archBoston Presidential Poll 2012

For whom will you be voting on Tuesday?

  • Total voters
    44
Re: archBoston political trolling and genital wagging thread 2012

Lurker said:
That statement is loaded with so much hypocrisy it isn't even funny.
Click to expand...

Could you expand on your statement, or else factually dispute my statement? Thanks.

It sure looked to me like the Republican party encompassed so many distracting social issues that their basic pro-business economic message got lost.
 
^ Indeed, Ron. I consider myself a moderate but as long as the Republican party identifies itself so closely with ultra-conservative social views I'll have a very tough time voting for them, even though when it comes to economic matters I tend to side with them AND I recognize that economic and/or foreign policy matters should probably trump social matters when it comes time to actually vote. But as long as they keep going for that nutty hard-right view on gays, rape, etc. I'll most likely find myself looking elsewhere.
 
319015_290611031058643_1960318070_n.jpg


Reason #7 of 48,502 why the GOP lost.
 
Ron,

One thing I've learned over the years, being married to one, is that people like you, don't care so much about facts as you do empathy. I could write a very long well researched missive and you would dismiss it with some intellectually dishonest snark. Unlike my wife, I am not willing to expend a lot of energy in an argument with you, which, with you unlike her, isn't going to result in some sort of mutual gratification at the end.

The only difference in gaffes between both parties is hacks with bylines are more than happy to report on one side and cover up for the other.

I think that will become painfully clear over the next few months as things continue to occur 'unexpectedly' and the media suddenly discovers all sorts of stories not worth mentioning until after the election.
 
The one thing I've learned is that you can completely tune out anyone who prefaces a statement with, "people like you."
 
Somebody came across a probable scenario.........John Kerry called upon from Obama to replace Clinton and Scott Brown will gain John Kerry seat. I really have no clue how this will happen or how the Democrats would even consider Scott Brown for John Kerry seat.

Interesting chat with a couple of political hacks this week.
 
Old guy that knows better tells clueless kids to get off his lawn

underground said:
The one thing I've learned is that you can completely tune out anyone who prefaces a statement with, "people like you."
Click to expand...

I can completely tune out people that make blanket or baseless statements without any depth of supporting evidence; which when challenged, immediately demand volumes of evidence, which they will brush off if presented with, yet are never willing to present themselves to defend their own statements.
 
TheRifleman said:
Somebody came across a probable scenario.........John Kerry called upon from Obama to replace Clinton and Scott Brown will gain John Kerry seat. I really have no clue how this will happen or how the Democrats would even consider Scott Brown for John Kerry seat.

Interesting chat with a couple of political hacks this week.
Click to expand...

We'll either see:

Kerry tapped; Brown runs in special election
Kerry runs for reelection in 2014; Brown runs against him
Kerry cedes seat in 2014; Brown runs for seat
Patrick cedes governorship in 2014; Brown runs for governor

One of these will happen. I'm skeptical of Kerry being tapped for Secretary of State, though. Does Obama really need Kerry? Why would he pick him? And especially: why would he pick him if Brown could swoop in on a special election? We also have to way who is capable of running on the Democrat side. Setti Warren isn't done, methinks. Setti Warren vs Brown for Kerry's seat in 2014 is what I am picturing, to be honest.
 
The irony of complaining about blanket statements while simultaneously "you people"-ing is rich.
 
BostonUrbEx said:
We'll either see:

Kerry tapped; Brown runs in special election
Kerry runs for reelection in 2014; Brown runs against him
Kerry cedes seat in 2014; Brown runs for seat
Patrick cedes governorship in 2014; Brown runs for governor

One of these will happen. I'm skeptical of Kerry being tapped for Secretary of State, though. Does Obama really need Kerry? Why would he pick him? And especially: why would he pick him if Brown could swoop in on a special election? We also have to way who is capable of running on the Democrat side. Setti Warren isn't done, methinks. Setti Warren vs Brown for Kerry's seat in 2014 is what I am picturing, to be honest.
Click to expand...

The problem is Scott Brown isn't truly a fiscal conservative so I don't really get jazzed up by any scenario where he gets back into office. I was only disappointed he lost because Granny Warren now wields power and represents me. Economically her stance is not far off of a European Party Communist's. Of couse, she does live here:

http://www.trulia.com/homes/Massachusetts/Cambridge/sold/1065609-24-Linnaean-St-Cambridge-MA-02138

The home is worth almost $2 million dollars. She also traded in her 5 series for a beat up old Ford once the campaign started.

Her home is but one of numerous inconvenient "in-congruencies" between her personal and macro economic policy. As an attorney who has represented many injured employees in the DIA I can assure you that representing insurance companies is easily the most capitalistic, anti little guy, anti-consumer, non-democratic (the party) function an advocate could possibly engage in. The fact that somehow this never became a real issue and was glossed over as hate speech is an affront to to the political process and is insulting to our constituency.
 
Matthew said:
You are missing the other half, which is to pay down debts, cut spending, and run a surplus when the economy is booming. It is just as important, and cannot be omitted.

You and the Republicans both missed that point. Hence the profligate, irresponsible spending of the Bush years.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that Barack Obama is in any way shape or form fiscally conservative?

Do you also honestly believe that the economy was "booming" from 2000 to 2008?

Let's be clear about something: Unlike you, I do not mindlessly represent party ideology.
 
I think we can all admit one thing. Both Parties Democrats & Republicans only support their corporate interests that help them get elected.

And when companies like Goldman Sachs own both sides they really could careless who wins the election.

Romney deserved to lose that race with his arrogant attitude. Especially the way they completely disregarded the actual delegates that supported Ron Paul. Instead of Romney being a true leader and listening to what the delegates were saying bringing everybody together they just ignored the Republican delegates.

