Go Scott Brown! - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-26-2010, 05:29 PM   #241
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Are you fuckin soft?
Ahem. I don't like repeating myself, but:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Over the line, U2387. Maybe it'd be best if you just add Sting to your ignore list. You're not going to change his mind, he's not going to change yours, and no amount of voluminous posts from either of you will change that.
You're not going to get anywhere with Sting/Strongbow. No one in this forum ever has. Drop it and move on.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 05:37 PM   #242
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Ahem. I don't like repeating myself, but:
My fault, Diemen. I honestly did not see that first post.


Quote:
You're not going to get anywhere with Sting/Strongbow. No one in this forum ever has. Drop it and move on.
He will never hear from me again. That was the way I wanted it quite some time ago, and he jumped back at me in a completely different discussion. I tried to treat him as an adult and did not feel it necessary to ignore him at the time.

I agree, I stepped over the line, I try not to do it too much in here.

Overall, take away message is he will never hear from me again, either as Strongbow or Sting2.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 07:24 PM   #243
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 11:00 PM
NY Times

January 26, 2010, 11:51 am
After Brown’s Win, G.O.P. Officials Weigh ‘Purity’ Test
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

HONOLULU – One of the top items of business for the Republican National Committee, as it gathers amid lagoons and pools at an oceanfront resort in the heart of this city this week, is to pass a so-called “purity” resolution being put forth by some of its more conservative members.

The resolution, named after former President Ronald Reagan, would require that Republican candidates agree on at least eight listed conservative positions – like gun control, same-sex marriage and abortion financing – or face a cut-off of party money and support.

The move has stirred opposition from some moderate Republicans, and some officials in the Republican National Committee, concerned that it would have the effect of shrinking the Republican tent at the very moment when Democratic stumbles appear to be creating an opening for the party.

And here is one question that is already percolating among Republicans as they move to debate the resolution: Would Scott Brown – the Republican from Massachusetts who just captured the Senate seat of Edward M. Kennedy, and someone who is a hero these days in the party – have passed the test?

If the resolution had been in place, would the national committee have been barred from doing anything to help Mr. Brown in his campaign against Martha Coakley, the Democratic attorney general?

The argument is clearly worrying proponents of the so-called purity resolution. James Bopp Jr., the conservative Republican Party leader who introduced the motion, sent an e-mail to committee members saying that Mr. Brown would pass the “Reagan test,” and is an affirmation of his argument that a conservative candidate can win election in competitive states (or in the case of Massachusetts, Democratic states).

“We have argued that what the R.N.C. needs to do is be faithful to our conservative principles to be successful, rather than ‘moderate’ or abandon those principles, and that principled conservatives can win everywhere,” Mr. Bopp said in his e-mail to committee members. “Well, Scott Brown is a good test case for these claims. He is a principled conservative who passes with flying colors the Reagan test contained in the Reagan resolution and who won a convincing victory in Mass.”

Mr. Bopp pointed to votes and statements Mr. Brown has made, during his campaign and in his years as a state senator, to prove that he supports smaller government and lower taxes, one of the planks. Mr. Brown campaigned against Mr. Obama’s health care proposal, checking another of the boxes. He opposes cap-and-trade energy legislation, and supports tougher measures aimed at illegal immigrants, including opposing amnesty. He would not vote to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.

Yet some moderate Republicans are circulating another e-mail arguing that in fact, a different reading of Mr. Brown’s record — from his career of votes and quotes — could lead to his failing the Reagan test.

As much as he opposed Mr. Obama’s health care plan, he voted for the law passed in Massachusetts that has provided the model for the president’s proposal – including a mandate on individuals to buy insurance.

That would not seem to be in keeping with the spirit of one of the planks: “We Support Market-Based Health Care Reform And Oppose Obama-Style Government Run Healthcare.” And at one point, he urged Massachusetts residents to oppose a ballot initiative that would have eliminated the state income tax, which would seem not to be in the spirit of the cutting government and spending resolution.

