THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[Merge]

I read about that, songsmith. That person should be publicly flogged.

[songsmith]

Explain your Braintrust assessment that I fall on the far left side of anything. You cannot, and you are simply foiled again.

I came to that conclusion because most of your posts contain the following left wing traits:

1) populist rantings against corporations.
2) populist rantings against the "right" extreme of your one-dimensional political spectrum.
3) no populist rantings against the "left" extreme of your one-dimensional political spectrum.
4) populist rantings in defense and support of our President despite his efforts to further socialize and authorize the federal government more than arguably anyone before him.

However, come to think of it, none of your posts actually have a valid political construct, so you may be right about this.

In the final analysis, you are nothing more than a ranting troll.

Very nice. Very assumptive and wrong, but you get a participation ribbon.

1) I am anti-corporate, in that I don't believe in the entitlement of collections of assets to rule my country (or me), to run rough-shod over workers and everyone they see fit, and to help themselves to whatever they want, at the expense of others. Don't like it? Tough shit. Your assumption that you share that authority is SO far over the line, it makes me giggle.
2) You are, and have always demonstrated yourself to be, a typical "talkshow"right-winger... that means you repeat the cliches and catch-phrases you hear on your media, and fully expect everyone to follow it to the letter... then get angry and hurt when they don't. Once, you had a throttle on it, you were careful not to be too far over that edge, lest you seemed like one of the misspelled-signs at town-hall meetings. Now, you fly the Limbaugh flag as proudly as joe, and when faced with ANY opposition, you climb even higher on your high-horse, and assume even more "authority." The Emperor wears no clothes. I point and laugh, same as everyone else, except that I also point out that you're not the Emperor. The opposite of right-wing extremism isn't left-wing extremism. It's moderate thought. Even when I knock you off your horse, and I do, I am still a political moderate, who simply disagrees with your "authority." Any other assessment of that comes from your bruised ego. Enjoy.
3) There is no need for anti-left ranting to balance you out. That would be agreement with you, and that would be extremism. I spend quite enough time on countering The Braintrust, and there isn't enough left-wing extremism here to warrant the effort. Besides, if it pisses people like you off, it's got to be a positive step. It would also require me to accept your definition of anything, and the first step to deflating a wing-nut is to take away the authority to define an argument or any part of it, as self-importance and authority are the the steroids coursing through a talkshow-con's veins. Take it away, and all they can do is lob silly insults.
4) My favorite. To agree with anyone who disagrees with you means I am an extremist left-winger. Thank you Mr. Authority. I defend and support President Barack Hussein Obama for one simple, over-arching reason: THE ROCKPAGE RIGHT-WING BRAINTRUST. I can't believe the Genius of Lonewolf hasn't figured that out after nearly a decade. I'm only as left as you dimwits force me to be. I listened to the constant defense of Bush and Reagan, and attacks of anyone who disagreed, and I chose a side. Obama hasn't hurt this country anywhere near as mortally as Bush, and you want to forget that entire era existed. I won't allow it. You don't win. You should be used to that.
I make my points, whether you approve or not is... meaningless. I have my ideology, and have just as much right to define yours as you do mine. I ignore your self-accredited qualifications, and place no value on your judgements. The higher you build yourself up, the lower my esteem for you. You are free to use words like "socialism" and "big government" but I am not forced to agree or accept any of it. I will always be the fly in the ointment, because I believe your ointment does more harm than good. Does that frustrate you?
Good.

[Merge]

I have a question, songsmith. Based on your last post, you are admittedly anti-corporations. If tomorrow all of the corporations were wiped, how do you propose the business in this country continue?? Personally, I believe that the corporations in this country are operating under the rules that the federal government set. If that includes tax loop holes, then Congress should close those loop holes. I don't think this country would be able to function without corporations, but that's just my opinion.

[Banned]

Explain your Braintrust assessment that I fall on the far left side of anything. You cannot, and you are simply foiled again.

I came to that conclusion because most of your posts contain the following left wing traits:

1) populist rantings against corporations.
2) populist rantings against the "right" extreme of your one-dimensional political spectrum.
3) no populist rantings against the "left" extreme of your one-dimensional political spectrum.
4) populist rantings in defense and support of our President despite his efforts to further socialize and authorize the federal government more than arguably anyone before him.

