ECCIE Republicans

How ECCIE Cons/repubs argue, except this liberal is a lot nicer than I would be:

Liberal: The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: No, it doesn’t.

Liberal: Yes, it does. The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: What about Guam? What about that Guam, huh? Or the
Virgin Islands?

Liberal: Those are territories, not states. The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: Oh, so you’re saying those don’t count?

Liberal: Yes.

Conservative: Oh, so the people there don’t count? They’re not good enough, huh? I thought you liberals wanted everybody to be counted.

Liberal: No, I said the territories don’t count as states. The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: You’re really something, you know that? You liberals are always going on about how all of us conservatives are racists, how we don’t care about anybody but people who look like us. But you don’t even want to count the blacks who live in Guam as Americans.

Liberal: First of all, I never said all conservatives are racists.

Conservative: Yes, you did.

Liberal: No, I didn’t.

Conservative: Michael Moore says it.

Liberal: I’ve never heard him say that.

Conservative: Yes, he does! He most definitely does!

Liberal: Look, I don’t know what he says. That’s beside the point. And the people in Guam “count,” whatever that means. I don’t even know who lives in Guam; I don’t know the first thing about Guam. I’m just saying Guam isn’t a state * it’s a territory. The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: What about Puerto Rico?

Liberal: What?

Conservative: What about Puerto Rico, huh? You love all those Mexicans coming across the border stealing our jobs * you must LOVE Puerto Rico, right?

Liberal: I’ve never been to Puerto Rico.

Conservative: Well, I have, and those kind of people would be pretty offended to hear liberals like you saying they aren’t real Americans!

Liberal: I didn’t say that!

Conservative: You said they didn’t count!

Liberal: I didn’t say that either! No, wait, just wait… (takes deep breath). I only said the USA has fifty states. Puerto Rico isn’t a state it’s a commonwealth.

Conservative: And they don’t speak English!

Liberal: Well, many Puerto Ricans do.

Conservative: How do you know that? I’ve been there * you haven’t!

Liberal: All right, OK, fine, whatever. But the USA has fifty states.

Conservative: Well, I say Puerto Rico counts.

Liberal: Fine, but not as a state.

Conservative: Well, that’s YOUR opinion.

Liberal: It’s not my opinion * it’s a fact.

Conservative: Says you!

Liberal: No, not just “says me.” It’s a fact. Look it up.

Conservative: I don’t have time.

Liberal: You don’t have time to find out if the USA has fifty states?

Conservative: Listen, you may have time to sit around all day surfing on your liberal websites, downloading Michael Moore, but I’ve got things to do.

Liberal: Like reading about blacks in Guam and Mexicans in Puerto Rico?

Conservative: See, that’s why you guys always lose. I’m trying to have a nice conversation, and you just keep up with the insults!

Liberal: Listen, I didn’t mean to insult you.

Conservative: Oh, yes you did!

Liberal: No, look, I’m sorry, OK? I didn’t mean to insult you. Honestly. It’s just that… well, the USA has fifty states. That’s a fact. And I’m just trying to state a fact, and you’re getting very defensive, and…

Conservative: Oh, so now I’m defensive.

Liberal: Well…

Conservative: You just said you weren’t going to insult me!

Liberal: Look, I’m just trying to say the USA has fifty states!

Conservative: According to YOUR sources!

Liberal: MY sources?! What are you talking about? Look it up!

Conservative: I told you, I don’t have time to spend all day cruising the internet, looking up geography questions! Maybe if you were busier at your job, trying to live the American Dream, you wouldn’t have time for all this hate!

Liberal: I work hard at my job!

Conservative: Then why are you spending all day downloading Michael Moore?

Liberal: I don’t spend all day downloading Michael Moore! I don’t even know what you mean by that! All I’m saying is that the USA has fifty states!

Conservative: Again, according to YOU!

Liberal: Not just me! Here, here’s the World Book Encyclopedia. Look it up * it’s fifty states!

Conservative: Oh, sure, the World Book! Yeah, like I’m going to believe the World Book!

Liberal: What?

Conservative: Come on, it’s a liberal rag!

Liberal: (Long, teeth-gnashing pause) Look, just look up “United States of America.” Ten bucks it says, “the USA has fifty states.”

