did I just add a "double standard" filter to your list?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Right, and then you turn right around and accuse someone else of being a hypocrite for not supporting state's rights on gay marriage. How come you get to use the "hypocrite filter" and no one else does? What's this double standard. OOPS, did I just add a "double standard" filter to your list?

That's already covered by our personal filters, Official MacNN filter #1

This again has nothing to do with what I said, you are doing your thing again so I want fall for the trap and restate my opinion for the pleasure of being talked past. It has been made clear that I did not call Santorum a hypocrite.

If I were to call Santorum anything I would call him inconsistent, not a hypocrite. He'd be a hypocrite if he was calling for rescinding gay marriage yet was planning to get gay married himself, or if while allowing states to ban contraceptives he was caught buying condoms.

That being said, I'm not particularly interested in examining how I would label Santorum (other than generic moron), so that's as far as I'm going to go here.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does picking and/or involving yourself with fights on the internet bring you pleasure?

Are you talking to yourself, or your bear-cat ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Are you talking to yourself, or your bear-cat ?

-t

I don't look for fights, I just don't back down from them when I'm pulled in. You, on the other hand, just can't resist getting involved. This had absolutely nothing to do with you.

You need new hobbies.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't look for fights,

RRRIIIIIIGGGGHTT.

This very thread "WTF Iowa???" is definitely NOT looking for any fight whatsoever.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's already covered by our personal filters, Official MacNN filter #1

Ah, the old official macnn "Official MacNN Filters" filter! You're using it to pretend you weren't proven wrong and pretend that being a hypocrite or using a double-standard "have nothing to do with what you said." Carry on, you're not fooling anyone.

If I were to call Santorum anything I would call him inconsistent, not a hypocrite. He'd be a hypocrite if he was calling for rescinding gay marriage yet was planning to get gay married himself, or if while allowing states to ban contraceptives he was caught buying condoms.

In that case you were not accused of hypocrisy either, as no one said the word "hypocrite," and no one accused you of mocking morons while being a moron. What you were accused of was being inconsistent in exactly the same way that you accused Santorum (you and he both used double-standard or selective blindness). So your "hypocrite filter" claim was indeed a "filter filter." You were too eager to attribute criticism to "filtering" before considering the merits of the argument, which is exactly what your "filter list" was describing.

(my point: "hypocrite" (used loosely to include double standards and logical inconsistency) is not a "filter" to be ignored, it is a legitimate grievance)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

RRRIIIIIIGGGGHTT.

This very thread "WTF Iowa???" is definitely NOT looking for any fight whatsoever.

-t

Yes, I'm picking a fight with Iowa who doesn't post here. I guess I'm also picking a fight with anybody who would vote for Rick Santorum, so I'll give you that, but I figured he was fair game since you right wingers have been pretty quiet on getting into him.

At any rate, I'll backpeddle and say that I sometimes look for fights, sure, but I definitely don't have the same lust for them that you seem to have. You've already voiced your support for Ron Paul, so this "fight" with me and Iowa/Rick Santorum should have nothing to do with you, should it?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In that case you were not accused of hypocrisy either, as no one said the word "hypocrite,"

So then I guess I misunderstood this?

Right, and then you turn right around and accuse someone else of being a hypocrite for not supporting state's rights on gay marriage. How come you get to use the "hypocrite filter" and no one else does? What's this double standard.

[quote(my point: "hypocrite" (used loosely to include double standards and logical inconsistency) is not a "filter" to be ignored, it is a legitimate grievance)[/QUOTE]

Respectfully, this conversation is not holding my interest at all, so I'm moving on... Santorum: hypocrite, not, me hypocrite, not, I don't really care. Everybody on MacNN is a hypocrite anyway, that's the law of the Official MacNN Filters (notice the capital letters).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, I'm picking a fight with Iowa who doesn't post here.

Iowa Nice - YouTube

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, I'm picking a fight with Iowa who doesn't post here. I guess I'm also picking a fight with anybody who would vote for Rick Santorum, so I'll give you that, but I figured he was fair game since you right wingers have been pretty quiet on getting into him.?

Geez, dude, you're not helping your case of lecturing others to NOT pick fights.

Seriously, hypocrite much ?

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So then I guess I misunderstood this?

I was merely using the same language you used before me. You're the one who first described what you did using the word "hypocrite," when you said "hypocrite filter." I was not going to pick a fight with you over semantics, I just continued using the same word you did. The fact is, what you did is exactly the same as what you blamed him for doing (selective blindness/double standard). If you wanted to call that "hypocrisy," that's certainly close enough for me.

It's funny though that you're now applying a double-standard to who gets to call double-standards "hypocrisy." That's a good one.

(my point: "hypocrite" (used loosely to include double standards and logical inconsistency) is not a "filter" to be ignored, it is a legitimate grievance)

Respectfully, this conversation is not holding my interest at all, so I'm moving on... Santorum: hypocrite, not, me hypocrite, not, I don't really care. Everybody on MacNN is a hypocrite anyway, that's the law of the Official MacNN Filters (notice the capital letters).

