Jump to content


Member Since 08 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:04 PM

#1155140 Presidential Election Poll

Posted by squishyx on 24 October 2012 - 09:28 AM

...........and this is why Romney wins in a landslide because it's about the economy.

Obama's basically on track for a second term, so get the "voter intimidation", "liberals lied and cheated", "mass liberal media conspiracy", "dirty Chicago politics" cards ready for all the QQ that's about to come our way in two weeks.

For my part I'll say it now, if Romney wins I won't complain or cry foul.

How on earth do people think Romney is going to win in a landslide? I understand that's a subjective term but I doubt many conservatives thought Obama's 10 million voter edge in 2008 was a landslide, and Romney will be lucky to win by half that.
  • 1

#1155088 Presidential Election Poll

Posted by squishyx on 23 October 2012 - 10:40 AM

Obama loves shooting down Romney's budget while neglecting the fact he hasn't come close to passing one in four years. Romney should have made a bigger deal of the blunder with Russia, half of the country probably didn't understand it.

If Obama proposed Romney's budget as his own he would have been torn a new one from fiscal conservatives screaming from the high heavens about the biggest tax grab on the rich in our nations history, about redistribution, class warfare, and mostly how it doesn't even get prom point A to point B, "there is no free lunch" lecture.

Romney is promising a revenue neutral budget that lowers taxes 20% across the board and does so by limiting deductions, but not the popular ones that people like. Somehow this 500b annual cut in taxes will be paid for by who? magic gnomes? if the rich are paying for it (and they can't because there doesn't enough enough deductions to begin with) then it's a massive tax increase on them. Socialism!

It deserves to be mocked and ridiculed because when asked how he is going to pay for it he can't cite specifics and just says to "throw out a number" on a deduction cap (17, now its 25, maybe tomorrow it will be -3, who knows).

I don't think Obama's plan is great by any means, but by all reasonable accounts it's plausible that it can pass congress, and it's actually in line with math.
  • 1

#1154010 The Next Time You Want To Complain About The US "Religious Right

Posted by squishyx on 10 October 2012 - 10:02 AM

You are again avoiding the principal. Do you honestly fear that you're going to be the victim of a mass shooting in the US or Europe? Do you avoid discussing the fact that you're Jewish and pro-choice specifically for fear that some Christian Fundamentalist, White Supremacist or militiaman is going to murder you? Do you at all change your behavior? I seriously doubt that you do. On the other hand, would you take special precautions if you went to Pakistan for actual fear of being the victim of an attack by Islamic terrorist? You'd be a fool not to.

For starters I'm pro-life, I know I have become the stand-in for "liberal democrat" since most of the true liberals have basically left this page and that relatively I am more "left" then most of the posters who actually post here, but I consider myself very moderate overall.

Would I be a little cautious travelling to Pakistan? Sure, not because they are Muslim but because America and by association Americans aren't terribly popular there right. But you are cherry picking hotbed countries because I would have no problem travelling to Indonesia (the most populated Muslim country on the planet).

Also, beyond the rarity with which mass shootings actually take place in the US and Europe, the vast majority of those have no religious or political motivation. They're usually the result of mental illness or personal grudges. Those are phenomena that do merit discussion, and actually are discussed extensively here and elsewhere. There's just very little discussion of Christian fundamentalist terrorism because it rarely happens, or rarely enough that it does not effect the day-to-day lives of nonbelievers or blasphemers anywhere in the world.

