QUESTION FOR NALDS

[mburbank]

I'm pasting this into it's own thread because the point at which you become most outrageous is often the point at which you abandon a thread. I seriously want to knwo your response to this.



"That's bullshit. Your only concern is making sure liberals regain power in Washington."
-Ronnie

My God, Nalds, do you honestly think that, or is that hyperbole and you're trying to make some sort of odd little point?

If you're totally sincere, I can no longer take you even remotely seriously. Something is really wrong with you.

Here's what I think of your position. I find it extreme, narrow, self serving and wrong. I think your devotion to your party far outweighs your common sense, and that your tendency to see things in only two ways makes you at best a cheerleader and at worst a facist. But I think you honestly want what you believe is best for your country. I think you care about America , you care about what you think its stands for , and the reason your so strident is you honestly believe that W is good for the country.

Are you really so far gone in Coulter country that you think Ziggy and many of the rest of us are traitors? Are you really so far gone that you think when people die the only thing we think of is how it relates to the establishment of some sort of liberal dominance?

Tell me your just blowing off steam. I'm worried about you.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Here's what I think of your position. I find it extreme, narrow, self serving and wrong." - Max

I thought there might be something new here but it's seems to be the same ole' vomitus mass you always spew.

I think you are narrow and self serving also, I'm just polite enough not to say it as often as you do.

Cheers.

[AChimp]

Hooray for not answering questions. :blah

Ronnie, you wuss.

[Ronnie Raygun]

I'm not going to accept the premise from which those questions are based.

It's a fact that what is bad for The United States is good for the left and what's good for The United States is bad for the left.

Example: Success in Iraq is good for The U.S. and bad for democrats.

Example: An improving economy is good for the U.S. and bad for democrats.

[Zebra 3]

:confused - Still get your water by a private company, Ronnie, or do you just hauler it from a nearby creek?

[ziggytrix]

Example: Success in Iraq is good for The U.S. and bad for democrats.

Example: An improving economy is good for the U.S. and bad for democrats.

Depends on how you define "success in Iraq" and an "improving economy".

To me, success in Iraq means we stabilize the mess we've made (and I don't refer just to the recent invasion, but rather the decades of fucking Arabs over while smiling and handing the rulers of whichever one is our mineral-rights bearing ally today the guns and gasses necessary to fuck over whichever one is our mineral-rights hoarding enemy) and get our troops back home just as soon as we can. Of course, after decades of fucking over the Arab world as national policy, this isn't going to be easy. :(

As for the economy, only folks who care about political spin could say increases in jobs, wages, or benefits are bad for working people. Unless you mean to imply that no Democrats work for a living (in which case you really are a party-blinded sychophant), but I digress.

So, when Democrats were in power, was economic growth good for America, but bad for Republicans? Were successful anti-terror operations good for America, but bad for Republicans? Does the world seem more black and white to you today or less so than it did then? (those are rhetorical questions, but feel free to reply to any part of this, Ronnie)

[Jeanette X]

"Here's what I think of your position. I find it extreme, narrow, self serving and wrong." - Max

I thought there might be something new here but it's seems to be the same ole' vomitus mass you always spew.

I think you are narrow and self serving also, I'm just polite enough not to say it as often as you do.

Cheers.

Come on Ronnie, answer the other questions.

[ranxer]

here's another simpleton tidbit of FACT.

Terrorist attack on the U.S. is good for republicans
No Terrorist attack on the U.S. is good for republicans

damnit the terrorists are helping gwb no matter what they do >:

[mburbank]

You're dodging and I hope you know it.

My point was despite what I think your views say about you, I believe you want what's best for America.

You seem to say that the left doesn't. It's more than just saying you disagree strongly, you state that people only the left only want power. My question is, regardless of what you think about the legitimacy or effectiveness of my views, do you believe I (and other liberals) want what we believe is best for the country?