Conservative: Ten bucks, huh?

Liberal: Yeah, ten bucks. (pause) Wait, that’s the “M” volume.

Conservative: I know.

Liberal: You need to look under “U” for “United States.”

Conservative: I’m not looking for “United States.” I’m looking for “Moore, Michael.”

Liberal: What?!

Conservative: And when I find a big glowing article about him, you’re going to owe me ten bucks!

Liberal: Why would I owe you ten bucks?!

Conservative: You bet me ten bucks that the World Book Encyclopedia isn’t liberal.

Liberal: No I didn’t!

Conservative: Yes, you did! You bet me ten bucks that I couldn’t find a liberal article in the World Book. So when I find Michael Moore’s picture, you owe me ten bucks!

Liberal: Oh, my lord…

Conservative: AHA!

Liberal: Listen, you idiot, just because you found Michael Moore’s picture in the World Book doesn’t mean that I owe you ten bucks! It doesn’t mean the World Book is a liberal encyclopedia! And it certainly doesn’t mean the USA doesn’t have fifty states!!

Conservative: Oh, no? Look at this!

Liberal: (pause) “Massachusetts”?

Conservative: Bingo!

Liberal: What the hell does Massachusetts have to do with anything?

Conservative: The COMMONWEALTH of Massachusetts!

Liberal: So?

Conservative: So you said Puerto Rico is a commonwealth!

Liberal: Oh, no…

Conservative: You ADMITTED Puerto Rico was a commonwealth! Admit it, you said it!

Liberal: Oh, man…

Conservative: So if Massachusetts is a commonwealth, and Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, then they BOTH must be states! HA!

Liberal: OK, look…

Conservative: You owe me twenty bucks!

Liberal: What?

Conservative: Come one, pay up! Twenty bucks, let’s go!

Liberal: I don’t owe you twenty bucks!

Conservative: And I’m not even counting Pennsylvania!

Liberal: Pennsylvania?

Conservative: That’s a commonwealth, too!

Liberal: It’s a commonwealth, but…

Conservative: And Washington!

Liberal: All right, look, I lived in Seattle * Washington is NOT a commonwealth!

Conservative: Seattle’s not even a state * it’s a city!

Liberal: Yes, it’s a city, in Washington State! Washington’s a state!

Conservative: I’m talking about Washington D.C.

Liberal: What?

Conservative: Washington D.C. It’s a city.

Liberal: I know what it is!

Conservative: Well, you liberals are always going on about “Statehood for Washington!” Which, you admit, is already a state!

Liberal: Washington D.C. is not a state!

Conservative: Washington State is!

Liberal: You just said Washington D.C.!

Conservative: And you said it should be a state!

Liberal: I never said that! I mean, it should be… but I never…look…

Conservative: Should Washington be a state?

Liberal: Well…

Conservative: Simple question.

Liberal: Washington State?

Conservative: Yes or No?

Liberal: Washington State or Washington D.C.?

Conservative: Right.

(Long pause)

Conservative: He snorts cocaine.

(Long, painful pause)

Liberal: (slowly) This is Washington D.C. you’re talking about.

Conservative: Yeah. The mayor snorts cocaine.

Liberal: Actually, he’s no longer the mayor…

Conservative: I don’t think a state should have a governor who’s used drugs.

Liberal: He’s not the governor; Washington’s not a…

Conservative: Except maybe California.

Liberal: OK, OK, stop for a moment…

Conservative: I mean, that was a long time ago…

Liberal: Listen, listen…

Conservative: I don’t see Michael Moore making any movies about cocaine in Washington State, do you?

Liberal: Please, STOP!

(pause)

Liberal: Look, I’m just trying to make a simple point here…

Conservative: What about…

Liberal: STOP!!!

(long pause)

Liberal: I’m just trying to make a SIMPLE point here. It’s not a big deal * it’s just a fact. The USA has fifty states. That’s all! Yes, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, but it isn’t counted among the fifty states. Yes, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are commonwealths too. So are Virginia and, I think, Kentucky. I don’t know about Kentucky for sure, and you know what * it doesn’t matter! They’re considered
states, OK? They’re states. Washington D.C. isn’t one, even though I wish it was. Guam isn’t one. There are only fifty. Fifty states. Fifty stars on the flag * fifty states. That’s all. Fifty.