Well, for one thing I don't believe your feigned dramatic exit, since you said that yesterday but didn't do it.
Secondly, you're just hiding behind the official macnn "Official MacNN Filters" filter again to avoid facing the issue. You're still not fooling anyone.
To wit, not everyone is a hypocrite. To be so entrenched in hypocrisy as to forget that there is even an alternative is just....
You can stop any time; we'll be your Hypocrites Anonymous.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Geez, dude, you're not helping your case of lecturing others to NOT pick fights.

Seriously, hypocrite much ?

-t

The genius part of your pleasure is that when people point it out to you in only increases the tension you so desire...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I was merely using the same language you used before me. You're the one who first described what you did using the word "hypocrite," when you said "hypocrite filter." I was not going to pick a fight with you over semantics, I just continued using the same word you did. The fact is, what you did is exactly the same as what you blamed him for doing (selective blindness/double standard). If you wanted to call that "hypocrisy," that's certainly close enough for me.

It's funny though that you're now applying a double-standard to who gets to call double-standards "hypocrisy." That's a good one.


Well, for one thing I don't believe your feigned dramatic exit, since you said that yesterday but didn't do it.
Secondly, you're just hiding behind the official macnn "Official MacNN Filters" filter again to avoid facing the issue. You're still not fooling anyone.
To wit, not everyone is a hypocrite. To be so entrenched in hypocrisy as to forget that there is even an alternative is just....
You can stop any time; we'll be your Hypocrites Anonymous.

I do like apple sauce though...

[ebuddy]

Besson's cyber-bullying:

I don't think it matters who wins, as I've said, but man... Iowa is really a ****ed up place, or else a great percentage of Republican voters are really that dumb, or both.

Maybe they appreciate the other 99.5% of his platform; the parts that don't have to do with penises and are therefore too complex for you to address in any meaningful way.

Besson picking a fight with me directly:

Hey ebuddy, it's not too late for you to run for office, is it?
You're not Rick Santorum, are you?

I hadn't even entered the conversation at this point and I have several, stated opinions that are in conflict with what you consider the more noteworthy aspects of Santorum's platform. This was "picking a fight" as sure as there is one. Actually, this is cyber-stalking. Is this the image you want others to have of you? Partisan shill, cyber bully, and stalker? These all make you less electable than Sarah Palin.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

- Many of you lack any sort of objectivity because even before Obama was sworn in you were in the Jeremiah Wright, Ayers, etc. bandwagon looking for every little thing to hate about him, and let's face it, this never had a chance of changing.

I'd be interested to know how much a concern this ever became to you (secretly of course) during his candidacy knowing these blowhards were among his closest company. It's not about "looking for every little thing to hate about him" as much as it was learning about how motivated Obama was to associate with the most uber-controversial, antagonistic figures he could find in Chicago. You know... the ol' "inroads" argument.

- Many of you seemed to mock his whole premise of wanting change to the point where it made sense for the Republican opposition to not wage a campaign based on change.

During his candidacy, the "change" was in his words a; "fundamental transformation of America". Based on what was known of his politics, many of us on the right opposed "fundamental transformation" as code for a governing philosophy we'd naturally find distasteful.

Besides, because I support civil unions and Obama defended DOMA in his candidacy, would it have been fair at the time to call all of his Democratic supporters retarded for supporting a guy who made political inroads fussing about where penises should go?

Now you guys seem to desperately want change, and for those of you that would say that they just never wanted Obama's change, what Obama change has come about? The parts you dislike the most about his health care bill - the mandatory inclusion stuff, government running an exchange program, etc. haven't even taken effect yet. Some of you guys go on about Obama being a crazy socialist, and some that he is Bush II (which is more accurate). Which is it?

Excellent question! See, this is where I disagree with Turtle777 and Doofy. Obama is a crazy socialist who is grossly out of touch with most of the country, but must somehow secure another 4 years as President in a country that self identifies as center-right. i.e. You ain't seen nothin' yet. I'm voting against Obama because of what I know about him and his governing philosophy. The second term of a Presidency is about building a legacy for himself; a package of accomplishments in stark contrast with the general public. Throughout his first term, we see a President who has doubled-down on the worst of Bush's folly; those things that bid farewell to Bush under abysmal approval ratings and ousted just about every Republican associated with him. The 2010 election would be defined by how well one could disassociate with Bush and the related spending. We're already paying for Obama's programs that "haven't even taken effect yet", the number of czars operating outside Congressional oversight, the divisive partisan rhetoric, his cabinet selections, the chastisement of success, etc are all glimpses into a destructive governing philosophy that does not deserve four more years.

In short, the answer to your question is that Obama is the wolf in sheep's clothing depicted in Fabian's Window. Necessarily shrewd, but ultimately disastrous. The first four years are the "shrewd"; the lamb that needs time to shed its facade. The second term is the wolf. The good news for you is that his accomplishments will be in effect as you say, long after he can truly be held accountable for them.

