New America Foundation to US - The World's Changed: Get Over It

[aimeecc]

tw, you really need to get over yourself. Calling anyone and everyone that does not support your position as anti-American , uneducated, ignorant, and a variety of other barages is completely reprehensible.

Its about a free exchange of ideas and opinions on this board, and no insulting labels should be attached to anyone who makes an informed opinion/decision on an issue - whether you or I or anyone else agrees or disagrees.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

The 30% is his approval rating right? Then what about congresses approval rating which is less than that? Why not call them out as well? You seem very selective to attack W and let their shitty records go? Why is that? Anyone? (yes I'm seriously asking)

Because Bush is a person, and Congress is a group. Bush's decisions are on him, but if Congress does something bad, attacking Congress as a whole can be cathartic but is otherwise meaningless. You have to track down whoever pushed the bad thing, or prevented improvement, and blame them. Especially in the Senate, it's easy for small numbers of people to drastically affect the product of the group, and then fade into the woodwork when the time for blame comes around. So Congress gets poor approval, and (I would guess) just about all Senators and Representatives have much higher approval than Bush.

Originally Posted by aimeecc

tw, you really need to get over yourself. Calling anyone and everyone that does not support your position as anti-American , uneducated, ignorant, and a variety of other barages is completely reprehensible.

Heh. It's funny to see this complaint about someone other than UG in an argument involving UG, no less.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because Bush is a person, and Congress is a group. Bush's decisions are on him, but if Congress does something bad, attacking Congress as a whole can be cathartic but is otherwise meaningless. You have to track down whoever pushed the bad thing, or prevented improvement, and blame them. Especially in the Senate, it's easy for small numbers of people to drastically affect the product of the group, and then fade into the woodwork when the time for blame comes around. So Congress gets poor approval, and (I would guess) just about all Senators and Representatives have much higher approval than Bush.

Seems like you are saying they get a free pass because its easier to blame an individual instead of a group. Based upon your assumption then, they would all be doing a bang up job for their own selfish interests, yet not overall for the country. Hmmm... more thought required. Not sure that makes sense yet.

[icileparadise]

This is exciting, Romney folds and he is so good. Very eloquent and very smart and very rich ,he could have gone on but why did he fold today?

[lookout123]

Because it costs money to keep going and it is now unwinnable for him. Huckabee was acting as a spoiler for the conservative republican vote, so Romney would have no chance of overtaking McCain. My guess is that you'll see Huckabee with a juicy position in the McCain camp. That's the only chance that McCain has of bringing the Dobson crowd back into the fold.

[tw]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

Its about a free exchange of ideas and opinions on this board, and no insulting labels should be attached to anyone who makes an informed opinion/decision on an issue -

aimeecc - did you really think "anti-American" is derogatory? It's not and was never intended to be. Why do you assume otherwise? Did you find that post reprehensible? Good. I don't make a habit of attacking people which is obviously different from Urbane Guerrilla. If you saw insult, that is the first indication that you did not read it logically. My definition of anti-American is apparently quite different from what you may have assumed.

Only thing you might cite as derogatory is the description of a president who remains so anti-American as to be a scumbag. But I don't make that claim without reams of facts. Just a few examples. As president, he did not know what countries were adjacent to Israel? Every country that went to war with Israel. Could the answer be any simpler? He sat for 15 minutes in a child's chair doing nothing as planes were slamming into the World Trade Center. He was told "American is under attack." The exact quote. And yet he just sat there doing nothing. He is that anti-American. It is not an insult. It is a fact.

That post also defines a 30% who still remain in total denial. Are they insulted. No. They are defined by their own actions. Reasons define them logically. They don't logically know the president is that bad? They only know by what they feel? Well that is the definition of anti-American. But I never called them brainless or uneducated. You made those assumptions.

In another post, I referred to "dittoheads". Is that a derogatory comment? Of course not. Large numbers of Rush Limbaugh supporters refer to themselves as "dittoheads". Did you learn or ask for a definition before assuming a derogatory comment? Insulting is not what I do. Posting politically incorrect so as to appear insulting? Of course. Why respect people who need everything carefully worded; to appease their emotions? Your job to read through and ignore perception - always grasp the facts. You are expected to grab hold of and quash your emotions.