However, come to think of it, none of your posts actually have a valid political construct, so you may be right about this.

In the final analysis, you are nothing more than a ranting troll.

Very nice. Very assumptive and wrong, but you get a participation ribbon.

1) I am anti-corporate, in that I don't believe in the entitlement of collections of assets to rule my country (or me), to run rough-shod over workers and everyone they see fit, and to help themselves to whatever they want, at the expense of others. Don't like it? Tough shit. Your assumption that you share that authority is SO far over the line, it makes me giggle.
2) You are, and have always demonstrated yourself to be, a typical "talkshow"right-winger... that means you repeat the cliches and catch-phrases you hear on your media, and fully expect everyone to follow it to the letter... then get angry and hurt when they don't. Once, you had a throttle on it, you were careful not to be too far over that edge, lest you seemed like one of the misspelled-signs at town-hall meetings. Now, you fly the Limbaugh flag as proudly as joe, and when faced with ANY opposition, you climb even higher on your high-horse, and assume even more "authority." The Emperor wears no clothes. I point and laugh, same as everyone else, except that I also point out that you're not the Emperor. The opposite of right-wing extremism isn't left-wing extremism. It's moderate thought. Even when I knock you off your horse, and I do, I am still a political moderate, who simply disagrees with your "authority." Any other assessment of that comes from your bruised ego. Enjoy.
3) There is no need for anti-left ranting to balance you out. That would be agreement with you, and that would be extremism. I spend quite enough time on countering The Braintrust, and there isn't enough left-wing extremism here to warrant the effort. Besides, if it pisses people like you off, it's got to be a positive step. It would also require me to accept your definition of anything, and the first step to deflating a wing-nut is to take away the authority to define an argument or any part of it, as self-importance and authority are the the steroids coursing through a talkshow-con's veins. Take it away, and all they can do is lob silly insults.
4) My favorite. To agree with anyone who disagrees with you means I am an extremist left-winger. Thank you Mr. Authority. I defend and support President Barack Hussein Obama for one simple, over-arching reason: THE ROCKPAGE RIGHT-WING BRAINTRUST. I can't believe the Genius of Lonewolf hasn't figured that out after nearly a decade. I'm only as left as you dimwits force me to be. I listened to the constant defense of Bush and Reagan, and attacks of anyone who disagreed, and I chose a side. Obama hasn't hurt this country anywhere near as mortally as Bush, and you want to forget that entire era existed. I won't allow it. You don't win. You should be used to that.
I make my points, whether you approve or not is... meaningless. I have my ideology, and have just as much right to define yours as you do mine. I ignore your self-accredited qualifications, and place no value on your judgements. The higher you build yourself up, the lower my esteem for you. You are free to use words like "socialism" and "big government" but I am not forced to agree or accept any of it. I will always be the fly in the ointment, because I believe your ointment does more harm than good. Does that frustrate you?
Good.

Lonewolf, I may amend your final analysis: Delusional paranoid ranting troll.

[lonewolf]

Explain your Braintrust assessment that I fall on the far left side of anything. You cannot, and you are simply foiled again.

I came to that conclusion because most of your posts contain the following left wing traits:

1) populist rantings against corporations.
2) populist rantings against the "right" extreme of your one-dimensional political spectrum.
3) no populist rantings against the "left" extreme of your one-dimensional political spectrum.
4) populist rantings in defense and support of our President despite his efforts to further socialize and authorize the federal government more than arguably anyone before him.

However, come to think of it, none of your posts actually have a valid political construct, so you may be right about this.

In the final analysis, you are nothing more than a ranting troll.

Very nice. Very assumptive and wrong, but you get a participation ribbon.

Are you still here? Why are you still here?

[songsmith]

I have a question, songsmith. Based on your last post, you are admittedly anti-corporations. If tomorrow all of the corporations were wiped, how do you propose the business in this country continue?? Personally, I believe that the corporations in this country are operating under the rules that the federal government set. If that includes tax loop holes, then Congress should close those loop holes. I don't think this country would be able to function without corporations, but that's just my opinion.