Don't say it doesn't matter. Their is a huge difference between being wrong and being evil. It's a very large area, and I think it's where you live. Do you extend that cortesy to me and other liberals or do you think we're evil?

My experience is that whenever put in an ethical corner, you dodge, deliberately misconstrue or simply refuse to answer. Surprise me.

[AChimp]

Boo?

[Ronnie Raygun]

"My experience is that whenever put in an ethical corner, you dodge, deliberately misconstrue or simply refuse to answer. Surprise me." - Max

This has nothing to do with ethics.

I made a statement which is an obvious truth and now you are faking the high road.

Max, you're an O.K. guy but it's obvious you love to play politics. At least be honest about that...Surprise me.

[Buffalo Tom]

It's a fact that what is bad for The United States is good for the left and what's good for The United States is bad for the left.

Example: Success in Iraq is good for The U.S. and bad for democrats.

When exactly did you become a citizen of Bizarro world? I doubt any rational American citizen would want the Iraq adventure to fail out-right, with the reality of the situation so far removed from the picture of peace and stability promised by the Bush Administration. You would do well to remember that stability in Iraq WOULDN'T BE an election issue if the Dubya had listened to the large number of Americans who advised against the invasion. Heck, his own secretary of state was against the war! As the situation is now, it is no longer a question of whether America should be in Iraq. It is a question of what is the best way to clean up the mess it has become, and judging by the Bush Administration's post-invasion record, Dubya and his advisors seem so far not to have a clue about the answer.

[sspadowsky]

"My experience is that whenever put in an ethical corner, you dodge, deliberately misconstrue or simply refuse to answer. Surprise me." - Max

This has nothing to do with ethics.

I made a statement which is an obvious truth and now you are faking the high road.

Max, you're an O.K. guy but it's obvious you love to play politics. At least be honest about that...Surprise me.

You're still not answering the question, sissy-boy.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"I doubt any rational American citizen would want the Iraq adventure to fail out-right"

Why is that so hard to believe? The left wanted the United States to fail when we had soldiers in Vietnam and now you have the same people saying that this is just another Vietnam.......pull your head out of your ass.

[sspadowsky]

You're way off, Susan, and you're still not answering the question.

[ziggytrix]

You're still not answering the question, sissy-boy.

Answering the question is good for the US, but bad for Republicans.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Liberals wanted us to fail in Vietnam just like they want us to fail in Iraq.

Plain and simple.

[ziggytrix]

No, liberals wanted us OUT of Vietnam, just like they want us OUT of Iraq.

Failure is not part of the equation. Your insistance on this matter makes me think that you don't think.

[Ronnie Raygun]

No, liberals wanted us to fail in Vietnam...

That's why they were spitting on our soldiers when they came home and that's why liberal activists were SUPPORTING THE MORALE OF OUR ENEMY!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1128012/posts

Posted on 05/01/2004 3:42:22 PM PDT by wagglebee


Celebrating the 29th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, the North Vietnamese general who led his forces to victory said Friday he was grateful to leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, one of whom was presidential candidate John Kerry.

"I would like to thank them," said Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, now 93, without mentioning Kerry by name. "Any forces that wish to impose their will on other nations will surely fail," he added.

Reuters, which first reported Giap's comments, suggested that the former enemy general was mindful of Kerry's role in leading some of the highest-profile anti-war protests of the entire Vietnam War.

Before the British wire service quoted Gen. Giap, it noted:

"The Vietnam War, known in Vietnam as the American War, has become a hot issue in the U.S. presidential race with Democrat John Kerry drawing attention to his service and President Bush's Republicans disparaging Kerry's later anti-war stand."

North Vietnamese Col. Bui Tin, who served under Gen. Giap on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, Col. Tin explicitly credited leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, saying they were "essential to our strategy."

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement," Col. Tin told the Journal.

Visits to Hanoi by Kerry anti-war allies Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and others, he said, "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

"We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war," the North Vietnamese military man explained.

Kerry did much the same thing in widely covered speeches such as the one he delivered to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971.

