By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Are republicans delusional? or is it just fox news?

NightDragon83 on 14 October 2012
thismeintiel said:
The only reason people question the polls is because the models many polsters have adopted are overly positive for Obama in the predicted turnout, not because Romney was behind. Basically, they were acting as if there is going to be an even larger turnout of Democrats compared to Republicans, and even Independents, than there was in '08. I haven't even heard any serious Democrat pundit predict that this will be the case, not when voter enthusiasm is on the Republican's side.

THIS.  There was one Gallup poll that showed Obama and Romney neck and neck around the middle of September, well before the debates... and the Justice Dept SUED Gallup for their poll if you can believe it.  After that Obama convenienty led Romney in all the polls leading up to the first debate, when people finally got to see both candidates out in the open instead of the way the media constantly portrays them, which of course heavily favors Obama.

Once the smoke and mirrors were gone any everyone saw the real Obama and Romney, that's when you started to see huge shifts in voter trends that even the most biased pollsters in favor of Obama couldn't ignore.  Barring some meltdown by Romney in the next debate or two, the polls are going to stay pretty much the same right on up until election day.

Contrary to OP's avatar and the way he thinks... this is how the American public REALLY feels about Obama and Romney these days...

That's not some conservative, right-wing extremist magazine... the New Yorker is about as liberal as they come.  When even the most liberal news and media outlets start admitting what everyone else saw 2 weeks ago, you know the president is in trouble.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Around the Network
mrstickball on 14 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
mrstickball said:
Wonderfully skewed picture. Republicans are about as delusional as you are. Badgenome and others have already called you on it, but to re-cap:

1. Congress controls writing the budget.
2. The president then signs it into law.
3. Therefore, both sides are responsible for the budget, not just the president.

Badgenone gave you a good chart. There are other charts out there that explain it similarly. Both sides of the fence have increased the deficit at insane rates. The only time there was any real deficit reduction was under Clinton/Republican legislature in '96-00. Otherwise, you can easily pull enough data out that would state that both sides are pretty bad.

Pork is what gets people reelected in congress.  For all the bantering about budget deficit, individuals in congress don't get elected on reigning in the deficit.  Oh, there is the Tea Party fuming that has some impact.  But the reality is that there is this divide between what people pay and what they get, and the impact of both.  You run into the Craig T Nelson problem where you end up thinking the government doesn't really do anything for them, but does.  And then you protest with things like "Keep the government off my Medicare".  Starve the Beast mentality also resulted in cutting taxes and increasing spending to, because no one believes that they are a problem.  You see a big picture of this with the Red States, who demand less government, reigning in spending and so on, getting more from Washington than they pay in.

Issue now is that government spending is what it is, but revenues declined.  Rate of growth in government spending has been slowing down a lot.  It is just the economy hasn't recovered as it normally would.  Faced with a slow economy, demands for governmen services increase also.

Problem is, that government spending isn't just "Is what it is" - its increased significantly within the past few years, and continues to grow. Spending as a percentage of GDP is at the highest level ever - even higher than WW2. Revenues have certainly dropped, but that only accounts for about 30% of the problem.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Kasz216 on 15 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:

First off... generally the censoring of "sexy pictures" is a liberal thing... done because of the inherent sexism in such objectifying pictures.

... Second off I don't think Amp visits the political section... and the whole "Sexy picture" avatar thing has something that's gone on website wide.

There is also the conservative religious fundamentalists that also want sexy pictures banned.   Go into the mideast and you will see them fuming at the west for having women in bikinis on TV.


True, but not really relevent to western society as much, let alone this website... hard to argue this website is moderated by western conservative muslims.

Even most "right wing" people you'd consdier on this site are more libretarian then rightwing... aka, fiscally liberal socially, conservative... espiecally when it comes to moderations.

Heck, a lot of socially conservative positions are generally hit up for trolling very quickly if it goes even slightly out of line. (generally for good reasons.)  While essentially in the arguement to get moderated a liberal person has to go ridiculiously spastic calling someone a dumb bigot or something to receive moderation.

It would be a lot better to label these as "Libertarian" rather than "Conservative".  It seems now the in thing is to bash the word "liberal" and anything that looks liberal.


Hm, somehow wrote that backwords.   Meant to say that the mods on the site that people would call conservative tend to be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

I mean, for example I think this website is a lot more homosexual friendly then most on the web... at least as far as gaming websites go anyway.



richardhutnik on 15 October 2012
mrstickball said:
richardhutnik said:
mrstickball said:
Wonderfully skewed picture. Republicans are about as delusional as you are. Badgenome and others have already called you on it, but to re-cap:

1. Congress controls writing the budget.
2. The president then signs it into law.
3. Therefore, both sides are responsible for the budget, not just the president.

Badgenone gave you a good chart. There are other charts out there that explain it similarly. Both sides of the fence have increased the deficit at insane rates. The only time there was any real deficit reduction was under Clinton/Republican legislature in '96-00. Otherwise, you can easily pull enough data out that would state that both sides are pretty bad.

Pork is what gets people reelected in congress.  For all the bantering about budget deficit, individuals in congress don't get elected on reigning in the deficit.  Oh, there is the Tea Party fuming that has some impact.  But the reality is that there is this divide between what people pay and what they get, and the impact of both.  You run into the Craig T Nelson problem where you end up thinking the government doesn't really do anything for them, but does.  And then you protest with things like "Keep the government off my Medicare".  Starve the Beast mentality also resulted in cutting taxes and increasing spending to, because no one believes that they are a problem.  You see a big picture of this with the Red States, who demand less government, reigning in spending and so on, getting more from Washington than they pay in.