(long pause)

Conservative: Rush is so right about you people.

Liberal: Huh?

Conservative: Rush. He gets it. You people are the worst.

Liberal: I don’t…

Conservative: Here I am, trying to have an honest political discussion, and all you can do is bring up this liberal claptrap! You call people like Rush racists, but you don’t want to count Mexicans as Americans. You insult the Governor of California every chance you get. You get all your information from encyclopedias and Michael
Moore. You want free cocaine in Washington, and you want Seattle to become a commonwealth, and you won’t pay me my fifty dollars even after I proved that blacks run Guam! And then, worst of all, you insult our flag and our troops!!! You disgust me!

Liberal: Good-bye.

Conservative: See, there you liberals go again! Sneaking off to download porn from Kentucky! I’m not forgetting you owe me 100 dollars!

(pause)

Conservative: That’s it, cut and run!

(long pause)

Conservative: Why do you hate America?

Well, according to King lib Obama there are 57 states and one of them according to one of his lib friends, Hank Johnson D-GA could "tip over and capsize" if we send any more troops there.

JJTexas, it was Guam that could tip over and capsize. Please get your territories right!

And Nemesis, please teach me your masterful arts of cutting and pasting/plagarizing from other sources! Seriously, you are a champion. Here's the website with the exact transcript you just posted.


http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/20...th-wanker.html


A true measure of intelligence (and this may come as a complete shock to some people) is NOT regurgitation of facts and statistics. It comes from analysis of what you are told, what you read, hear, think that you believe and knowing how to wade through the muck and form your own opinions. Nemesis, any monkey trained to use a computer can copy and paste from any website and stake a claim to the information listed as their own opinion. Perhaps that constitutes critical analysis to some, but in my line of work, you earn your salt by stating WHY something is correct or on-point BEYOND what some jackass/commentator/blog or whatever other source says.

With this B.S. thread, you not only do you greatly over-simplify an entire class of people, but you can’t even post your own original thoughts as to why you believe it! Any erudite-sounding person can spew out “facts” without being challenged and sound smart or well-informed, but this proves false all too often. In the end it comes across, to me at least, as a cheap parlor trick in which somebody hinds behind voluminous amounts of material to shield their woeful lack of understanding and unique opinions. If you want intelligent conversations, please post analysis without hyper-citations to what others have said. I find it insulting you would lump conservatives, myself included, into a light portraying us as mindless idiots without ANY substantive support whatsoever.

You like to accuse others of being mindless sheep and conform to an idiotic mode of thinking with these petty and trite attacks, yet you're apparently not clever enough to realize/admit that you are guilty of the same offense to a much greater degree! Just my .02.

Canadian!!!! how desperate can you be

+1 JJ i was gonna mention NOBama's knowledge of our states


oh yeah, there's a good source of info ... liberals from Canada. Really now.

JJTexas, it was Guam that could tip over and capsize. Please get your territories right!

And Nemesis, please teach me your masterful arts of cutting and pasting/plagarizing from other sources! Seriously, you are a champion. Here's the website with the exact transcript you just posted.


http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/20...th-wanker.html


A true measure of intelligence (and this may come as a complete shock to some people) is NOT regurgitation of facts and statistics. It comes from analysis of what you are told, what you read, hear, think that you believe and knowing how to wade through the muck and form your own opinions. Nemesis, any monkey trained to use a computer can copy and paste from any website and stake a claim to the information listed as their own opinion. Perhaps that constitutes critical analysis to some, but in my line of work, you earn your salt by stating WHY something is correct or on-point BEYOND what some jackass/commentator/blog or whatever other source says.

With this B.S. thread, you not only do you greatly over-simplify an entire class of people, but you can’t even post your own original thoughts as to why you believe it! Any erudite-sounding person can spew out “facts” without being challenged and sound smart or well-informed, but this proves false all too often. In the end it comes across, to me at least, as a cheap parlor trick in which somebody hinds behind voluminous amounts of material to shield their woeful lack of understanding and unique opinions. If you want intelligent conversations, please post analysis without hyper-citations to what others have said. I find it insulting you would lump conservatives, myself included, into a light portraying us as mindless idiots without ANY substantive support whatsoever.

