PkrBum wrote:He bailed out banks, wall st, corps... and by proxy the wealthy... and still got reelected... lol. Go figure comrades.
What are you specifically referring to here?
Go to page : 1, 2
PkrBum wrote:He bailed out banks, wall st, corps... and by proxy the wealthy... and still got reelected... lol. Go figure comrades.
Salinsky wrote:
No, but I do pay attention.
I saw the Palin phenomenon.
I saw the visceral reaction to a black man occupying the White House.
Hell, Trump has been a birther for years.
Who'd you think he'd attract?
Bob wrote:
But if you believe that,
PkrBum wrote:Bob wrote:Floridatexan wrote:
Joe the Plumber?
I was thinking the same thing as I wrote that post.
Except that was the exchange where obama came right out and said that he wanted to redistribute wealth.
That certainly didn't hurt him with leftists... it's their wetdream. We know now that obama did exactly the opposite.
He bailed out banks, wall st, corps... and by proxy the wealthy... and still got reelected... lol. Go figure comrades.
Salinsky wrote:Bob wrote:
But if you believe that,
This is what I believe condensed into a concise exchange ...
John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is --
Tyrone: 27%.
John: ... you said that immediately, and with some authority.
Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behavior. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.
John: Objectively crazy or crazy vis-a-vis my own inertial reference frame for rational behavior? I mean, are you creating the Theory of Special Crazification or General Crazification?
Tyrone: Hadn't thought about it. Let's split the difference. Half just have worldviews which lead them to disagree with what you consider rationality I even though they arrive at their positions through rational means, and the other half are the core of the Crazification -- either genuinely crazy; or so woefully misinformed about how the world works, the bases for their decision making is so flawed they may as well be crazy.
John: You realize this leads to there being over 30 million crazy people in the US?
Tyrone: Does that seem wrong?
John: ... a bit low, actually.
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html
And yes, I really do believe that.
PkrBum wrote:Salinsky wrote:Bob wrote:
But if you believe that,
This is what I believe condensed into a concise exchange ...
John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is --
Tyrone: 27%.
John: ... you said that immediately, and with some authority.
Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behavior. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.
John: Objectively crazy or crazy vis-a-vis my own inertial reference frame for rational behavior? I mean, are you creating the Theory of Special Crazification or General Crazification?
Tyrone: Hadn't thought about it. Let's split the difference. Half just have worldviews which lead them to disagree with what you consider rationality I even though they arrive at their positions through rational means, and the other half are the core of the Crazification -- either genuinely crazy; or so woefully misinformed about how the world works, the bases for their decision making is so flawed they may as well be crazy.
John: You realize this leads to there being over 30 million crazy people in the US?
Tyrone: Does that seem wrong?
John: ... a bit low, actually.
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html
And yes, I really do believe that.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-aggrandizing
boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:He bailed out banks, wall st, corps... and by proxy the wealthy... and still got reelected... lol. Go figure comrades.
What are you specifically referring to here?
boards of FL wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:He bailed out banks, wall st, corps... and by proxy the wealthy... and still got reelected... lol. Go figure comrades.
What are you specifically referring to here?
So...did you not know what you were talking about when you made your comment?
Uh oh...it's happening again.
PkrBum wrote:boards of FL wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:He bailed out banks, wall st, corps... and by proxy the wealthy... and still got reelected... lol. Go figure comrades.
What are you specifically referring to here?
So...did you not know what you were talking about when you made your comment?
Uh oh...it's happening again.
I didn't reference some obscure ancient event pencil neck... these are recent events that we've been over countless times.
What you choose to ignore is of no interest to me.
PkrBum wrote:He bailed out banks, wall st, corps... and by proxy the wealthy... and still got reelected... lol. Go figure comrades.
boards of FL wrote:What are you specifically referring to here?
boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:boards of FL wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:He bailed out banks, wall st, corps... and by proxy the wealthy... and still got reelected... lol. Go figure comrades.
What are you specifically referring to here?
So...did you not know what you were talking about when you made your comment?
Uh oh...it's happening again.
I didn't reference some obscure ancient event pencil neck... these are recent events that we've been over countless times.
What you choose to ignore is of no interest to me.
But my question to you was, "What are you specifically referring to here?"
Let me help you out. Let's say that I made the following comment: "Bush was a disaster. He lead us into war and cost the US thousands of lives and trillions of dollars." And let's say that you were to ask me "What are you specifically referring to here?" My answer would be "The war in Iraq."
Now, you just made the following comment:PkrBum wrote:He bailed out banks, wall st, corps... and by proxy the wealthy... and still got reelected... lol. Go figure comrades.
I responded as follows:boards of FL wrote:What are you specifically referring to here?
And your response is...? All I'm asking you to do is simply state whatever policy it is that you're referring to. Do you know what you were talking about, or do you not know what you were talking about?
As an aside, it's pretty sad that one has to dumb things down to this degree merely to engage in discussion with right-wing voters.
PkrBum wrote:Only a fucking idiot wouldn't know what events took place... or an asshole that ignores the inconvenient.
PkrBum wrote:I didn't reference some obscure ancient event pencil neck... these are recent events that we've been over countless times.
What you choose to ignore is of no interest to me.
PkrBum wrote:Only a fucking idiot wouldn't know what events took place... or an asshole that ignores the inconvenient.
boards of FL wrote:Hahahaha. Well I guess we're done here!
Bob wrote:boards of FL wrote:Hahahaha. Well I guess we're done here!
I think everybody's in agreement, we've finally proven that liberal democrat is good and conservative republican is bad.
Go to page : 1, 2
Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Trump said John McCain was no war hero....so Trump had his moment
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|