joe the plumber should keep yap shut

[SportsFan68]

Obama will do what is politically popular, which in terms of the economy means a tax structure that's going to look pretty much the same as the one we have now. Whatever does get enacted (probably a few new tax credits), is going to be heralded by Obama and his media syncophants as a giant victory for the middle class but it won't do much for the vast majority of people, it won't stabilize the economy, and it won't begin to balance the budget.

Bill Clinton was accused of governing by poll results.

Bill Clinton was universally hated by conservatives for reasons similar to those stated above.

There are people on this Bored who insist that Bill Clinton did not even begin to balance the budget.

Other people on this Bored insist that Bill was the greatest President of the half century.

I voted for the person who most looks like Bill, because look how that turned out. No multi-trillion dollar increase in an already staggering debt, courtesy of the most conservative President of the half century, no life- and resource-draining wars based on a lie, no sending more than 800 U.S. troops to their deaths and then making fun of the reason you sent them into harm's way a year later. . .

[Jeemie]

Obama will do what is politically popular, which in terms of the economy means a tax structure that's going to look pretty much the same as the one we have now. Whatever does get enacted (probably a few new tax credits), is going to be heralded by Obama and his media syncophants as a giant victory for the middle class but it won't do much for the vast majority of people, it won't stabilize the economy, and it won't begin to balance the budget.

Bill Clinton was accused of governing by poll results.

Bill Clinton was universally hated by conservatives for reasons similar to those stated above.

There are people on this Bored who insist that Bill Clinton did not even begin to balance the budget.

Other people on this Bored insist that Bill was the greatest President of the half century.

I voted for the person who most looks like Bill, because look how that turned out. No multi-trillion dollar increase in an already staggering debt, courtesy of the most conservative President of the half century, no life- and resource-draining wars based on a lie, no sending more than 800 U.S. troops to their deaths and then making fun of the reason you sent them into harm's way a year later. . .

It's always nice when people can predict what others would have done had they been in the job of President at the time 9/11, etc went down.

Truth is, we have no idea what anyone not named Bush would have done, because they weren't President.

[KillerTomato]

I voted for the person who most looks like Bill, because look how that turned out. No multi-trillion dollar increase in an already staggering debt, courtesy of the most conservative President of the half century, no life- and resource-draining wars based on a lie, no sending more than 800 U.S. troops to their deaths and then making fun of the reason you sent them into harm's way a year later. . .

It's always nice when people can predict what others would have done had they been in the job of President at the time 9/11, etc went down.

Truth is, we have no idea what anyone not named Bush would have done, because they weren't President.

I'm confused. Where, exactly, in Sprots' response, did she mention 9/11? She was talking about Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11. NOT A DAMN THING.

[mellytu74]

Anyone recall the same scrutiny on the college student who phone/camera filmed former Va. Senator Robb when he used his famous 'macaca' line?

For the record, the Senator in question in Virginia was George Allen, not Chuck Robb.

That is all.

[Flybrick]

Anyone recall the same scrutiny on the college student who phone/camera filmed former Va. Senator Robb when he used his famous 'macaca' line?

For the record, the Senator in question in Virginia was George Allen, not Chuck Robb.

That is all.

mellytu, of course. My apologies. (no other political intent, just apologizing for a case of CRS.)

[dimmzy]

To quote the infamous Rodney King,

"Can't we all just get along?"

[Jeemie]

I voted for the person who most looks like Bill, because look how that turned out. No multi-trillion dollar increase in an already staggering debt, courtesy of the most conservative President of the half century, no life- and resource-draining wars based on a lie, no sending more than 800 U.S. troops to their deaths and then making fun of the reason you sent them into harm's way a year later. . .

It's always nice when people can predict what others would have done had they been in the job of President at the time 9/11, etc went down.

Truth is, we have no idea what anyone not named Bush would have done, because they weren't President.