Again you are trying to castigate them off into the crazy bin and say "well they are just crazy nothing we can really do about it" and that very well may be true. But why are you not willing to extend that same reasoning to extremists in the middle-east? You don't think you have to be just a little bit crazy to believe the propaganda, to accept the indoctrination to believe that hijacking a plane killing thousands of people is justified? I am not arguing that they are generating far more violence then other religious groups, but there are geo-political reasons for why it's occurring in that area. The problem I keep trying to re-enforce is not that they are Muslims, it's that they are extremists.
  • 1

#1153995 The Next Time You Want To Complain About The US "Religious Right

Posted by squishyx on 10 October 2012 - 09:21 AM

Yes, I am saying that this is something that is LARGELY or maybe even OVERWHELMINGLY, but not entirely, unique to terrorists and fundamentalists of the Islamic persuasion. To the extent that any of this stuff happens in any other part of the world, it's usually a lone nut or an isolated phenemon. The fact that you don't really fear for your physical well-being from the religious right in this country, but you would if you lived in Pakistan, makes the point so obvious.

No Catholics rioted in the street or killed people over Piss Christ. People who convert from ANY other religion in the world (even Scientology) do not face death sentences. If you heard that a suicide bomb went off in a crowded market place you would make an assumption about who the perpetrator was, and 99 percent of the time you'd be correct.

I don't make any assumptions, that's a pretty dangerous line of thought to have. What does that get you anyway? Do you feel a little better every time the gunman prays in a mosque instead of a church? Does it justify this small view of the world where it's a "us vs them" mentality"? What did you instantly think of Anders Breivik, or James Holmes, or One Goh, or Seung-Hui Cho, or Jerry Sandusky, or Michael Page? When it turned out they weren't Muslims they just fall into the "crazy" bucket that we don't talk about.

A little girl was tragically shot for speaking out against oppression. She's a hero, and she was a hero before she was attacked. I hope the shooter is captured and put to justice, as well do, that's the thing that goes without saying. But that doesn't change anything, our country is averaging 20 mass shootings every year. We've got our own problems with extremism right here at home.

Without taking any sense of proporionality into consideration, you just put your head in the sand. Not only is it intellectually dishonest, it doesn't do very much for the groups that are overwhelmingly the victims of these atrocities.

Oh please. You make this entire thread basically to provoke the left and now you want to complain about intellectual dishonesty? And our "commenting about politics on a sports team message board" does nothing either way to the victims of those atrocities.

Terrible things happen every day, for whatever reason people on this board are only interested in highlighting the sh!tty things that Muslims do. And had you just done that, I wouldn't have said a peep (although secretly wondered why many of our domestic incidents don't get coverage). But no, you had to try and make a point to say "wow look how terrible some of Muslims are, everyone should stop complaining about Christian extremism". Well you know what? Compared to the Nazi's the terrorists of today are pretty mild, so I guess we shouldn't complain about them either right?

No, they are both terrible comparisons, and we should be rooting out extremism in every form we can find it.
  • 1

#1153984 The Next Time You Want To Complain About The US "Religious Right

Posted by squishyx on 10 October 2012 - 07:56 AM

That's really bad moral equivalency, even by moral equivalency standards. The guy you're referring to was mentally ill, either bipolar or schizophrenic.

I just have to roll my eyes, same as you would if I stated that Obama supporters are just as prone to violence as Taliban primitives, based on that women who shot a bunch of people at the U. Alabama Huntsville.

The religious right in this country does not do things like this. You know this of course. Otherwise I would hope you actually do something about it besides commenting about politics on a sports team message board.

If your post had just been about this guys killing I wouldn't have said a word. But it seems like you are trying to make the argument that since there are terribly deranged brainwashed terrorists, or extremists or zealots (insert whatever word that JL will accuse me of not calling them) in the middle east who commit unthinkable atrocities, that somehow we are anymore immune to such lunacy and our "extreme" wing is lessened by compassion. Maybe it's more prevalent in that part of the world right now, but 1st nations are still suffering from people who are too far to one end of the crazy wagon.

Why is it when something terrible happens over there it's because he is a Muslim, or because he hates US or freedom but when something happens here "it's just a crazy guy ignore him".
  • 1

#1153983 The Next Time You Want To Complain About The US "Religious Right

Posted by squishyx on 10 October 2012 - 07:49 AM

Squishy loves to defend the Islamofascists.