You like to accuse others of being mindless sheep and conform to an idiotic mode of thinking with these petty and trite attacks, yet you're apparently not clever enough to realize/admit that you are guilty of the same offense to a much greater degree! Just my .02. Originally Posted by Marcus78

Oh brother, it's the "enlightened" Marcus fighting against too many facts and
figures in my political commentary, THE OUTRAGE I TELLS YA'S!!! LOL!

So, if I'm making the case that GM is performing above expectations or that XL Pipeline is not a job creator or that Obama is doing this or that, those things require proof and hard numbers, percentages, voting records etc. and that's what I provide to the reader.

If I post anything without proof, republicans say "That's just your opinion", If I post facts and figures supported by the links to those numbers, republicans say "Liberal media, Liberal conspiracy, Socialism, Fascism and whatever other "ism" one could come up with.

Much like the dog that chases his tail, republican arguments are perpetual and have no conclusion other than their own.

If anyone cares to search my posts, your more than welcome to so you can judge for yourself.

Marcus, your more than welcome to prove your point and take me on with any political, philosophical or sociological issue you would like. Quit beating your chest and make your case….

Canadian!!!! how desperate can you be Originally Posted by Amatuer GYN

Yep, Canadiens have a republican zombie army over there too….

Yup, yup, yup.....they're called the "New Democratic Party" of Canada Those crazy zombies!!

Yup, yup, yup.....they're called the "New Democratic Party" of Canada Those crazy zombies!! Originally Posted by Amatuer GYN

ZING! LOL!!

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work... Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up.
And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise, it would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16%
unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they're two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!

Now you know why Obama's unemployment figures are improving!

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work... Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up.
And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise, it would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16%
unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they're two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!

Now you know why Obama's unemployment figures are improving! Originally Posted by Rakhir

As I've pointed out to you before, Wall Street responded to the new unemployment numbers with a record day and Wall Street is a pretty good indicator as to whether those employment numbers are good or not.

But I understand the republican method of persuasion, if you tell a lie long enough, over and over, people begin to believe it.


And on another note, Abbott and Costello sure do bring back some good memories, I remember watching them on saturdays as a child. Those days are gone, but I'll always remember with a smile…..

Oh brother, it's the "enlightened" Marcus fighting against too many facts and
figures in my political commentary, THE OUTRAGE I TELLS YA'S!!! LOL!

So, if I'm making the case that GM is performing above expectations or that XL Pipeline is not a job creator or that Obama is doing this or that, those things require proof and hard numbers, percentages, voting records etc. and that's what I provide to the reader.

If I post anything without proof, republicans say "That's just your opinion", If I post facts and figures supported by the links to those numbers, republicans say "Liberal media, Liberal conspiracy, Socialism, Fascism and whatever other "ism" one could come up with.

Much like the dog that chases his tail, republican arguments are perpetual and have no conclusion other than their own.

If anyone cares to search my posts, your more than welcome to so you can judge for yourself.

Marcus, your more than welcome to prove your point and take me on with any political, philosophical or sociological issue you would like. Quit beating your chest and make your case….

Hmmm where to begin. Let's take this line by line.

Oh brother, it's the "enlightened" Marcus fighting against too many facts and
figures in my political commentary, THE OUTRAGE I TELLS YA'S!!! LOL!

I hardly found a relevant fact or figure in this entire transcript. This is a poor attempt at humor, about a political system written by somebody from another country.


So, if I'm making the case that GM is performing above expectations or that XL Pipeline is not a job creator or that Obama is doing this or that, those things require proof and hard numbers, percentages, voting records etc. and that's what I provide to the reader.

Correct! If you want to prove something, show your support, and explain why it is true. The problem is that you seem to load up on positions, (that is "WHAT" is being asserted) but leave yourself interest-deficient (that's the "WHY" something matters). Like I said, show analysis. Don't just link to other people's opinions without explaining why we should care. We all understand you are two ticks left of Stalin on the political spectrum; you've aired out your positions ad nauseam! Now tell us why it matters by comparison and analysis without resorting to petty name-calling or drawing attention to the perceived faults of the other side. That NEVER proves a point.