In the end, this may end up saying less about Mr. Brown’s ideology and bona fides as a Republican and more about the complexities of trying to impose a test like this on candidates.

Conservative leaders who say, in the light of victory, that Mr. Brown passed the test may have easily found the grounds to make precisely the opposite argument had he lost the vote last Tuesday. This is one of the reasons why officials of the Republican National Committee are quietly lobbying to kill the Bopp resolution and are trying to come up with an alternative by the vote on Friday.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 07:34 PM   #244
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,887
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
Quit playing the race card.
Don't worry much...it's a losing talking point.

Let's focus on the shift to moderation, consensus, and populism we're about to hear tomorrow night, thanks in part to the special election in Massachusetts.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 07:47 PM   #245
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
You're not going to get anywhere with Sting/Strongbow. No one in this forum ever has. Drop it and move on.

I think that is a bit unfair,

I have seen him cede a point or two


and there are other posters that are just as dogmatic in their postings, too.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 10:56 PM   #246
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Are you fuckin soft? How many times have we gone over the same numbers? Look at Clinton's first term, it was STABLE. I already explained to you that given what he inherited from Reagan/Bush, it took a good deal of fiscal restraint(1993 reconciliation bill) to achieve this. Of course, there were still going to be deficits, and money added to the gross national debt, you can't undo 12 years in 4. However, as the chart shows, it had been increasing by leaps and bounds since 1980. Clinton stabilizes this, and then it drops, and somehow, this shows his policies were responsible for high debt%of GDP.
It rose each of the first three years Clinton was in office, so look again! In any event, you asked me to recalculate the numbers and that is exactly what I did. I did not make any comments at all on either presidents policies. All I did was show the numbers, pure and simple.

Quote:
Only in your world is there any possible way that the numbers can reflect good on Bush and bad on Clinton. Even if the average was a bit higher, look at what each started with. As I said, if Bush had started at 66% like Clinton did, we would have had 73% by the end of his first term and 101% when he left office.
I never said one was good and the other was bad. Stop making things up. I already know what each started with. What you don't consider is the far more difficult crises that the Bush administration had to face while he was in office compared with Clinton, which would naturally make it more difficult to keep debt as a percentage of GDP from rising.

Regardless, all I did was recaculate the totals and point out the factual numbers. Its indisputable, and so its puzzling why it would upset you.

Quote:
This is exactly why you are viewed as such a joke on here. Its not the numbers, its you using them to dispute that Bush ran up record deficits and debt, which can not be done. You are older than me, and you surely remember well the Clinton years with all the talk of debt and deficits going down, 2 balanced budgets and a surplus. The opposite happened when Bush came in.
Where did I dispute that the national debt and deficit increased while Bush was in office?

No one was really talking about declining debt, the end of a deficit or surplus until at least 1997. Then both the administration and congress battled over who would take credit for it. In 1996, both congress and the White House were still forcasting deficits for years to come!

Yes, surplus ended and the deficits returned in Bush's first term. The country was facing big international crises, involved in two wars, a very different environment from the Clinton years. Had such crises transpired during Clinton's time in office, there would have been no such thing as a Surplus!

But none of that was the point in my response. You asked me to recaculate the numbers and I did.

The averages for both Bush and Clinton are above 60% and neither can be consider good from a historical perspective!

Quote:
You do not have to deny this.
WHERE DID I EVER DENY THIS?

Quote:
It makes you look like a pathetic spinster when you do.
Except I never did deny this, yet you claim that I did. What do you think that makes you look like?

Quote:
How about a discussion of Bush's POLICIES? Tell us why you think he did the best thing he could have done at the time, why you think x or y policy really did not have the influence some suggest, etc.
I've discussed many of Bush's policies in here, more than many would want me to. I don't think that Bush did the best he could have done on several things including the economy. But none of that changes what the numbers are which is all I was refering too!


Quote:
Not that you have ever done that, most of what you do is cut and paste BS that you do not understand anyway.
Do you always exibit this type of behavior with people you disagree with? I post some simple factual numbers, and your lashing out at other people and making unsubstantiated claims about what they know and how they posts.


