[thecavemaster]

Right Wing Flirties keep saying about Obama, "when the economy collapses, when the economy collapses...." As Obama took office, after a Republican administration and control of Congress, THE ECONOMY HAD COLLAPSED. I'm not talking about blaming former President Bush here... I'm talking about something Right Wing Flirties often neglect: R E A L I T Y.

[Amun-Ra]

It had collapsed. You are right. Republican or Democrat, you can't argue and say it hadn't.

[Hoot Gibson]

Right Wing Flirties keep saying about Obama, "when the economy collapses, when the economy collapses...." As Obama took office, after a Republican administration and control of Congress, THE ECONOMY HAD COLLAPSED. I'm not talking about blaming former President Bush here... I'm talking about something Right Wing Flirties often neglect: R E A L I T Y.

Ummm...Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in 2007 and 2008. What were you saying about right wing revisionism, Mr. I Live in a Glass House?

[ukyfootball]

Ummm...Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in 2007 and 2008. What were you saying about right wing revisionism, Mr. I Live in a Glass House?

The main reason for the housing decline was due to Bill Clinton. Spin it how you want...

[thecavemaster]

Ummm...Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in 2007 and 2008. What were you saying about right wing revisionism, Mr. I Live in a Glass House?

Really? A lecture on revisionist history? From you? Please.... Blaming Obama for the economic collapse that occurred under Bush? Spin on, Unfair and Imbalanced Hoot, spin on....

[Hoot Gibson]

Really? A lecture on revisionist history? From you? Please.... Blaming Obama for the economic collapse that occurred under Bush? Spin on, Unfair and Imbalanced Hoot, spin on....

No spin necessary. Your opening post contained enough spin for the entire thread.

Right Wing Flirties keep saying about Obama, "when the economy collapses, when the economy collapses...." As Obama took office, after a Republican administration and control of Congress, THE ECONOMY HAD COLLAPSED. I'm not talking about blaming former President Bush here... I'm talking about something Right Wing Flirties often neglect: R E A L I T Y.

You made a blatantly false statement and as usual, you have declined an opportunity to acknowledge and retract your outrageously misleading, mistaken, or intentionally untrue claim. The fact that you did so in a thread named Right Wing Revisionist's Blah, Blah, Blah is not only hilarious, it just goes to show to what extent socialists will go to ridicule anybody whose not "with them."

I would say that you have lost all credibility but that would imply that you had some credibility when you started this ridiculous thread. :lmao:

[ukyfootball]

Really? A lecture on revisionist history? From you? Please.... Blaming Obama for the economic collapse that occurred under Bush? Spin on, Unfair and Imbalanced Hoot, spin on....

Obama shouldnt be blamed, however Clinton and the Congressman who passed the housing bill should be.

[ukyfootball]

Really? A lecture on revisionist history? From you? Please.... Blaming Obama for the economic collapse that occurred under Bush? Spin on, Unfair and Imbalanced Hoot, spin on....

Obama shouldnt be blamed, however Clinton and the Congressman who passed the housing bill should be.

[thecavemaster]

No spin necessary. Your opening post contained enough spin for the entire thread.

You made a blatantly false statement and as usual, you have declined an opportunity to acknowledge and retract your outrageously misleading, mistaken, or intentionally untrue claim. The fact that you did so in a thread named Right Wing Revisionist's Blah, Blah, Blah is not only hilarious, it just goes to show to what extent socialists will go to ridicule anybody whose not "with them."

I would say that you have lost all credibility but that would imply that you had some credibility when you started this ridiculous thread. :lmao:

Your simplistic notions aside, Bush set the agenda...McConnell's strategy of filibuster and block and no... Strange that you worry about credibility, utterly strange. Barack Obama is not a socialist; he is a fair scales capitalist.

[Hoot Gibson]

Your simplistic notions aside, Bush set the agenda...McConnell's strategy of filibuster and block and no... Strange that you worry about credibility, utterly strange. Barack Obama is not a socialist; he is a fair scales capitalist.

Expecting a poster to take responsibility for making patently false statements is a "simplistic notion?" The fact that you were unaware that Barack Obama was a member of the party that controlled the US Senate from 2006 through 2008 shows that what is simplistic is your understanding of US politics and recent history.

Bush teamed up with the Democratic majority to pass TARP. In fact, many Democrats were reluctant to vote for TARP because so few Congressional Republicans supported it. Thanks to RHINOs like Juan McCain, Bush and the Democratic leadership were able to get TARP passed and signed into law.e

Here is a thought. Maybe you perceive Republicans version of history as revisionist because you are ignorant of basic historical facts such as when and which political party controlled Congress. When confronted with the truth, you act like a child whose hand has been caught in a cookie jar. Oh what a web we weave....