Good post!
I think there's no chance that corporations will ever be wiped out, but that doesn't mean I want to hand over the reins to them. If that were to happen, small business would fill in immediately, and I think that's a good thing... a return to the importance of local economies, and REAL free markets, instead of the power-mad corruption and control by the elite few that we have now. As for corporations operating under the rules we have now, I just don't see much of that, in fact, I look at all the outsourcing of labor, foreign tax havens, creative accounting, safety and evironmental short-cutting, and payscale inequities, and I see the problem getting far worse than even a few years ago. The hunger for the almighty dollar may lead to a few good things, like tech advancement and such, but our problem is in allowing things to get out of control as they have. At this point, we have an entire class of people doing very well, at the expense of all the other classes, and there is nothing admirable about this. This elite class is systematically lessening working and living conditions for everyone else, corrupting the very government the people created and depend on, and handing the people they're abusing the bill. This has to stop, but the aristocracy actually convinces some of the underlings that they, too, can be in the elite class someday, and the underling buy into it! This is where I tend to call a spade a spade. Not only do I not feel the need to believe the lie, I refuse to back down from it regardless of who's trying to force me to buy into it, and that's what frustrates the more self-important people here. Unlike Ayn Rand, I believe that if all the top wage-earners and mega-corps they run went on strike, others would take their place in a nano-second, and we'd be just fine.

[songsmith]

Lonewolf, I may amend your final analysis: Delusional paranoid ranting troll.

Well, for one, the fact that you're amending and adding to Lonewolf's post just strikes me as the funniest thing I've heard all day long, but you're quickly becoming quite the pair.
The other, even funnier thing is your use of the phrase, "Delusional paranoid ranting troll." You got me there. Your picture's probably on the COVER of that book! On a related note, denial is the number one symptom of paranoia, and most other psychoses.

[songsmith]

Are you still here?

Always. Rockpage, not FOXpage.

[shredder138]

I'd love to envision a few of you out enjoying a beer together.

[shredder138]

I'd love to envision a few of you out enjoying a beer together.

Haha, but no seriously I,... I'd like like to watch all you losers with nothin else to do fight each other. Sorry, I think it would be funny. Haahahahah, like UFC but with you douchebags, , sorry I'm just a simple man,

[onegunguitar]

I'd love to envision a few of you out enjoying a beer together.

Haha, but no seriously I,... I'd like like to watch all you losers with nothin else to do fight each other. Sorry, I think it would be funny. Haahahahah, like UFC but with you douchebags, , sorry I'm just a simple man,

Past your bedtime ain't it Jon? Hahaha

[shredder138]

Sorry that was extremely immature of me, my bad.

[shredder138]

You Scotts are something else, lol, rock on!

[onegunguitar]

You Scotts are something else, lol, rock on!

Hahahahaha...we know we are. Nothing better than two Scott B's in the same band huh? LOL!!

[shredder138]

You Scotts are something else, lol, rock on!

Hahahahaha...we know we are. Nothing better than two Scott B's in the same band huh? LOL!!

That's just pure in'fucking'sanity!

[onegunguitar]

You Scotts are something else, lol, rock on!

Hahahahaha...we know we are. Nothing better than two Scott B's in the same band huh? LOL!!

That's just pure in'fucking'sanity!

[f.sciarrillo]

I think the ones that would get into a knockout mud wrestling match would be Johnny and Joe. I can see that now.

[Banned]

Rasmussen Poll:

Ron Paul leads Obama, 43% to 41%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll

[Banned]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/c ... -milestone


"Last Friday marked the third-year anniversary of President Obama’s $787-billion economic "stimulus" law — and it scored a rather grim milestone: The unemployment rate held steady above eight percent for 36 months, the longest period since World War II. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the current 8.3-percent unemployment rate is precisely where it stood three years ago when the legislation, called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), was signed into law. The previous record for above-8-percent unemployment was 27 months, which transpired in the early 1980s. "

"Unemployment: The jobless rate is unchanged from February 2009 to January 2012. Both stood at 8.3 percent. Obama's economists had predicted that the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent.

Long-term unemployed: The number of workers who haven’t been able to find a job in 27 months or more has shot up 83 percent. They now number 5.5 million.

Civilian labor force: This segment has shrunk by 126,000. During similar time periods of recoveries of the past, the labor force rose an average of more than 3 million.