Honestly FUCK the Republicans & Democrats at this point

And when History starts to understand how all this plays out. Bush Jr will go down as the worst president in history. With is out of control GOVT SPENDING and 2 wars one of them unjustified. I can still here that fat POS Dick Cheney, DEFICITS don't matter as this guy has made billions with Haliburton and using our military protecting the company as they rape the taxpayers & Middle-east people.

That is why we have OBAMA the president & thief in office now.
 
Last edited:
bosdevelopment said:
Do you honestly believe that Barack Obama is in any way shape or form fiscally conservative?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Overly so, in fact. He has proposed austerity measures prematurely, in the face of a recession. He has attempted to cut rising costs, and bring tax revenues back to a responsible level, and looked for a "Grand Bargain" to fix long-term budget issues. He was rejected by the Republicans, who seek nothing but power, and offer nothing but nihilism.

Do you also honestly believe that the economy was "booming" from 2000 to 2008?
Click to expand...

Have you forgotten about the housing bubble so fast? Or the pundits who made bold predictions like "Dow 36,000"? They do look rather silly in retrospect. But 2002 -> 2007 was most definitely a boom which inflated a bubble: just the sort of time for the government to shrink, pay off its debts, and prepare a surplus for the coming storm.

Let's be clear about something: Unlike you, I do not mindlessly represent party ideology.
Click to expand...

A laughable assertion. You make for a great demonstration of the perils of blind ideology. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you cannot make up your own facts. Reality has settled in and you are throwing a tantrum, lashing out at anyone who tells you otherwise.

You are stuck in a fantasy world, completely overcome by right-wing propaganda. It's both funny and sad. And thankfully, not a threat to our country.

I would like to see a reformed Republican party re-emerge. But the first step is admitting that there is a problem. And that means relinquishing the fantasy propaganda.
 
Remember Bush spending like a drunken sailor on stuff we really didn't need or need to do?

Obama doubled down on that stupidity.

10pd8w3.jpg


The additional spending on two wars and the stimulus (which cost more than the 8 year Iraq war) are being considered as a BUDGETING BASELINE for the new spending Obama wants in his second term.

Even if Obama got the tax increases he wants, that would only bring in an additional 80 billion dollars. We are looking at a 1.2 TRILLION dollar deficit before any new spending plans. That should be a hint that the current and desired levels of spending are unsustainable.

The whole line about "savings from two wars" is bullshit, there is no savings, that is money the country didn't have to spend in the first place. And that's without even considering the burden added by the stimulus and the expenses Obamacare is about to drop like an anvil in some old cartoon.

How the Hell you people growing up in a capitalist country can have such an ignorance of economics is beyond me. Maybe you need to live in a socialist hellhole to get it that there is no free lunch, or at least not a lunch you care to eat every day the rest of your predictably miserable lives.

Look at the idiocy in Greece and France if you want a hint of what will happen here slowly and then all at once.
 
Matthew said:
But 2002 -> 2007 was most definitely a boom which inflated a bubble
Click to expand...

What? No. It was a bubble, built entirely off of cheap credit, which everyone from THE BANKS on down to young immigrant families in Stockton, CA took over-advantage of. The "boom" was merely an illusion.
 
kz1000ps said:
What? No. It was a bubble, built entirely off of cheap credit, which everyone from THE BANKS on down to young immigrant families in Stockton, CA took over-advantage of. The "boom" was merely an illusion.
Click to expand...

Semantics. I agree with you. Nonetheless, if Keynesian policy ideas had been followed during that period, then the government would have taken the opportunity to build a budget surplus while the bubble was forming. That is the meaning of "counter-cyclical." But that kind of thinking ahead was not done; so the Bush Depression of 2008 unfortunately required massive borrowing in order to stop the free-fall and prevent it from getting even worse.


Lurker, you're going a little nuts. The biggest sources of the deficit are the Bush tax cuts, the wars, and the economic downtown. The stimulus tax cuts will fade out, which is what this chart shows:

blog_deficit_cbpp_may_2011.jpg


The United States is a much stronger country than you seem to think. We are not Greece, and never will be. Your fear mongering makes you look ridiculous. Right now, interest rates on Treasury bonds are extremely low. For several years, we have heard the doom-mongers claim that interest rates would spike upwards any day. They have always been and continue to be wrong. Some of them made big bets and lost a lot of money because they turned out to be very wrong about their predictions.

I will say this: You do not know what you are talking about. But keep on digging. It's funny to watch you make ridiculous pronouncements and lash out at everyone with words that truly describe yourself.
 
Crazy old man 'that knows nothing economics', but somehow is a self made millionaire

The vote in the senate was 0-99 on President Barack Obama’s budget blueprint. Put the Kool-Aid down.

Keynes is up there with Marx when it comes bad ideas which have demonstrably failed repeatedly yet still are promoted as gospel. Every country which follows the Keynesian model ultimately winds up in a quagmire of debt and inflation. See Japan and Rhodesia for extreme examples.

You are also out of bloody mind if you think the Federal Reserve's current monetary policy has been helpful to the economy or is sustainable. It has been absolutely brutal to anyone with savings and a great contributor to the multiple market bubbles experienced in the past two decades.

Who the Hell do you think is going to keep buying an exponentially increasing pile of debt at no interest? Particularly when the country's ability to repay that debt is increasingly in question? Look at the state level examples of this. Do you really think California and Illinois are financially healthy following Keynesian policies and not going to be bankrupt in a few months?
 
Last edited:
LOL, you are funny. You think Japan followed Keynesian-style policy.

I honestly defined Keynesian-style economic policy for you. But you refuse to understand it. Instead, you just attack it blindly, because you were instructed by your propaganda sources to do so.

Cognitive dissonance, illustrated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top