"Through dissent and protest [America] lost the ability to mobilize a will to win," Col. Tin concluded.

[ziggytrix]

You are confusing liberals with extremists again.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's a fact that what is bad for The United States is good for the left and what's good for The United States is bad for the left.

You're fucking retarded. That's a fact.

Example: Success in Iraq is good for The U.S. and bad for democrats.

What is "success" in Iraq....? Is it a faux transition of power on June 30th?? Maybe it's the ridiculous hope that there will be free, transparent elections on January 1st???

Example: An improving economy is good for the U.S. and bad for democrats.

Except for the fact that voters tend to trust Republicans on issues of defense, and Democrats on domestic/economic issues. Democrats support Medicare/MedicAid, Republicans (at least according to perception) do not. Surplus and economic strength are synonymous with Clinton, whereas recession and job loss have become so with Bush. Pushing Weekly Standard articles with data from the Cato Institute hasn't changed the perception of the average American that the economy isn't doing great. You're assumption that good economy = bad for Democrats can't be quantified.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Democrats support Medicare/MedicAid, Republicans (at least according to perception) do not." - Kevin

Wrong....according to the media.

"Surplus and economic strength are synonymous with Clinton, whereas recession and job loss have become so with Bush." - Kevin

Any moron can see through this if they choose to. Clinton never did nothing to spur economic growth while Bush Sr. gave Clinton a recovered economy. Bush Jr. obviously had trouble with 9/11 but managed to get a quicker recovery by pushing through tax cuts which were proven to help economic growth back in the 80's. And when Bush is reelected this year it's really going to blow you theory out of the water. How's it going to look when the economy is booming under Bush the next 4 years?

"Pushing Weekly Standard articles with data from the Cato Institute hasn't changed the perception of the average American that the economy isn't doing great. You're assumption that good economy = bad for Democrats can't be quantified." - Kevin

It will. It's only natural that people's opinions are going to be sluggish in times like this.....they always have been. But there are many more months before the election....very soon unemployment will be very low.....oil prices will have to drop before too long....The Iraq situation can't get any worse (the media has already maxed out on the amount of negative publicity without facing a public backlash).....Usama may be captured or killed.....democrats are talking about picking a republican VP.....Kerry wants to delay his nomination but go ahead with the convention......

It's looks bad for you and all your little leftist buddies.

[Sethomas]

I go to one of the most, if not the #1, conservative selective universities in the country. My roommate is a member of UC Republicans. I've read volumes of conservative literature, the authors of which Bush, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly probably have never heard.

So, I think I'm quite qualified to make this assertion. There are two kinds of Republicans: the imbecilic gullible ones, or the aggressively egocentric. Somehow, Ronnie is a hybrid. :/

[Ronnie Raygun]

Thanks....

[Buffalo Tom]

Why is that so hard to believe? The left wanted the United States to fail when we had soldiers in Vietnam and now you have the same people saying that this is just another Vietnam.......pull your head out of your ass.

Name one American personality, public or private, who has definitively gone on record as saying he/she wants the Iraq re-building effort to fail. Show me proof that 'leftists' and 'liberals' want America to fail in its efforts to re-build a country bombarded by the American military.

You seem to have confused opposition to the Bush Administration's post-invasion reconstruction plan with a desire for any plan to re-build Iraq to fail. Why do you think Bush's handling of the post-war re-building is the correct way? Please, Raygun, I would like to know. Convince me.

[AChimp]

:lol @ "Clinton never did nothing..."

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"Democrats support Medicare/MedicAid, Republicans (at least according to perception) do not." - Kevin

Wrong....according to the media.

You're ignorant.

"Surplus and economic strength are synonymous with Clinton, whereas recession and job loss have become so with Bush." - Kevin

Any moron can see through this if they choose to. Clinton never did nothing to spur economic growth while Bush Sr. gave Clinton a recovered economy. Bush Jr. obviously had trouble with 9/11 but managed to get a quicker recovery by pushing through tax cuts which were proven to help economic growth back in the 80's. And when Bush is reelected this year it's really going to blow you theory out of the water. How's it going to look when the economy is booming under Bush the next 4 years?