I'm confused. Where, exactly, in Sprots' response, did she mention 9/11? She was talking about Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11. NOT A DAMN THING.

I was making a general comparison- hence the term 9/11, etc.

I don't like people trying to make predictions about "what someone else would have done". We can't roll back time and find that out.

[Jeemie]

To quote the infamous Rodney King,

"Can't we all just get along?"

I can get along with anyone...as long as they don't firebomb a thread with completely unrelated talking points and baseless accusations (and then afterwards, don't even have the guts to come back and defend said statements or retract them).

People don't do that...I can get along with them fine.

[KillerTomato]

I'm confused. Where, exactly, in Sprots' response, did she mention 9/11? She was talking about Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11. NOT A DAMN THING.

I was making a general comparison- hence the term 9/11, etc.

I don't like people trying to make predictions about "what someone else would have done". Ee can't roll back time and find that out.

While I agree with you about predictions, I think you should limit yourself to what was actually said, and not what was not. Complain, if you will, about how you don't know how someone would have treated Saddam's lies and deceit, but to suggest or even imply a connection with 9/11 is not only completely bogus but also incendiary.

[Jeemie]

I'm confused. Where, exactly, in Sprots' response, did she mention 9/11? She was talking about Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11. NOT A DAMN THING.

I was making a general comparison- hence the term 9/11, etc.

I don't like people trying to make predictions about "what someone else would have done". Ee can't roll back time and find that out.

While I agree with you about predictions, I think you should limit yourself to what was actually said, and not what was not. Complain, if you will, about how you don't know how someone would have treated Saddam's lies and deceit, but to suggest or even imply a connection with 9/11 is not only completely bogus but also incendiary.

I wasn't making a connection with 9/11....except that the events in Iraq took place after 9/11, and are therefore colored by that event...whether direct connections exist or not.

[KillerTomato]

I was making a general comparison- hence the term 9/11, etc.

I don't like people trying to make predictions about "what someone else would have done". Ee can't roll back time and find that out.

While I agree with you about predictions, I think you should limit yourself to what was actually said, and not what was not. Complain, if you will, about how you don't know how someone would have treated Saddam's lies and deceit, but to suggest or even imply a connection with 9/11 is not only completely bogus but also incendiary.

I wasn't making a connection with 9/11....except that the events in Iraq took place after 9/11, and are therefore colored by that event...whether direct connections exist or not.

My point is that there was absolutely no reason to bring 9/11 up in the first place.

[Jeemie]

While I agree with you about predictions, I think you should limit yourself to what was actually said, and not what was not. Complain, if you will, about how you don't know how someone would have treated Saddam's lies and deceit, but to suggest or even imply a connection with 9/11 is not only completely bogus but also incendiary.

I wasn't making a connection with 9/11....except that the events in Iraq took place after 9/11, and are therefore colored by that event...whether direct connections exist or not.

My point is that there was absolutely no reason to bring 9/11 up in the first place.

Well, I did.

Everything in foreign policy that happened after 9/11 was colored by it.

[SportsFan68]

To quote the infamous Rodney King,

"Can't we all just get along?"

I can get along with anyone...as long as they don't firebomb a thread with completely unrelated talking points and baseless accusations (and then afterwards, don't even have the guts to come back and defend said statements or retract them).

People don't do that...I can get along with them fine.

Jeemie ... you do that. You firebombed this thread with completely unrelated talking points and baseless accusations. Your talking point was completely unrelated, and your accusation was baseless.

In the past, I don't know if it's a lack of guts or what, you have dropped out of threads rather than continue discussions, or as you put it, rather than defend your statements or retract them.

I don't know if that means you can't get along with yourself or the rest of us.

[Jeemie]

To quote the infamous Rodney King,

"Can't we all just get along?"

I can get along with anyone...as long as they don't firebomb a thread with completely unrelated talking points and baseless accusations (and then afterwards, don't even have the guts to come back and defend said statements or retract them).