It is "how ideas and opinions get exchanged" - to paraphrase your own post. When an idea is not based in facts, then a blunt factual reply may easily result in a reader's emotion outburst. Did you get emotional in what was posted in post 23? If so, then cite the specific phrases that are demeaning, insulting, completely reprehensible, and not based in logical statements? Again, I defined "anti-American". Did you learn that definition before assuming it is "completely reprehensible"?

aimeecc - it is how you get measured – also part of the free exchange of ideas. You claimed something was "completely reprehensible". But not even one example – a supporting fact? How am I to judge your post as anything but an emotional outburst? How am I to reply to conclusions that don't include specific examples AND reasons why? And if your last post is justified by 'feelings', then your post is, by your own definition, "completely reprehensible". Where are supporting facts for your post? Is it based in a logical reply or have I now exposed you as one who entertains your emotions?

If you think I have attacked someone, then go back and read it again with your emotions quashed like a bug. It may be the only way for you to separate that post's purpose (what it says) from 'baited emotions'. I don't apologize for posting politically incorrect. The baiting causes those without 'opinions based in logic' to become emotional. And this IS the free exchange of ideas.

So where are your supporting facts that demonstrate "completely reprehensible"? A logic based post would have included such examples.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by tw

I don't make a habit of attacking people which is obviously different from Urbane Guerrilla.

lol!!! Sorry...I just saw this....leaving now...sorry bye.

I don't make a habit of doing what I say I don't do in the same very sentence, which is obviously different from......

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

That's the only chance that McCain has of bringing the Dobson crowd back into the fold.

Define "Dobson crowd".

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Seems like you are saying they get a free pass because its easier to blame an individual instead of a group.

No, it's easier to blame a group than an individual, but it is useless to do so. That's why Congress's approval rating is so low, and the people responsible for the displeasing behavior are doing fine in the polls. That's how pork gets in. Everybody does it, so blame Congress, not your own Congressman.

Also, people can agree that Congress has problems, but disagree on what those problems are.

Let's say that one reason for disapproving of Congress these days is that they are "do nothing".

Democrats are disappointed in Congress, but they support the Democrats who are trying to do stuff.
Republicans disapprove of Congress because it is under Democratic control, but approve of the Republicans who are threatening filibusters and upholding Bush's vetos.

The Republican members who block all Democratic legislation are from areas where people want Democratic legislation blocked, so they get high approval.

Democratic members are voting for bills that Democratic voters approve of, so they get high approval.

But bills are vetoed and filibustered at record levels, so Congress gets blamed for being "do nothing".

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because Bush is a person, and Congress is a group. Bush's decisions are on him, but if Congress does something bad, attacking Congress as a whole can be cathartic but is otherwise meaningless. You have to track down whoever pushed the bad thing, or prevented improvement, and blame them. Especially in the Senate, it's easy for small numbers of people to drastically affect the product of the group, and then fade into the woodwork when the time for blame comes around. So Congress gets poor approval, and (I would guess) just about all Senators and Representatives have much higher approval than Bush.
Heh. It's funny to see this complaint about someone other than UG in an argument involving UG, no less.

That would be total bull shit. Congress is in the driving seat. Congress' approval rating is 23% and that has been consistantly below Bush's for months.

http://www.pollster.com/

Congress during Bush's reign is at much fault as is Bush himself, if not more, for any of the mess we are in. The Demoncrats ran on a platform of change and have been in office nearly 2 years, doing absolutely nothing. They are in the drivers seats, they get the blame.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That would be total bull shit.

No.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

They are in the drivers seats, they get the blame.

The driver's seat? How do you figure?

There are three branch of government. The Rs control the Supreme Court and the White House, and the D's have a very narrow margin of control on the Hill. Not enough to override a veto.

By my count, possession of the White House and Supreme Court means the R's have 2/3 of the power. The D's have the 1/3 that constitutes the Hill, but even there, with filibusters and no veto proof majority, they don't even have that full slice of the power pie. I'd estimate they have about 75% of the power on the Hill. 75% of 1/3 is 1/4.

Doing the math, you come up with the Rs having 3/4 of the power in the Federal government and the D's having 1/4. The D's are hardly in the driver's seat.