[thecavemaster]

Expecting a poster to take responsibility for making patently false statements is a "simplistic notion?" The fact that you were unaware that Barack Obama was a member of the party that controlled the US Senate from 2006 through 2008 shows that what is simplistic is your understanding of US politics and recent history.

Bush teamed up with the Democratic majority to pass TARP. In fact, many Democrats were reluctant to vote for TARP because so few Congressional Republicans supported it. Thanks to RHINOs like Juan McCain, Bush and the Democratic leadership were able to get TARP passed and signed into law.e

Here is a thought. Maybe you perceive Republicans version of history as revisionist because you are ignorant of basic historical facts such as when and which political party controlled Congress. When confronted with the truth, you act like a child whose hand has been caught in a cookie jar. Oh what a web we weave....

No, Hoot, that's not it, though your theorizing is often entertaining. Your view of the federal government's role in a constitutional democracy such as ours is different from mine. Right Wing Flirty's want to make it a "us" against "them" battle and portray the fate of the nation hanging in the balance, forging black/white dichotomies where they don't exist ("Socialist/ Capitalist") blah, blah, blah. It is NOT revisionist to suggest that McConnell's strategy is and was obstructionism...in so many words, he has said so himself, suggesting that cooperating with Obama would lead to the further disintegration of the Republican Party and that the GOP's best chance was to to rigidly stick together, have a message, and stay on message en masse. What happened in 2006 does not change the fact that we got in two wars, cut taxes, asked for no sacrifices, went on in ignorant bliss as money borrowed outproportioned earning potential by far. Again, I will vote for Barack Obama in 2012, not because I agree with all he does, not because I view him as "transformative," but because he more closely reflects my personal values and political beliefs than does Huckabee or McConnell or Gingrich or Palin or Romney. As for cookie jars, I like Keebler's fudge stripes.

[Hoot Gibson]

No, Hoot, that's not it, though your theorizing is often entertaining. Your view of the federal government's role in a constitutional democracy such as ours is different from mine. Right Wing Flirty's want to make it a "us" against "them" battle and portray the fate of the nation hanging in the balance, forging black/white dichotomies where they don't exist ("Socialist/ Capitalist") blah, blah, blah. It is NOT revisionist to suggest that McConnell's strategy is and was obstructionism...in so many words, he has said so himself, suggesting that cooperating with Obama would lead to the further disintegration of the Republican Party and that the GOP's best chance was to to rigidly stick together, have a message, and stay on message en masse. What happened in 2006 does not change the fact that we got in two wars, cut taxes, asked for no sacrifices, went on in ignorant bliss as money borrowed outproportioned earning potential by far. Again, I will vote for Barack Obama in 2012, not because I agree with all he does, not because I view him as "transformative," but because he more closely reflects my personal values and political beliefs than does Huckabee or McConnell or Gingrich or Palin or Romney. As for cookie jars, I like Keebler's fudge stripes.

Revisionism is stating a fact that is no such thing. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress when Obama served in the US Senate. You claimed that Republicans controlled Congress. You were wrong, I pointed it out, and like a child caught stealing cookies, you are not enough of an adult to admit your mistake.

How ironic that you made such a blunder in this particular thread, which you started. If you are looking for hypocrisy, then look in a mirror.

[thecavemaster]

Revisionism is stating a fact that is no such thing. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress when Obama served in the US Senate. You claimed that Republicans controlled Congress. You were wrong, I pointed it out, and like a child caught stealing cookies, you are not enough of an adult to admit your mistake.

How ironic that you made such a blunder in this particular thread, which you started. If you are looking for hypocrisy, then look in a mirror.

I'm not playing your little "gotcha" game, parsing words and meanings. I'm not calling you a hypocrite, Hoot, but you are a hatchet man on the right, in the spirit of Beck and O'Reilly. Barack Obama is NOT responsible for where this country was after eight years of the Bush Administration. It is revisionist history, hatchet job history, to suggest he was. Any fair minded person can read this thread and tell that's the intent. And therein lies your problem.

[Hoot Gibson]

I'm not playing your little "gotcha" game, parsing words and meanings. I'm not calling you a hypocrite, Hoot, but you are a hatchet man on the right, in the spirit of Beck and O'Reilly. Barack Obama is NOT responsible for where this country was after eight years of the Bush Administration. It is revisionist history, hatchet job history, to suggest he was. Any fair minded person can read this thread and tell that's the intent. And therein lies your problem.

Any fair minded individual can read your opening post and see that you have based your entire argument on a false premise. You either do not know what you are talking about or you deliberately included a lie in your opening post. Either way, your credibility on this subject is shot.

You made matters worse by not being man enough to admit the irrefutable truth after being caught in misstating such a basic fact.

This is my last post in this thread. One cannot engage in honest debate when only one participant is willing to acknowledge the truth.