I'm going to avoid the errors and gross exaggerations you've given here, and stick to perception, since that's often what politics is, and is also the theme of the conversation. For an example, latest Zogby polls show that Kerry has a larger lead over Bush amongst those polled who belive that "economy/jobs" is the #1 issue in the election. This is not bad news for liberals, rather, it's bad news for BUSH, because economy and jobs always decide the race ultimately.

"Pushing Weekly Standard articles with data from the Cato Institute hasn't changed the perception of the average American that the economy isn't doing great. You're assumption that good economy = bad for Democrats can't be quantified." - Kevin

It will. It's only natural that people's opinions are going to be sluggish in times like this.....they always have been. But there are many more months before the election....very soon unemployment will be very low.....oil prices will have to drop before too long....The Iraq situation can't get any worse (the media has already maxed out on the amount of negative publicity without facing a public backlash).....

Thank you Nostradamus, you're right, things might change. But this has always been the case. Bush I was a successful war president who got beaten but the economy. Some polls showed him with a double digit lead over Clinton at this point. You could perhaps make the argument that what's bad for the country is good for any challenger, and bad for any incumbent, but your assertion that good things= bad for liberals is so stupid I'd have to chastize a 5 yr. old for saying it, let alone a grown man....


Usama may be captured or killed.....democrats are talking about picking a republican VP.....Kerry wants to delay his nomination but go ahead with the convention......

And here we drift off into Raygun Land. The world could end tomorrow, while we're speculating.

Democrats are talking about picking a real conservative to steal real conservative voters from a Republican. It isn't desperation, it's smart politics. It's equally smart that they just threw the possibility out there, even though it was unlikely, because it associates Kerry with a well respected senator.

The convention issue, IMO, is a bit unethical, but perfectly legal. Once again, smart politics, not desperation.

It's looks bad for you and all your little leftist buddies.

You need a self-help program, or something. You are off.

[mburbank]

"My experience is that whenever put in an ethical corner, you dodge, deliberately misconstrue or simply refuse to answer. Surprise me." - Max

This has nothing to do with ethics.
-Naldo, dodging.

Huh. Good one. Accept the question wasn't "Do you think this is an ethical question?"

The question is: Do you think liberals actively desire the failure of the United States?

"Max, you're an O.K. guy but it's obvious you love to play politics. At least be honest about that...Surprise me."
-Nalds

I love to play politics. Surprised? I don't know why you would be. Does anyone on this board think I don't? Why else would the majority of my time here be spent on the Politics board? I think there's more to it than play, though, although 'play' is a big part of it. Certainly what I do here is playing. When I was in highschool I loved to play soccer too, but I never thought the stakes were any higher than who won the game. No suffering, no body count, no consequences. So I leave the cheering 'Go Team!' shit aside, but I still love to play.

Are you 'playing' Nalds? Am I an 'okay guy' and when you said I 'hated what America stood for' you didn't think that? Or does your deffinition of 'okay guys' include haters of what the USofA stands for?

Suprise me and take a stab at revealing yourself a teeny little bit. Where are you on the Coulter Scale of political madness? Are the Deomcrats the opposition part or the enemy?

[davinxtk]

A bit late in the game, pulling this thread from the bottom of the page, but I noticed something in here that bugs the hell out of me...


How's it going to look when the economy is booming under Bush the next 4 years?

You know what's funny? You right wing bastards keep saying that the president can't be held directly responsible for the current economy, blah, it takes 8 years or so for a president's economic reforms to really take hold, blah, that Clinton was sailing on Reganomics, blah. Guess what?
If Bush does end up with a second term (god forbid), and a booming economy... who will have been president eight years beforehand?

Really, please answer the question. I want to hear you say it.
Please.