Nope, just consistently denouncing all forms of extremism.
  • 1

#1152395 Romney on the 47%

Posted by squishyx on 25 September 2012 - 11:50 PM

You changed my "we can't know" to me saying, "Romney was taken out of context". Those are 2 completely different statements.

In fact I specifically said "I didn't say Romney was taken out of context" and you changed it to me saying "he was somehow taken out of context" :lol:

I wasn't changing anything, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of questioning the context on an event A, where we have plenty of evidence to establish said context, and event B where someone literally had their words sniped out of the middle of a sentence.

And your defense of the latter is basically "well it fits his MO so I'm inclined to believe it".
  • 1

#1152393 Romney on the 47%

Posted by squishyx on 25 September 2012 - 11:32 PM

I didn't say Romney was taken out of context, I said we can't know for sure without the full answer. Just as with you saying I was implying the Romney clip was edited together when I didn't, you need to stop assuming what I think

Don't get all victim-y on me, you said

I have listened to it. His answer is cut off. We have no idea what the rest of his answer was.

We have no idea if the clip was complete enough to provide full context because it cuts his answer off.

so I think it's a fair assumption that you are questioning the context around Romney's statement.

Quite frankly I still don't know if you do, what I can tell is you want to give Mitt as much of the benefit of the doubt as possible and nothing to Obama because it fits your narrative.
  • 1

#1152389 Romney on the 47%

Posted by squishyx on 25 September 2012 - 11:20 PM

I wasn't saying Romney didn't mean it, I'm saying we don't know. I'm fine if he did mean it, but we've seen multiple other comments talked about needing to be put in context and here we have an anonymous recorder missing pieces of audio that may provide more context.

I think Obama also meant "You didn't build that" to mean your business, no matter how some people try to say he meant "that roads" and such. That's another instance where people say that context of what he said later may have put his earlier comment into a different context, even if I disagree with them that the context changed.

I don't know how you can't see the obvious double standard in how the media vetted and presented the 2 clips.

So, you think Obama, who spent the lead in minute talking about how successful people had help somewhere along the way before saying:

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges, if you got a business, that[sic] you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen".

this Is him saying you didn't build your business... but when Mitt spends 3 minutes talking about how the 47% won't vote for him because they just want hand outs and wont take responsibility for their lives, that he was somehow taken out of context.

It's going to be a long election season because you used to be the rationale conservative.
  • 1

#1152381 Romney on the 47%

Posted by squishyx on 25 September 2012 - 10:46 PM

All it took was one email to save newspapers and websites from making a mistake. It was either incompetence or a willful blind eye that had them jumping on Romney for this comment.

A NYT pool reporter being honest doesn't change all the sources that printed a "gotcha" piece on something they didn't check on and got wrong.

Obviously it's a guess, but I feel that scenario is much less likely to happen with Obama. The media would wait to verify or get a campaign response before running it.

Why is it that every time a republican screws up it's a "gotcha" moment media conspiracy. Whenever a democrat does the same it's proof of incompetence?

This Romney window thing is bad both ways though, either (a) he's a dolt or (b) an insensitive jerk who is making jokes right after telling everyone that his wife was choking from lack of oxygen on an emergency landing. And he wasn't even prompted to say any of this, but yet blah blah blame the media for you know, re-telling what happened.
  • 1

#1152311 Romney on the 47%

Posted by squishyx on 25 September 2012 - 02:30 PM


Just another of millions of examples.

Beating you down is hardly grasping at straws. You're funny.

On Romney Windows:

Ashley Parker, a New York Times reporter who filed on the comments, tells New York magazine that "it was clear from the context that he was not being serious."

Damn liberal press! always attacking republicans... waiit....
  • 1

#1151575 Romney on the 47%

Posted by squishyx on 19 September 2012 - 01:20 PM

As for the complete video being out.....that is only partially correct. There is a gap in the video so we aren't seeing the whole thing. Link. So before you declare this as a stake in the heart, consider the integrity of the video.