People don't do that...I can get along with them fine.

Jeemie ... you do that. You firebombed this thread with completely unrelated talking points and baseless accusations. Your talking point was completely unrelated, and your accusation was baseless.

In the past, I don't know if it's a lack of guts or what, you have dropped out of threads rather than continue discussions, or as you put it, rather than defend your statements or retract them.

I don't know if that means you can't get along with yourself or the rest of us.

What are you talking about?

Every post of mine on this thread has been completely on point.

And on the other threads to which you refer, I have never dropped out after a hit'n'run post such as BobJuch left on this thread. I always make at least one attempt to defend what I say.

[SportsFan68]

What are you talking about?

Every post of mine on this thread has been completely on point.

And on the other threads to which you refer, I have never dropped out after a hit'n'run post such as BobJuch left on this thread. I always make at least one attempt to defend what I say.

I'm talking about your behavior in this thread. I disagree with your completely on point assertion.

So after you make ONE attempt to defend what you say, then it's OK to duck out? Or, maybe your behavior is OK because you consider it to be better than BobJ's?

[Jeemie]

What are you talking about?

Every post of mine on this thread has been completely on point.

And on the other threads to which you refer, I have never dropped out after a hit'n'run post such as BobJuch left on this thread. I always make at least one attempt to defend what I say.

I'm talking about your behavior in this thread. I disagree with your completely on point assertion.

So after you make ONE attempt to defend what you say, then it's OK to duck out? Or, maybe your behavior is OK because you consider it to be better than BobJ's?

Please point out where my behavior on this thread was inappropriate.

And no- most threads on here I will make every attempt to defend myself until it's clear that further discussion is pointless.

And lastly- my behavior on threads is better than Bob Juch's because...well..it just is.

We were actually starting to have a decent discussion here, and then he firebombs it with a screed that declared people against Obama to be racist.

A screed which was not even CLOSE to being warranted by the discussion that was taking place on the thread. Obama himself wasn't even being discussed...just something he said.

I still can't figure out why he even posted it in this thread. I was hoping he would've told us by now....hoping that maybe he made a mistake, and meant to post it elsewhere.

I'm guessing I'll never find out why Bob did it.

Anyhow, I defy you to point out where I EVER did something even remotely similar.

[SportsFan68]

Please point out where my behavior on this thread was inappropriate.

I did not say it was inappropriate, and as the blitheringest poster around here, I'm sure I've included some inappropriate behavior somewhere (some of y'all hate smilies, anyway), so I'm not likely to call anyone else inappropriate.

What I did say is that "You firebombed this thread with completely unrelated talking points and baseless accusations. Your talking point was completely unrelated, and your accusation was baseless."

And no- most threads on here I will make every attempt to defend myself until it's clear that further discussion is pointless.

And to that, I said and say: "In the past, I don't know if it's a lack of guts or what, you have dropped out of threads rather than continue discussions, or as you put it, rather than defend your statements or retract them. I don't know if that means you can't get along with yourself or the rest of us."

In other words, you duck out anytime it's clear to you that further discussion is pointless. in other words, whenever your talking points have been demonstrated to be baseless.

And lastly- my behavior on threads is better than Bob Juch's because...well..it just is.

I never said it wasn't. I never said it was. I said that you do the things you accuse BobJ of.

We were actually starting to have a decent discussion here, and then he firebombs it with a screed that declared people against Obama to be racist.

A screed which was not even CLOSE to being warranted by the discussion that was taking place on the thread. Obama himself wasn't even being discussed...just something he said.

I still can't figure out why he even posted it in this thread. I was hoping he would've told us by now....hoping that maybe he made a mistake, and meant to post it elsewhere.

I'm guessing I'll never find out why Bob did it.

Anyhow, I defy you to point out where I EVER did something even remotely similar.