Quote:
Now, no more numbers, we have been through them. No more averages, I have pointed you to the flaws.
There were no flaws in the calculations. I used the averages only to show that things were not as bad as people claimed!


Quote:
Tell me how this somehow shows that a Bush Presidency was somehow better than a Clinton Presidency given the numbers you use.
It doesn't tell you that. I never tried to have the numbers show that either. The numbers for both administrations are actually very similar. I was only pointing out that the Bush years and the 00s were not the HORROR story economically, that so many people in here claim it to have been.


Quote:
I know you will not do that, you will keep repeating the same things we have already been over, but such is the life of Strongbow. So every time from now on you just can not understand how I would make such wild accusations about you not discussing in good faith, I will point right to this. I do not make this stuff up. It is very clear you are still stuck on saying something entirely different than the facts happened during the Bush years.
Again, in this case, the point I was making with the numbers was very simple. That the 00s were NOT the Decade from Hell.

Unfortunately for some reason, you still don't understand that. All I did was mention the numbers, the factual numbers without making any claims at all from a political standpoint. You asked me to recaculate the 90s debt as a percentage of GDP and I did. I recaculated a few other numbers as well and posted them.

Then, we get a post from you filled with absurd personal remarks and other junk. All of that because of a post with basic numbers that made no claims about this President being better than that one or anything.

Why does the posting of something so basic and factual upset you?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 11:24 PM   #247
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Drop it, Sting.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 11:26 PM   #248
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
1993: 66.26
2001: 57.74
2008: 70.49


that tells you more than any average.
It only tells you what happened in 3 individual years. Thats it. The 2007 number, Bush's 2nd to last year in office, was as low as any of Clintons years except his last three. This is despite the much larger international challenges the Bush administration was dealing with that Clinton never did. But again, its something one remains ignorant of when they cherry pick their favorite numbers.

Also, 57.74% is nothing to crow about at all when it comes to debt as a percentage of GDP from a historical perspective.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 11:39 PM   #249
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,894
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
It only tells you what happened in 3 individual years. Thats it. The 2007 number, Bush's 2nd to last year in office, was as low as any of Clintons years except his last three. This is despite the much larger international challenges the Bush administration was dealing with that Clinton never did. But again, its something one remains ignorant of when they cherry pick their favorite numbers.

Also, 57.74% is nothing to crow about at all when it comes to debt as a percentage of GDP from a historical perspective.
It took Clinton eight years to create a healthy, sustainable economy. The sustainability of what Clinton put together is the ONLY reason it took so long for Bush to fuck it up.

Bush needed time to inflate the housing market with his awful policies and then allow it to collapse. It takes a long time to destroy a healthy economy, you know.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 11:57 PM   #250
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
It took Clinton eight years to create a healthy, sustainable economy. The sustainability of what Clinton put together is the ONLY reason it took so long for Bush to fuck it up.

Bush needed time to inflate the housing market with his awful policies and then allow it to collapse. It takes a long time to destroy a healthy economy, you know.

LOL, its a little more complex than "everything good that happened during the Bush years belongs to Clinton, and everything bad that happened belongs to Bush. I know you would like Clinton to take full credit for the February 2008 unemployment rate which was only 4.8%, but I'm sorry, he doesn't get too.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-27-2010, 01:27 AM   #251
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,894
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
LOL, its a little more complex than "everything good that happened during the Bush years belongs to Clinton, and everything bad that happened belongs to Bush. I know you would like Clinton to take full credit for the February 2008 unemployment rate which was only 4.8%, but I'm sorry, he doesn't get too.
It is a simplification, but it's much closer to the truth than anything you've put up. Your insistence on using average is based on nothing at all other than an attempt to make Bush look better.

Seriously, I understand what you mean when you say the first and last years can't be the end-all be-all, but that doesn't mean they're still not very telling statistics. Your use of average is, in fact, even more misleading than that stat. Your analysis completely ignores how long-term the effects of a particular administration's policies are. It makes Bush look much better because of what Clinton did.

