Financial Policy Despair

Southern Man said:
And I would call that "a lot of feeble minded republicans bought the ruse".
Click to expand...

And yet, McCain won the nomination. So my statement of "So conservatives were outmaneuvered by the media..." was an accurate restatement of what you said.
 
Southern Man said:
Conservatives weren't influenced by the media. Some feeble minded republicans were. *shrug*
Click to expand...

The conservatives were unable to influence enough people to get their candidate elected, while the media was able to influence enough people to get McCain nominated and Obama elected.

So, again, the media outmaneuvered the conservatives.
 
Solitary said:
The conservatives were unable to influence enough people to get their candidate elected, while the media was able to influence enough people to get McCain nominated and Obama elected.

So, again, the media outmaneuvered the conservatives.
Click to expand...
That element of the GOP was never influenced by the Conservative wing. In fact, most of them hate conservatives, and "feel" embarrassed by them. As usual you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

You're probably better off dreaming about other men's wives.
 
Southern Man said:
That element of the GOP was never influenced by the Conservative wing. In fact, most of them hate conservatives, and "feel" embarrassed by them. As usual you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

You're probably better off dreaming about other men's wives.
Click to expand...

McCain won more delegates than the rest of the republican candidates combined. He won 31 states. Huckabee won 8 and Romney won 11.

So McCain was the overwhelming choice of the republican party. The fact that you claim some element of the GOP was not influenced by the conservative wing is hilarious.

But you also claim that the media influenced a lot of "feeble minded republicans". By June 10th of 2008, McCain had 1380 pledged delegates. The rest of the republican field had 402 pledged delegates.

So if it was the media that created the ruse that you talked about in your comment "A better explanation is that the Mickey was the media's darling, just as predicted, right up to the his nomination, and a lot of feeble minded republicans bought the ruse and voted for "Mr. Popularity", then the best explanation is that the media whipped the conservative's collectives asses.

I was saying "outmaneuvered" to be polite.
 
Southern Man said:
That element of the GOP was never influenced by the Conservative wing. In fact, most of them hate conservatives, and "feel" embarrassed by them. As usual you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

You're probably better off dreaming about other men's wives.
Click to expand...

You keep claiming I am wrong, but that is all you do. No real argument, just "As usual you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.".

lol
 
Solitary said:
You keep claiming I am wrong, but that is all you do. No real argument, just "As usual you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.".

lol
Click to expand...
This is a perfect example of your stupidity. I give you a logical argument, then I insult you. You ignore the logic. Perhaps you can't comprehend it?
 
Southern Man said:
GOP primaries are winner take all. Quit now before you embarrass yourself further.
Click to expand...

McCain won 31 states. Two other republican candidates combined took 19. Thats a pretty solid victory.


I am not embarrassing myself. I am having great fun pointing out the flaws in your "the media made McCain their darling and feeble minded republicans bought the ruse" nonsense.

The republicans campaigned hard and lost. There is no shame in that.

This pretense that the media "tricked" a lot of republicans is just ridiculous.
 
Southern Man said:
This is a perfect example of your stupidity. I give you a logical argument, then I insult you. You ignore the logic. Perhaps you can't comprehend it?
Click to expand...

Your "logical argument" is that most of the GOP is embarrassed by conservatives and that the media made McCain "Mr. Popularity".

Sorry, but your insult was better than your logical argument, and that ain't saying much.
 
McCain could have gotten the most first place votes and still been the least favorite candidate amongst a majority.

Like, let's say that the preferences of the Republicans were like this:

40%: Mccain > Romney > Huckabee
30%: Romney > Huckabee > McCain
30%: Huckabee > Romney > McCain

60% of people would have preferred Romney and Huckabee to McCain, but McCain would still win in a landslide just counting first place votes.

Of course, that's an oversimplification. But it's just an example of how such a thing could be possible.
 
Last edited:
Solitary said:
Your "logical argument" is that most of the GOP is embarrassed by conservatives and that the media made McCain "Mr. Popularity".

Sorry, but your insult was better than your logical argument, and that ain't saying much.
Click to expand...

No. It's more like the republican party was completely taken over by zionist globalist shitheads who have now folded all their interests into the new american fascist mono-party under Obama.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. It's more like the republican party was completely taken over by zionist globalist shitheads who have now folded all their interests into the new american fascist mono-party under Obama.
Click to expand...

Oh, so there was a grand conspiracy to have enough of the "zionist globalist shitheads" vote for McCain to get him the nomination, but not so many as to get him elected?

LMAO!

SM's theory that the media got McCain nominated and then abandoned him for Obama was a more realistic theory.
 
Southern Man said:
This is apparently your way of not having to address the points made in post 51.
Click to expand...

Wrong sir. Comedy is my way of talking to uninformed, programmed, bigoted and quite frankly, unintelligent people. I'm not directing that at you specifically. I can appreciate you civil manner of debate, even though you exhibit the same inability to debate what the facts revealk or what is actually said.