[thecavemaster]

Any fair minded individual can read your opening post and see that you have based your entire argument on a false premise. You either do not know what you are talking about or you deliberately included a lie in your opening post. Either way, your credibility on this subject is shot.

You made matters worse by not being man enough to admit the irrefutable truth after being caught in misstating such a basic fact.

This is my last post in this thread. One cannot engage in honest debate when only one participant is willing to acknowledge the truth.

You interpret to suit your needs, ala Beck et al. You don't ever engage in honest debate. The facts of who controlled Congress in 2006 are not in dispute in this thread. The idea that the economy collapsing was the fault of those who gained majority status that late in the game is up for dispute. Bait and switch is a charlatan's game, Hoot. You play it well, I'll give you that.

[Hoot Gibson]

You interpret to suit your needs, ala Beck et al. You don't ever engage in honest debate. The facts of who controlled Congress in 2006 are not in dispute in this thread. The idea that the economy collapsing was the fault of those who gained majority status that late in the game is up for dispute. Bait and switch is a charlatan's game, Hoot. You play it well, I'll give you that.

You claimed in your opening post that Republicans controlled Congress when 0bama assumed control of the White House. I say that you are wrong. Democrats have controlled Congress from 2006 to the present time. Yet, you continue to refuse to admit that you were wrong.

So, how is the basic fact of which party controlled Congress when 0bama took office not in dispute?

You need to start doing your research before you start a new thread and at least make an effort to base your arguments on facts rather than fiction.

If you are unwilling to admit a mistake that is very evident by casual examination of the public record, then why should anybody engage you in debate? Character matters.

[thecavemaster]

You claimed in your opening post that Republicans controlled Congress when 0bama assumed control of the White House. I say that you are wrong. Democrats have controlled Congress from 2006 to the present time. Yet, you continue to refuse to admit that you were wrong.

So, how is the basic fact of which party controlled Congress when 0bama took office not in dispute?

You need to start doing your research before you start a new thread and at least make an effort to base your arguments on facts rather than fiction.

If you are unwilling to admit a mistake that is very evident by casual examination of the public record, then why should anybody engage you in debate? Character matters.

If you are suggesting that Democrats (majority 2006) were to "blame" for the economic mess of Bush policies (primarily two simultaneous wars with NO call to sacrifice, while maintaining tax cuts), then your political acumen matters. Frankly, I did NOT mean to imply that Republicans were primarily to blame, nor even the Bush administration, but rather a certain hysteria and rush to judgement that followed 9/11. Acument matters, Hoot.

[Hoot Gibson]

If you are suggesting that Democrats (majority 2006) were to "blame" for the economic mess of Bush policies (primarily two simultaneous wars with NO call to sacrifice, while maintaining tax cuts), then your political acumen matters. Frankly, I did NOT mean to imply that Republicans were primarily to blame, nor even the Bush administration, but rather a certain hysteria and rush to judgement that followed 9/11. Acument matters, Hoot.

I did not imply anything, CM. I drew attention to a deliberate or extremely careless factual error in your opening post. An error that you have still not acknowledged (which suggests that the error was indeed deliberate).

Anybody who wants to judge to what extremes a socialist will go to make a point needs to read your last post and then read the opening post. You apparently think that your fellow posters are fools, but you are a fool to treat us as such.

I suggest that you just let this thread die a merciful death because the hole at whose bottom you find yourself grows deeper with every post that you make. When you dig a deep hole, it is important to get out before somebody starts to fill it in. :popcorn:

[thecavemaster]

I did not imply anything, CM. I drew attention to a deliberate or extremely careless factual error in your opening post. An error that you have still not acknowledged (which suggests that the error was indeed deliberate).

Anybody who wants to judge to what extremes a socialist will go to make a point needs to read your last post and then read the opening post. You apparently think that your fellow posters are fools, but you are a fool to treat us as such.

I suggest that you just let this thread die a merciful death because the hole at whose bottom you find yourself grows deeper with every post that you make. When you dig a deep hole, it is important to get out before somebody starts to fill it in. :popcorn:

Yet you haven't a shovel...pity. I mis-spoke, Hoot. So what? Is it your contention that the Democrats, circa 2006, given flibuster Mitch and a strategy of "no, no, no" as a survival technique, "dug the hole" of two wars, tax cuts all 'round, and rising deficits? Democrats don't get off clean here, either, but that's not the point. The point of the thread is this: the blame Obama/slam Obama about everything schtick is your game. With every post you make, I'm more and more sure that your independent thought has a pipe from Glen Beck into your head...sewer pipe actually.

[thecavemaster]

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice....