The phrase "lies, damn lies, and statistics" is no better epitomized than the marathon display you've put on here.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 01-27-2010, 12:54 PM   #252
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 11:00 PM

newsmax.com


Newsmax/Zogby Poll: Scott Brown Could Defeat Obama in Presidential Race
Tuesday, 26 Jan 2010 12:37 PM


By: David A. Patten

A stunning new poll conducted by Newsmax/Zogby reveals that Massachusett's new Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown could defeat President Barack Obama in a presidential election.

The Newsmax/Zogby poll released Tuesday found that the pair would be statistically deadlocked if the presidential election took place today.

The poll indicates surprisingly weak support for the president among independent voters, who favor the tyro Brown by 48.6 percent to 36 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama.

Mark McKinnon, the respected political strategist who created former President George W. Bush's successful television ad campaigns in 2000 and 2004, told Newsmax that the survey results should trigger alarms for Team Obama.

"The real problem for Obama is that he has lost the middle, and losing the middle means losing independents," McKinnon said. "And it is independents that are responsible for swinging elections one way or the other in this country. So if you lose independents, you're going to lose the presidency."

The poll asked likely voters: "If the election for president of the United States were held today and the only candidates were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Scott Brown, for whom would you vote?"

Based on the 4,163 responses, Obama leads Brown by 46.5 percent to 44.6 percent. That amounts to a statistical tie because the Zogby survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5 percent.

The survey's real message is that President Obama appears politically vulnerable, Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, told Newsmax.

"I’ve seen other candidates essentially tie Obama in other surveys, including Mike Huckabee," Sabato said. "It’s really more about Obama’s weakness as he begins his second year, than any Republican’s strength."

Obama "has developed real problems with independents," Sabato said, adding that that could change, if the economy strengthens considerably by 2012.

Some pundits are calling for the administration to undertake a mid-course correction and tack to the political center to regain momentum.

The day after the stunning Bay State election, the president appeared to signal a willingness to pare down his ambitious transformation of the U.S. healthcare system. His aides backtracked from that notion on the Sunday talk programs, however, insisting that healthcare reform remains very much on the table, despite the nation's ailing economy and high unemployment.

John Zogby, the founder and chairman of Zogby International, told Newsmax: "Clearly, this result is more a sign of trouble for Obama than it is good news for Brown. Over the first few months of his presidency, there was substantial support among independents, which has now moved to a serious deficit."

Independents may be reacting to heavy federal spending that has yet to dent the high unemployment rate, Zogby said.

Interestingly, press reports indicate that President Obama will call for a freeze on some domestic spending in his State of the Union address set for Wednesday.

The Newsmax/Zogby poll does show some political silver linings for Obama. Obama's rich-vs.-poor strategy seems to be paying off with lower-income voters. Voters with incomes under $50,000 back Obama 54 percent to 37 percent for Brown.

To win back middle-class voters and independents, Obama will have to show he is fighting for fiscal discipline, Zogby argued.

"Obama is going to have to show to them that their tax dollars haven't been wasted," he said. "Brown received support after what was perceived to be a national victory, which means now he's on the national political radar.

"Someone else I recall was once a state senator and was launched to national prominence through a U.S. Senate election. Now we'll see if history repeats itself. You never know," Zogby said.

Brown has been the focus of national attention since his surprising upset last week of Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts race, which gave Republicans the 41st vote they need to filibuster measures in the Senate.

New York City political analyst Andy Ostroy recently blogged: "With his law degree, his stint in the Massachusetts State Senate, and in what could now be an incredibly influential role in the U.S. Senate, Brown could grow into quite the formidable opponent to Obama in 2012. Honestly, with the sheer lack of sexiness and excitement in the GOP right now, if I were the party leaders I'd have started grooming this guy for a presidential run yesterday."

Such unbridled enthusiasm, however, overlooks the long odds that Brown would face in a national GOP primary.

Richard Viguerie, a stalwart conservative marketing guru, told Newsmax: "While Senator-elect Scott Brown appears to have a very bright future in the Republican Party, it's silly season to think of him as a presidential candidate in 2012.