Do I think it's game over? No, I think it's been game over and people will look back on this moment and try to claim this was what did him in. Certainly I think everyone would agree it's going to hurt him in the final results.

As for authenticity, I've listened to the both parts, unless during that 1-2 minute interlude Romney said "Just kiidding! I don't mean anything I said for the previous 30 min and nothing I'm about to say for the next 10" there's nothing that would have mitigated what he said. He wasn't taken out of context, and it's not twisted to show one thing when he was trying to say another. The source is fine, all though I understand why conservatives are desperate to change to conversation to anything else (invalid source, Obama said this, Obama said that).

I'm willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt that when he said it wasn't his job to care about the 47%, that he was referring to their votes not their lives; but his accusations that the 47% are just looking for handouts stands.

More food for thought on the irony:
  • 1

#1151465 Romney on the 47%

Posted by squishyx on 18 September 2012 - 07:49 PM

That's not the point. It's the fact that he says that he doesn't care about them that people are in an uproar about. Hey, I'll give the guy credit for being honest about how he feels, but isn't it the job of the President to "care" about the entire country and not just those who his ideology speaks to and who vote for him? "And so my job is not to worry about those people." So, he only worries about people who are living better? As Linda McMahon said in her response to the video (and I get that she's running in a very blue state) that the majority of people on the take from the gov't don't want to be in that position, but are forced to because of the hand they've been dealt.

That's what's so interesting as to how the right is reiterating the Obama quote about a segment of the right "clinging to guns and religion". They don't play the full quote, where he goes on to say that he still cares about them despite the differences in that respect. The entire Romney video is out now and nothing is taken out of context or made into a soundbite (which both sides of the media hammered Obama for in 2008).

In Romney's defense, I believe he was talking about their vote, not the people as a whole. As in "it's not worthwhile to spend time trying to win over the 47%". That's obviously a bullsh!t statement in it's own right, Romney needs a large portion of that base to vote for him or this election will be a landslide.

What I find pretty objectionable is his description of the 47%, basically saying they are moochers off society when it's patently untrue. Half of the 47% are seniors who have paid SS and medicare taxes their entire lives. Of the other half of the 47% most still pay FICA, unemployment, state, local, city, property taxes. I pay federal income tax, but I don't feel superior to those who don't. I'm sad that they aren't making enough money to meet the level to pay. When the average Salary is $26,000 dollars, and the Average family is making $45,000 the problem is not who isn't paying taxes, it's why aren't they getting paid enough to pay taxes.
  • 1

#1151349 Romney on the 47%

Posted by squishyx on 18 September 2012 - 11:28 AM

Squishy, you are clearly forgetting the Fox News leads in CABLE news, their rating have yet to touch the "Big 3" who are clearly controlled by and advocate for the left, as they have done for decades.

Are people really of the opinion that the local news at 7 is in the tank for Obama? I can't remember the last time I even watched network news let alone saw something with a political tint.

But point taken, you are correct I was referring to cable news.
  • 1

#1151348 Romney on the 47%

Posted by squishyx on 18 September 2012 - 11:24 AM

You mostly answered your own question, he definitely did not expect those comments to leave the room. But also, you say it to pander for contributions. You get people to go from planning to donate $800 to donating $1,400, that's why you would talk to them that way

I disagree. As Chuck Todd of NBC pointed out last night, Obama had a similar incident with the "cling to their guns and religion" comment last time, and even though a big fuss was made of that and it certainly hurt him, it wasn't that terrible of a blow and he won anyway.

I immediately thought of the guns and religion comment Obama made.

I think it will play out differently though because (a) in my personal view, Obama's comment while dumb, isn't quite as inflammatory as Romney's (my honest opinion), (b) the people Obama insulted, weren't voting for him anyway, it's a little different when you claim half the country are looking for handouts and © Obama made the comment back in the primaries, the country had 7-8 months to forget about it.
  • 1