The fact is, we do need change, we have not had it yet, and that this seems revelatory to some of you just speaks to the slowness in which you observe reality. I'm sorry I don't buy the notion that you never supported Bush, I remember having the same sorts of debates here in the early 2000s where many of you vehemently defended him, particularly when it came to security and our foreign policy. Let's face it, that Bush sucked is something that took some of you longer to figure out, and likewise the notion that we really need to change stuff is something that took you longer to figure out too. I'm happy you did, but I'm also hoping that you might be willing to entertain that you are possibly a couple of steps behind reality now too.

For me it was a president that cowered to a liberal congress. Too many "compromises" that ended up looking like Barbi dolls with Transformer heads. I did not oppose action in Iraq and I did not oppose a surge. Obama opposed both vehemently while moving them in office. Then we get the patently dishonest spectacle of Obama a couple of weeks ago in Iraq standing next to Maliki talking about progress in Iraq that of course couldn't have happened without any of the actions he opposed just a few short years ago. I did not oppose Gitmo. Obama did, then left it open. I supported maintaining the Bush tax cuts and Obama opposed them before entering office to extend them. Obama is shrewd begrudgingly, but he's absolutely full of sh!t. I never wanted a "fundamental transformation of America" and the "change" I and most others were talking about was more transparency and less spending. We thought putting a young ideologue in office (much like those now supporting an old ideologue on the right) would bring more effective leadership. We were proven wrong and Obama is now extremely vulnerable to losing office. Obama's green agenda including its appointees, his willingness to meddle in banking, the auto industry, the mortgage industry, energy, the insurance industry, etc all show signs of the wolf waiting to break through. When you've gotten sound rebuke from none other than Steve Jobs himself for being anti capitalist, you've got issues.

You go on as if Obama's presidency is been different than any other in the past decade or whatever, but it hasn't, and that's the problem.

Exactly! Less transparency in government and more spending. This is a failure in leadership and proof that it's time to try someone else. There is no Presidential entitlement to 8 years in office. It's 4 years and his time is almost up.

Why? Cause any president needs votes and support to pass stuff, and our politics are not setup to be constructive in any way, shape, or form. Ron Paul wants to end all wars? Great, it's not going to happen. President x or y wants to cut all sorts of spending? Great, either not going to happen or will happen in ways that are dubious in having more to do with securing votes and support than an actual sober look at what programs do not have a RoI.

Some of you guys really need to wake up. I can't believe that I'm finding myself agreeing with Turtle, but he is right too (although for differing reasons and seeing things much differently, our conclusions seem similar though).

I disagree with all three of you. All of this matters less in a second term and the damage he's doing outside congressional oversight through "advisory" appointments is yet more proof that he's got to go.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We thought putting a young ideologue in office (much like those now supporting an old ideologue on the right) would bring more effective leadership. We were proven wrong and Obama is now extremely vulnerable to losing office.

Very well stated. Though "proven wrong" suggests regret... I feel more like it was worth a try but didn't succeed. I would vote for Obama again in 2008 (if I could go back in time), and I would be willing to try another ideologue in 2012. But I see no reason to re-elect the same ideologue when he's already stuck in the mire of compromising his ideals.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: I wasn't picking a fight with you, I honestly think you'd make a better president than some of our options, but after your last post I've changed my mind, so there.

Better start winning me back and I might vote for you.

[turtle777]

Can I vote for you as President, Besson ?

We definitely need more clowns in Washington.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Can I vote for you as President, Besson ?

We definitely need more clowns in Washington.

-t

You can, but I'm not an American citizen, so I can't run for office...

Then again, I hear Obama was born in Kenya.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: I wasn't picking a fight with you, I honestly think you'd make a better president than some of our options, but after your last post I've changed my mind, so there.

Better start winning me back and I might vote for you.

You're shameless bess.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're shameless bess.

Yeah, but I'm kind of cute, admit it.

I'm too busy now to dig into the rest of yours and Skeleton's posts about my deficiencies, my being a hypocrite, and all of that other fun stuff. I may or may not do that later, but I don't want you to feel blown off or anything...

You see, that is how committed I am to our relationship ebuddy.

P.S. please don't vote for Rick Santorum.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

P.S. please don't vote for Rick Santorum.

Trust me, I won't and I won't be voting for Ron Pork... err... Paul either.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Trust me, I won't and I won't be voting for Ron Pork... err... Paul either.

Heheh... What is it with so many of you Republicans having an aptitude for awesome word play? Ron Pork!

Okay, I might vote for you after the Ron Pork thing, just keep it up... Got any others?

I've got one... You know "change we can believe in"? How about "money we can believe in"? Instead of just simple change we are talking about money here... I guess it might be some positive word play, but it's still pretty creative.

[besson3c]

I guess nobody likes "money we can believe in".

I'll keep trying.

[Big Mac]

There's one easy way to sum up Election 2012: Is this country dumb enough to reelect this man, Barack Obama?

I think I'm going to sit most of the election season out. And if the outcome is negative, I'll be putting up for sale the remaining family real estate, packing up our things to move to greener pastures.