If I post anything without proof, republicans say "That's just your opinion", If I post facts and figures supported by the links to those numbers, republicans say "Liberal media, Liberal conspiracy, Socialism, Fascism and whatever other "ism" one could come up with.

Much like the dog that chases his tail, republican arguments are perpetual and have no conclusion other than their own.

I'll address these two points together. You're correct I expect somebody as critical as you to show support for their positions. If you're going to belittle, or even denigrate an entire group of people as you've done in the past, and as you've done in this thread, you damn-well better show some support! To hold somebody to another standard would be allowing them to use the, "Because I said so!" standard which is hardly beneficial in any type of debate.

As for questioning your sources, there are many people who would not consider MSNBC, the Congressional Budget Office and Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" credible sources. I mention these three because you have used each source at least once to "prove" your point. The first and latter of the group are unashamedly biased and/or comedians who gladly dabble in race-baiting and red herrings to drive their agenda. Of the three, MSNBC is the most-guilty of race-baiting and red herrings. (Reference the despicable videos MSNBC craftily edited to show "dangerous, racist tea-partiers" who were carrying weapons, implying they were a danger to minorities and carried severe racial overtones, but they omitted that the person they showed was black!) Stewart is just a smart ass comedian like he's supposed to be, and the CBO is just fucking incompetent! Honestly, have you ever seen a program the CBO has accurately forecast?

I would much rather rely upon Helen Keller to tell me the color of an object. At least she would have been bound to have gotten lucky by getting one right by now. LOL I jest, of course, but the point is the CBO has a horrendous track record. The CBO has had a few decent projections, but the repertoire of predictions as a whole (reference the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid among others) far out-shadow any decent predictions they've made.

Lastly, for this post, you quoted some obscure site in Canada. Surely you don't expect us to accept this without questioning the source? You wanted to know why people seem to attack and criticize your sources? Just look at what you've posted, and the answer is self-evident!

Much like the dog that chases his tail, republican arguments are perpetual and have no conclusion other than their own.

This just seems like mindless dribble and ad hominem to me. I've shown time, and time again, why I believe something. By this point in your answer, you seem to have completely ignored the basis of my complaint and again resorted to baseless, wide-sweeping personal attacks against me and any opposing views.

If anyone cares to search my posts, your more than welcome to so you can judge for yourself.

Marcus, your more than welcome to prove your point and take me on with any political, philosophical or sociological issue you would like. Quit beating your chest and make your case ….

Again, this ignores the substance of my argument and resorts to more trite and hackneyed ad hominem attacks. I made my case in my first post, I've done it again here. I'll reiterate the main substance though. Quit personally attacking opposing parties and political/social views, and let your cases stand upon their own substance with substantive proof and analysis as to WHY we should care.

There, I've said my piece, I'm done. If anyone disagrees with me, feel free to post something.

Hmmm where to begin. Let's take this line by line.

Oh brother, it's the "enlightened" Marcus fighting against too many facts and
figures in my political commentary, THE OUTRAGE I TELLS YA'S!!! LOL!

I hardly found a relevant fact or figure in this entire transcript. This is a poor attempt at humor, about a political system written by somebody from another country.


So, if I'm making the case that GM is performing above expectations or that XL Pipeline is not a job creator or that Obama is doing this or that, those things require proof and hard numbers, percentages, voting records etc. and that's what I provide to the reader.

Correct! If you want to prove something, show your support, and explain why it is true. The problem is that you seem to load up on positions, (that is "WHAT" is being asserted) but leave yourself interest-deficient (that's the "WHY" something matters). Like I said, show analysis. Don't just link to other people's opinions without explaining why we should care. We all understand you are two ticks left of Stalin on the political spectrum; you've aired out your positions ad nauseam! Now tell us why it matters by comparison and analysis without resorting to petty name-calling or drawing attention to the perceived faults of the other side. That NEVER proves a point.

If I post anything without proof, republicans say "That's just your opinion", If I post facts and figures supported by the links to those numbers, republicans say "Liberal media, Liberal conspiracy, Socialism, Fascism and whatever other "ism" one could come up with.

Much like the dog that chases his tail, republican arguments are perpetual and have no conclusion other than their own.