Issue now is that government spending is what it is, but revenues declined.  Rate of growth in government spending has been slowing down a lot.  It is just the economy hasn't recovered as it normally would.  Faced with a slow economy, demands for governmen services increase also.

Problem is, that government spending isn't just "Is what it is" - its increased significantly within the past few years, and continues to grow. Spending as a percentage of GDP is at the highest level ever - even higher than WW2. Revenues have certainly dropped, but that only accounts for about 30% of the problem.

The current rate of growth is lowest in decades:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

One can debate the 2009 budget and if that is under Obama or not, but the reality is that the budget's growth is now slow.  The fiscal cliff is of concern, because of the fact it will take even more out of the economy, and that is of concern that it will slow economic growth.  Revenues have stalled due to economic issues, and with this resulted also in an increase in spending on social safety net issues.

The past few years it hasn't significantly increased.  It significantly increased in the 2008-2009 time period, when the financial markets melted down, and TARP and other bailouts were being passed.

 



mrstickball on 16 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
mrstickball said:

Problem is, that government spending isn't just "Is what it is" - its increased significantly within the past few years, and continues to grow. Spending as a percentage of GDP is at the highest level ever - even higher than WW2. Revenues have certainly dropped, but that only accounts for about 30% of the problem.

The current rate of growth is lowest in decades:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

One can debate the 2009 budget and if that is under Obama or not, but the reality is that the budget's growth is now slow.  The fiscal cliff is of concern, because of the fact it will take even more out of the economy, and that is of concern that it will slow economic growth.  Revenues have stalled due to economic issues, and with this resulted also in an increase in spending on social safety net issues.

The past few years it hasn't significantly increased.  It significantly increased in the 2008-2009 time period, when the financial markets melted down, and TARP and other bailouts were being passed.

 


The growth under Obama isn't the problem, true, but its the sustaining of an insane jump in spending under the 08-09 budget, which was written under Bush.

The stimulus spending wasn't a spike - its been a sustained amount since that budget. Although growth has indeed slowed (only 10% under Obama's budgets), there is still the reality that the amount and the deficit added has been unbelievably bad.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
dany612 on 16 October 2012

I refuse to accept a party that is against science and common sense, until then I can't even take their fiscally conservative points seriously. Seriously, secularism shouldn't even be questioned. I know that inevitably religion will play a role in some fashion, but it shouldn't be in the imposing manner Republicans suggest.



 

        

Kasz216 on 16 October 2012
dany612 said:
I refuse to accept a party that is against science and common sense, until then I can't even take their fiscally conservative points seriously. Seriously, secularism shouldn't even be questioned. I know that inevitably religion will play a role in some fashion, but it shouldn't be in the imposing manner Republicans suggest.


The fiscally conservative points are science(economics) and common sense though.



sperrico87 on 16 October 2012
kain_kusanagi said:

It's the same with both sides. You are just clearly set on one side so you only think it's coming from the other. If you were in the middle you'd see how both sides do and say the same stuff.

Oh and don't even try to claim you're a moderate. You sig and your avatar as left of center as you can get.


Exactly.  I used to be a hardcore Republican voting straight-ticket, but then I saw Ron Paul in a primary debate early in 2011, and that whole way of thinking came crashing down like a ton of bricks.  It was like I had been hit by a bolt of lightning.  I now seperate myself from both parties, and for the most part I dislike Republicans as much as Democrats.  I still tend to be more Conservative, but I don't support things anymore just because it's what the party wants.  If it's not right for Democrats to do something while they're in power, how can it be okay for Republicans to turn around and do the same thing when they're in power?  The answer is: it's not.  Unfortunately, too many people still pick sides for no reason, instead of looking at things objectively and taking a step back from the partisan nonsense.



 

sperrico87 on 16 October 2012
easyrider said:

I have taken a break off this site as of late, due to the warning on my profile pic. I was on a protest from this site, My pic was to sexual, however there was no sex, no nudity or no anything but a hot chick with a bikini......... Holy cow conservatives on this site own the mod so don't go liking sexy pics anymore. Just talk about it in great detail. which is funny because there was a massive thread on anal sex, that went on and on but that didn't cross the line but my pic did. WTF!

 I have come back to read up and one thing keeps popping up every single time. Everytime numbers come out in republicans corner , they are real numbers and they are to be trusted. As soon as the data goes against them, it's false and useless data. Polls where in Obama's favor, the polls are flawed. As soon as they turn in there favor, oh look at the polls, obama sucks. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO........

Jobs report comes out, Oh the data is wrong, every single thing that is against us is wrong. So thats our proof but before that we used the 8% unemployment to rip on people on the web.

So I have to say that just like fox news. This site seems to follow every drum beat they set. So are they delusional or do they just work or follow everysingle move of fox news? It's getting rather sad. facts don't matter to those on this site, they use only data that supports them. If I where you I wouldn't even consider the fact checking but rather consider it as  biased picking of the facts and ruled out by anything that destroys there ideals.

 


Politics is like sports teams.  If you wave a Republican or Democrat flag and are unable to take a step make and looking at things objectively without letting bias get in the way, you are incapable of making an objective decision and therefore your point of view is tainted.



 

sperrico87 on 16 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
HappySqurriel said:
the2real4mafol said:

 

 

 

. eg fox/msnbc are conservative while CNN are more liberal on matters. I don't know but I think these channels should be forced to change their names for example from fox news to fox opinion, because that what it really is, it is not news at all.

Er.... MSNBC is extremely liberal.

Their station tagline is "lean foward."

MSNBC and CNN are both liberal leaning.


Haha I was about to post about MSNBC and their tagline, then I saw you'd beaten me to it.  Good man.