Jeemie, once again, you said stuff, but it consisted of unrelated talking points. I know you won't accept that it's remotely similar to the behavior you decry. And that's OK -- BobJ doesn't have to explain himself to you, and you don't have to explain yourself to me. Whew! Good thing.

[BigDrawMan]

my point way back there was:

it is a bad idea to call attention to yourself if you complain about taxes, yet are a tax scofflaw.
Along with his plumber misrepresentation.

joe must not know gary hart or ted haggerty

[SportsFan68]

my point way back there was:

it is a bad idea to call attention to yourself if you complain about taxes, yet are a tax scofflaw.
Along with his plumber misrepresentation.

joe must not know gary hart or ted haggerty

Good thing you splained it. Now I am sure BobJ will take back his screed, and Jeemie will take back everything he said.

[BigDrawMan]

my point way back there was:

it is a bad idea to call attention to yourself if you complain about taxes, yet are a tax scofflaw.
Along with his plumber misrepresentation.

joe must not know gary hart or ted haggerty

Good thing you splained it. Now I am sure BobJ will take back his screed, and Jeemie will take back everything he said.

i think i'll skip it

[Jeemie]

Please point out where my behavior on this thread was inappropriate.

I did not say it was inappropriate, and as the blitheringest poster around here, I'm sure I've included some inappropriate behavior somewhere (some of y'all hate smilies, anyway), so I'm not likely to call anyone else inappropriate.

What I did say is that "You firebombed this thread with completely unrelated talking points and baseless accusations. Your talking point was completely unrelated, and your accusation was baseless."

And no- most threads on here I will make every attempt to defend myself until it's clear that further discussion is pointless.

And to that, I said and say: "In the past, I don't know if it's a lack of guts or what, you have dropped out of threads rather than continue discussions, or as you put it, rather than defend your statements or retract them. I don't know if that means you can't get along with yourself or the rest of us."

In other words, you duck out anytime it's clear to you that further discussion is pointless. in other words, whenever your talking points have been demonstrated to be baseless.

And lastly- my behavior on threads is better than Bob Juch's because...well..it just is.

I never said it wasn't. I never said it was. I said that you do the things you accuse BobJ of.

We were actually starting to have a decent discussion here, and then he firebombs it with a screed that declared people against Obama to be racist.

A screed which was not even CLOSE to being warranted by the discussion that was taking place on the thread. Obama himself wasn't even being discussed...just something he said.

I still can't figure out why he even posted it in this thread. I was hoping he would've told us by now....hoping that maybe he made a mistake, and meant to post it elsewhere.

I'm guessing I'll never find out why Bob did it.

Anyhow, I defy you to point out where I EVER did something even remotely similar.

Jeemie, once again, you said stuff, but it consisted of unrelated talking points. I know you won't accept that it's remotely similar to the behavior you decry. And that's OK -- BobJ doesn't have to explain himself to you, and you don't have to explain yourself to me. Whew! Good thing.

I will explain myself.

What i said was related, and they weren't talking points.

I said who Joe was not as important as the question he asked and the answer Obama gave.

How is that "a bunch of unrelated talking points?"

And when you can point out where I waded into a discussion which had been going on for some time and made an unrelated, baseless accusation against someone, like Bob Juch did in this thread, please point it out.

I take charges such as racism very seriously, even if such a charge is not levelled at me.

It's an extremely hot button issue with me, especially when it is brought up in the completely inappropriate manner such as Bob Juch brought it up here.

[Jeemie]

my point way back there was:

it is a bad idea to call attention to yourself if you complain about taxes, yet are a tax scofflaw.
Along with his plumber misrepresentation.

joe must not know gary hart or ted haggerty

Why is it a bad idea to do thusly?

Does it make the question invalid?

If the world's biggest liar says the sun is shining, does that make it dark out?

Does Joe the Plumber's tax status or his lack of a plumbing license in any way change what Obama said?

[Flybrick]

SSHHH!


I can't hear the Messiah speak.