I'll address these two points together. You're correct I expect somebody as critical as you to show support for their positions. If you're going to belittle, or even denigrate an entire group of people as you've done in the past, and as you've done in this thread, you damn-well better show some support! To hold somebody to another standard would be allowing them to use the, "Because I said so!" standard which is hardly beneficial in any type of debate.

As for questioning your sources, there are many people who would not consider MSNBC, the Congressional Budget Office and Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" credible sources. I mention these three because you have used each source at least once to "prove" your point. The first and latter of the group are unashamedly biased and/or comedians who gladly dabble in race-baiting and red herrings to drive their agenda. Of the three, MSNBC is the most-guilty of race-baiting and red herrings. (Reference the despicable videos MSNBC craftily edited to show "dangerous, racist tea-partiers" who were carrying weapons, implying they were a danger to minorities and carried severe racial overtones, but they omitted that the person they showed was black!) Stewart is just a smart ass comedian like he's supposed to be, and the CBO is just fucking incompetent! Honestly, have you ever seen a program the CBO has accurately forecast?

I would much rather rely upon Helen Keller to tell me the color of an object. At least she would have been bound to have gotten lucky by getting one right by now. LOL I jest, of course, but the point is the CBO has a horrendous track record. The CBO has had a few decent projections, but the repertoire of predictions as a whole (reference the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid among others) far out-shadow any decent predictions they've made.

Lastly, for this post, you quoted some obscure site in Canada. Surely you don't expect us to accept this without questioning the source? You wanted to know why people seem to attack and criticize your sources? Just look at what you've posted, and the answer is self-evident!

Much like the dog that chases his tail, republican arguments are perpetual and have no conclusion other than their own.

This just seems like mindless dribble and ad hominem to me. I've shown time, and time again, why I believe something. By this point in your answer, you seem to have completely ignored the basis of my complaint and again resorted to baseless, wide-sweeping personal attacks against me and any opposing views.

If anyone cares to search my posts, your more than welcome to so you can judge for yourself.

Marcus, your more than welcome to prove your point and take me on with any political, philosophical or sociological issue you would like. Quit beating your chest and make your case ….

Again, this ignores the substance of my argument and resorts to more trite and hackneyed ad hominem attacks. I made my case in my first post, I've done it again here. I'll reiterate the main substance though. Quit personally attacking opposing parties and political/social views, and let your cases stand upon their own substance with substantive proof and analysis as to WHY we should care.

There, I've said my piece, I'm done. If anyone disagrees with me, feel free to post something. Originally Posted by Marcus78

Eh, more b.s., if anyone wants to look at my post, they're there for all to see and you can check the links and references and find all kinds of links to every political website under the sun including the Heritage Foundation so this is typical of the republican condition.

Marcus is here because he can't refute what I post and has no argument, so he comes here and tries "Oh poor me and my party, your abusing us and calling us names WAAAH!! WAAAH!!!" another diaper change would be in order for Marcus. I thought republicans were supposed to be warriors, but I guess not

Case in point: "CBO is just fucking incompetent!

Why because you say so?!?

Case in point: Honestly, have you ever seen a program the CBO has accurately forecast?"

Show me which ones they are, your making the accusation, I'm not.

Case in point: Lastly, for this post, you quoted some obscure site in Canada. Surely you don't expect us to accept this without questioning the source? You wanted to know why people seem to attack and criticize your sources? Just look at what you've posted, and the answer is self-evident!

What?!? WTF?!? I can't believe it, I can't believe your actually….I don't know what to say, I'm completely shocked by the stunning….damn, I just don't know man, IT'S FUCKING SATIRE MARCUS!! YOU KNOW, LIKE A JOKE?!? IT'S A JOKE! SATIRE!!! IT'S NOT REAL!!

Ok, Marcus I'm flummoxed, good night sir….

Ok, Marcus I'm flummoxed

Is there a cure for that and does it hurt???

Well don't worry, I looked it up on the internet and it's nothing that a good BJ won't fix.

Is there a cure for that and does it hurt???

Well don't worry, I looked it up on the internet and it's nothing that a good BJ won't fix. Originally Posted by Amatuer GYN

LMAO!! Ok man, I'll have to make a phone call!!!