Case in point .. your post #51

Undenied by liberal republicans, sure, but not supported by reality. A better explanation is that the Mickey was the media's darling, just as predicted, right up to the his nomination, and a lot of feeble minded republicans bought the ruse and voted for "Mr. Popularity". Then, again just as predicted, the media turned on Mickey and threw their support onto Obama.
Click to expand...

Do you consider Rush Limbaugh to be a liberal republican? He did not like John McCain as the nominee, but was ultimately resigned to support him, as were many conservate right-wing republicans .. and if you need me to post the comments of conservative right-wing republicans who did exactly as Desh said they did I will happily post them for you. You claim that's not supported by reality.

Now this is the point in a serious and honest discussion where you demonstrate how what I and Desh have said is not supported by reality .. and let me take it one step further and invite any right-winger .. or so-called libertarian .. to jump right in and help you out.

If honest conversation does not come out of that .. then you have your answer why the right-wing can't be taken seriously. If nobody has either the intelligence to engage in adult conversation, or the honesty to simply conceed the point, you'll also know where "unintelligent" comes from.

2. Again, your assertion that the results of the general election means that The South has turned away from Conservatism is unfounded. Polling data on other issues, including the gay marriage issue in California, suggest that when Conservative did go to the polls they voted "none of the above" for president.
Click to expand...

You created a strawman the never came close to my comment. Here's the comment you're responding to .. " .. even the south is changing with it's demographics."

I said the south is changing with it's demographics, not that it HAS turned away from conservatism, but it most certainly IS MOVING away from conservatism, demonstrated by the evoluion of its demographics.

Here's an easy one .. as the growth in population of non-white citizens in the south continues to grow, what do you think happens to the politics of those states .. some like Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina that will soon be minority-majority states .. like Texas which already is? Add to that, young whites even in the south tend to be less conservative than their parents.

Here's a dire warning from someone you might respect ...

"An AFP article reports “Whites in the United States will no longer be a majority of the population by 2042, nearly a decade earlier than previous projections, according to US Census Bureau figures released Thursday. While 65 percent of the US population is projected to be white in 2010, those numbers will start to decline around the 2030s as white deaths outpace births, according to the figures. The figures show that in 2042, whites will be outnumbered by Americans who call themselves Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. Previous projections said this would happen by 2050.”

What do you think happens to conservatism as our population changes, even in the south?

Oh yeah, he also had this to say ..

"Hopefully with the much more imminent date of 2042, ordinary White Americans will finally wake up and realize that the transition to a non-White nation will foul up THEIR lives and not just the lives of their children and grandchildren, whom they don’t care about. Their precious Social Security will be stolen away by an enormous parasite population of Latinos, Indians and Pakis. Their precious Medicare benefits will also amount to nothing as the children of Mexicans will be maxing out the resources of every hospital in the nation. If you get cancer, you’ll be lucky to get enough morphine to keep the pain down until you die. Forget about getting treatment, the hospitals will be too busy helping Latino women give birth to the future majority population of America.

I hate to be this blunt about things, but apparently it is necessary. The mongrelization of America will affect YOU. Only the elderly will die off before it happens. Every young or middle-aged White reading this will become a victim of this enormous transfer of White taxpayer money to a giant swarm of needy Third World people."

http://www.davidduke.com/general/a-...22-unless-current-policy-is-changed_4234.html

:lmao:

OK .. let me stop laughing .. .... .... ... Point is, what I said is factual, backed by the demographic shift I mentioned, as is easily derived at with simple common sense.

Additionally, you use the California vote as example .. even though the last time I checked California was not in the south .. but let's use your example anyway. Large parts of the coalition that supported Prop 8 was not conservative. In fact, to my dismay and shame for my own people, African-Americans played a large part in that because we're homophobic. A nasty trait when you put too much stock in religion. However, using California doesn't make a lot of sense when California was a given for Obama .. and the right-wing uses California and Nwe York .. the most populous states in America .. as examples of the evil left-wing. There is no evidence, not the slightest bit of evidence that Obama won California because conservatives stayed home. That sir is ridiculous.

3. The obvious corruption, irresponsible spending and borrowing, socialization of US business of the Obama Administration, culminating with the hyper-inflation that we are about to experience, will convince many young voters to "flip the bird" at the Democrat Party, just like I did during the Carter Administration.
Click to expand...

Every single word of that is pure right-wing ideological bullshit. That is about as civil as it deserves. Demonstrate any evidence of that.

Do you not know what socialism is? .. it isn't giving away lots of the people's money to corporation and banks. That is the antithesis of socialism. If it was socialism you would own it and be drawing a benefit/dividend from your investment.

"This idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable. But I think we've got so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community, throughout the world, that we're going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes. To me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. I'm very much afraid any program to salvage the banks is going to require the government... I would not take off the idea of nationalizing the banks."

That didn't come from Obama .. that came from Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. A conservative.

You reach for socialism because it's a buzz word that's been implanted in your head, not because you even understand what socialism is.

On top of all that, nationalizing US banks is not new. Do you need proofof that as well?

Let's see if you have an honest response.
 
I don't think Southern Man will be responding any time soon, BAC.

I've just been reading another thread and it appears he's been banned. You can probably guess why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top