"We know very little about Brown," Viguerie said. "And some of his positions that may have been helpful in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race would work against him in a Republican nomination battle — such as his support for abortion rights and his record in the state legislature of voting for liberal legislation."

Sabato concurred, saying: "I think it’s fair to say Scott Brown is the flavor of the month. He’s had a very positive introduction to the American public with almost no critical scrutiny. That won’t be the case in a GOP primary or a general election.

"Brown’s positions on abortion and gay rights are quite liberal. It’s highly unlikely the national GOP would actually nominate him for president. Most Republicans are unaware of those positions, or they were willing to overlook them because it was Massachusetts," he said.

Sabato said he expects new contenders for the GOP nomination to emerge from November's midterm elections.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-27-2010, 12:57 PM   #253
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:00 PM
But why would the true Tea Partiers vote for him, just because he has an 'R'? If so they should just change the R to an 'H' for hypocricy.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-27-2010, 01:08 PM   #254
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 11:00 PM

Photogs recall Scott Brown's ease in front of camera - BostonHerald.com

"Most photographers who worked with him recalled Brown as “ordinary” and “nondescript,” but fellow model Jake Tedaldi remembers him as a “a little full of himself.”

“Some people are genuine and others are not,” said Tedaldi, now a veterinarian. “He was not the kind of person who I would want to have my back.”

Tedaldi recalled several catalog shoots he did with Brown in Boston’s Leather District. He also remembers getting a lift from Brown, who in those days was driving a beat-up white Mercedes sedan, not a macho pickup truck.

The family's modeling portfolio is there under photo gallery
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-27-2010, 01:31 PM   #255
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
It is a simplification, but it's much closer to the truth than anything you've put up. Your insistence on using average is based on nothing at all other than an attempt to make Bush look better.

Seriously, I understand what you mean when you say the first and last years can't be the end-all be-all, but that doesn't mean they're still not very telling statistics. Your use of average is, in fact, even more misleading than that stat. Your analysis completely ignores how long-term the effects of a particular administration's policies are. It makes Bush look much better because of what Clinton did.

The phrase "lies, damn lies, and statistics" is no better epitomized than the marathon display you've put on here.

If you wanted to assess just how bad the Great Depression was, from the end of 1929 to December 1941, would you only use the first year and the last year? Of course not! If you did, one would mistakenly believe that unemployment jumped to 8% in 1930, but only went up a little more than that to 11% in 1941. You would leave out the fact that unemployment reached an annual level of 24.9%, and at one point a monthly level of 35%!

To assess the ENTIRE period, or generally what life was like for people throughout the 1930s, you would want to use all the statistics available and average them. When your assessing a large period of time like this, no one year or month can be said to be representative of the entire time period.

Likewise, any assessment of the 90s, 00s, Clinton years, or Bush years needs to include all the data from the time period in the assessment in order to get a realistic look at how good or bad things were.

This is how you objectively assess a long period of time. It does not involve any cherry picking of numbers from just x month or x year in order to present a President or decade as being good or bad.

There is no lying involved, just the raw statistics available for each month and year. You can't accurately assess the Great Depression without data from 1932, 1934 etc. You can't accurately assess the 90s without data from the early part of the decade or the 00s without data from the middle part of the decade like 2005 or 2006 etc.

To take the average of ALL the statistics from any given time period is the only way to honestly, accurately and objectively assess how good or bad the WHOLE period was in total for people. No one or two month or year can be used to represent an entire 10 year period.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MERGED ----> James Brown hospitalized + R.I.P. James Brown.... + James Brown Dead... europop2005 Lemonade Stand Archive 66 01-02-2007 03:23 PM
Nets fired Byron Scott after 2 straight Eastern Conference Titles Headache in a Suitcase Lemonade Stand Archive 6 01-27-2004 10:10 AM
Adam's Camouflage Pants... Lemonite PLEBA Archive 52 01-14-2002 12:41 AM
Who was at Oakland 2?- share the ASOH story!!! cainz Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 2 11-17-2001 08:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com