Labor force participation: The share of adults in the labor force has dropped 3 percent, which Investors.com labels "also highly unusual in a recovery." A lower participation rate makes the unemployment rate look better.

Household income: Median annual household income is about 7 percent below its February 2009 level.

National debt: The debt has risen $4.5 trillion, or 41 percent. "The latest Treasury figures put the national debt at $15.4 trillion, larger than the entire U.S. economy," Investers.com noted.

Deficits: For fiscal year 2009, the debt totaled $1.4 trillion. The Obama administration's proposed deficit for 2012 is $1.3 trillion.

Gross Domestic Product: Real GDP rose just six percent between the first quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2011.

Consumer and business spending: Personal consumption has climbed 10 percent in the past three years, but companies continue to stockpile cash, with cash on hand up 27 percent since the first quarter of 2009.

Stimulus price tag: The original cost estimate was $787 billion. Now the Congressional Budget Office says it will have cost $825 billion.

"Perhaps the best measure of the success or failure of the stimulus, however, is the fact that President Obama in his latest budget plan has called for still another round of stimulus spending," investors.com concluded, "this time totaling $350 billion over the next four years, for what is labeled ‘short-term measures for jobs growth.’"

As the failures of President Obama’s economic stimulus are further realized, critics have again pounced at the opportunity to expose the wasteful, and often bizarre, projects funded through the law. One example, for instance, was a $50,000 check to a Chicago theater that in 2009 orchestrated a play showcasing former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D). The Shakespeare Theater flaunted its "Rod Blagojevich Superstar," in which the impeached former Governor himself — who is currently serving 14 years in prison — made an appearance on opening day for a performance that mocked his political and legal scandal."

[songsmith]

Polls that joe won't like:

AP Poll says Obama benefitting:

"Thirty percent in the poll describe the economy as "good," a 15-point increase since December and the highest level since the AP-GfK poll first asked the question in 2009. Roughly the same share say the economy got better in the past month, while 18 percent said it got worse, the most positive read in over a year.
Looking ahead, four in 10 said they expect the economy to get better in the next year and a third said they think the number of unemployed people in the U.S. will decrease, the highest share on either question since last spring. A quarter of those surveyed said they expect the economy to get worse over the next 12 months, while 31 percent said it would stay the same, the poll found.
As optimism has risen, Obama has received a corresponding bump in his approval rating for handling the economy. Forty-eight percent now say they approve of how he's handling it, up 9 points from December."
http://dailylocal.com/article/20120226/ ... ng-economy

Michigan goes to Obama, thanks to successful auto-industry bailout:

"Obama still owns a commanding lead in Michigan. According to the latest polls in the state, Obama stands comfortably ahead of Republican front-runners Mitt Romney, by an average of 14 percentage points, and Rick Santorum, by almost 25 points. "
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/michig ... 2012-02-27

Obama is ahead of Romney (and rest of GOP field) in one of the mmajor swing-states:

"Obama wins the support of 47 percent of registered voters surveyed to Romney's 43, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll.
The survey marks a turnaround for the president. A Dec. 21 poll by Quinnipiac showed Romney edging Obama 44 percent to 42.
'For the first time since Quinnipiac University began polling Virginia voters on the race, President Barack Obama holds a razor-thin lead over Gov. Mitt Romney," said Quinnipiac University Polling Institute Assistant Director Peter A. Brown in a release.'"
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop ... e-virginia

The UK Telegraph says Obama stands 6 points ahead of all GOP rivals:

"The US president now stands at least six percentage points clear of each man who may be his opponent in November's election, according to the New York Times/CBS News poll. A month ago he was tied with Mr Romney, the Republican front-runner.
The proportion of voters who approve of Mr Obama's performance has meanwhile climbed to 50 per cent for the first time since May 2010 – excluding a brief spike after the killing of Osama bin Laden last May – in a development that will greatly encourage the White House."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... lines.html

Ron Pauls struggles In Georgia, a state he must win... in the whopping single-digits:

"The same enthusiasm for Paul was there in 2008, when Paul also ran for president, yet he finished a distant fourth in the Georgia primary. This year, he again trails — polls show him in single digits — in the race for Georgia’s March 6 primary, but his supporters hope their influence in the state won’t end March 6. "
"As of today, Paul has won 18 delegates nationally, compared with 105 for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 71 for former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and 29 for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich."
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politic ... 64339.html

Politico says Obama currently tops all GOP contenders:

"President Barack Obama’s approval rating is 53 percent, up 9 percentage points in four months. Matched up against his Republican opponents, he leads Mitt Romney by 10 points (53-43) and Rick Santorum by 11 (53-42). Even against a generic, unnamed Republican untarnished by attacks, Obama is up 5 percentage points. In November, he was tied."
"Rick Santorum, who is essentially the new kid on the block, has a favorable image with a plurality of the electorate (39% favorable to 36% unfavorable), but the other three Republican candidates are “upside down” with their unfavorable image exceeding their favorable image with the overall electorate. The candidates who have been in the national spotlight longer – Gingrich (26% favorable to 62% unfavorable) and Romney (38% favorable to 51% unfavorable) – have actually reached a majority unfavorable rating while Ron Paul (30% favorable to 46% unfavorable) holds a plurality unfavorable rating. The bottom line being, this is a trend that must be reversed before the general election if Republicans expect to be truly competitive in the fall in the Presidential election"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-hab ... 15641.html

This guy has a pretty good handle on RoPaul. It's an opinion piece, but that's pretty much all joe posts anymore:

"
His hostile anti-government libertarian philosophy appeals to millions of voters, because it appears ostensibly to empower the individual.

“Once a government embarks on this notion that they can protect you from yourself, then there is no liberty left,” Paul said during his speech on campus Saturday.
On the contrary, Paul has penned legislation every bit as directive and dangerous as the tyrannical federal government he purports to fight. There is a name for Paul’s less conventional tyranny. It’s called court-stripping.
By emasculating the federal court system up to and including the Supreme Court, Paul’s strategy allows for individual state governments to restrict civil liberties at will and without federal remedy. Rather than protecting civil liberties, Paul’s court-stripping subjects them to the whims of fervently partisan legislators and to the tyranny of the majority in the polling booth."
http://www.cm-life.com/2012/02/27/colum ... dangerous/

Yep. Pretty much dead-on. Doesn't matter, though. RoPaul's candidacy is little more than a sliver of the population's buy-in to the notion that each of them is ruler of all of them. It's nothing more than a curiousity, and politically serves only to further split the conservative vote. Thanks, Ron!

[f.sciarrillo]

Johnny, did you change your affiliation to democrat yet? Everyone know you aren't an independent.

[songsmith]

Still haven't changed my affiliation, but I will before the primary deadline, so I can vote for Santorum.
I am a registed Independent, and have my voter-reg receipt to confirm.

[songsmith]

Republicans (Really, is there such a thing anymore?... it's been conservatives vs. liberals for years, the GOP is an afterthought), this guy has your number. I've never seen such an astute assessment of political demographics in America today, and it's not good for the right...

http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-prim ... it-2012-3/

Excerpt:
"Of the various expressions of right-wing hysteria that have flowered over the past three years—goldbuggery, birtherism, death panels at home and imaginary apology tours by President Obama abroad—perhaps the strain that has taken deepest root within mainstream Republican circles is the terror that the achievements of the Obama administration may be irreversible, and that the time remaining to stop permanent nightfall is dwindling away."
"The modern GOP—the party of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes—is staring down its own demographic extinction. Right-wing warnings of impending tyranny express, in hyperbolic form, well-grounded dread: that conservative America will soon come to be dominated, in a semi-permanent fashion, by an ascendant Democratic coalition hostile to its outlook and interests. And this impending doom has colored the party’s frantic, fearful response to the Obama presidency."



Boo-yah.

[f.sciarrillo]

Still haven't changed my affiliation, but I will before the primary deadline, so I can vote for Santorum.
I am a registed Independent, and have my voter-reg receipt to confirm.

You will vote for Santorum in the primary and then be first in line to vote for Obama. I bet you voted for Jimmy Carter both times as well.

[Banned]

Rasmussen Poll:

Ron Paul leads Obama, 43% to 41%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16 (see trends). That’s the president’s lowest rating in over a month. "

Obomunism is on its last legs.