Is it your position, Hoot, that the original intent of the Framers, many of them slave owners, was to end slavery as a principle of "establish justice"? That they intended to extend to women the right to vote, as a matter of "establish justice"? You and I, Hoot, are having a fundamental disagreement often about the very nature of federalism as opposed to state's rights. I think you're on the wrong side of history... which isn't calling you a racist or a misogynist or any such. Your cautionary tales of an increasingly totalitarian government, while bloated with a hack's bias, serve a useful purpose in our republic; however, I do think you're on the wrong side of history.

[Hoot Gibson]

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice....

Is it your position, Hoot, that the original intent of the Framers, many of them slave owners, was to end slavery as a principle of "establish justice"? That they intended to extend to women the right to vote, as a matter of "establish justice"? You and I, Hoot, are having a fundamental disagreement often about the very nature of federalism as opposed to state's rights. I think you're on the wrong side of history... which isn't calling you a racist or a misogynist or any such. Your cautionary tales of an increasingly totalitarian government, while bloated with a hack's bias, serve a useful purpose in our republic; however, I do think you're on the wrong side of history.

[B]Yes we do[/B] but neither of us had a hand in writing the US Constitution. The framers of the US Constitution provided for a mechanism to amend the document as the need arose, but only with the consent of the governed.

Liberals have no interest in our government getting the consent of the people it governs. All that matters to the far left is imposing their will on the nation, regardless of the Constitution or the will of the majority. The framers of the Constitution never intended for the judicial branch to be able to set aside legislation simply because a judge's political views match those of a very vocal minority. It is time for judges to rediscover the four corners principle of jurisprudence.

[thecavemaster]

[B]Yes we do[/B] but neither of us had a hand in writing the US Constitution. The framers of the US Constitution provided for a mechanism to amend the document as the need arose, but only with the consent of the governed.

Liberals have no interest in our government getting the consent of the people it governs. All that matters to the far left is imposing their will on the nation, regardless of the Constitution or the will of the majority. The framers of the Constitution never intended for the judicial branch to be able to set aside legislation simply because a judge's political views match those of a very vocal minority. It is time for judges to rediscover the four corners principle of jurisprudence.

If the will of the majority is to deny people essential liberties, what then? To me, Hoot, a same sex couple's desire to be married, to fall under the legal umbrella of "married," is beyond "political views." The general grace of God is akin to essential liberties in our society: political views don't matter... religious views don't matter: it's fundamental. "establish justice," is a foundatonal principle, not subject to the will and whim of the people. The Framers were just as concerned by majority dictation as by expansive governmental intrusion... history proves this wise.

[Hoot Gibson]

If the will of the majority is to deny people essential liberties, what then? To me, Hoot, a same sex couple's desire to be married, to fall under the legal umbrella of "married," is beyond "political views." The general grace of God is akin to essential liberties in our society: political views don't matter... religious views don't matter: it's fundamental. "establish justice," is a foundatonal principle, not subject to the will and whim of the people. The Framers were just as concerned by majority dictation as by expansive governmental intrusion... history proves this wise.

What one person deems an "essential liberty" does not make it a constitutional right. If it is not a constitutional right, then the only legitimate way to make it such is to amend the constitution.

There is no constitutional right to a gay marriage and there never has been. Hopefully, there never will be either but that will be determined by how man liberal judges are seated on the Supreme Court who are willing to look beyond the four corners of the US Constitution and ignore legal precedents. Unfortunately, that magic number may have already been reached.

[thecavemaster]

What one person deems an "essential liberty" does not make it a constitutional right. If it is not a constitutional right, then the only legitimate way to make it such is to amend the constitution.

There is no constitutional right to a gay marriage and there never has been. Hopefully, there never will be either but that will be determined by how man liberal judges are seated on the Supreme Court who are willing to look beyond the four corners of the US Constitution and ignore legal precedents. Unfortunately, that magic number may have already been reached.

The marriage of same sex couples is an essential liberty, equal protection, under our Constitution. The recognition of this as an essential liberty is consistent with the general grace of God, whereby multitudes of behaviors are not condoned, not deemed right, but simply recognized as falling within the free choice of human beings within this economy. It's a basic principle and need not be viewed morally nor politically.

[Hoot Gibson]

The marriage of same sex couples is an essential liberty, equal protection, under our Constitution. The recognition of this as an essential liberty is consistent with the general grace of God, whereby multitudes of behaviors are not condoned, not deemed right, but simply recognized as falling within the free choice of human beings within this economy. It's a basic principle and need not be viewed morally nor politically.

How many times are you going to repeat your opinion that gay marriage is an "essential liberty?" Essential for what?

[thecavemaster]

How many times are you going to repeat your opinion that gay marriage is an "essential liberty?" Essential for what?

You would not hold the right of an adult to marry the person of his or her choosing to be an "essential liberty"? Two consenting adults in the pursuit of happiness? Not essential? For all your blather, you appear to be, at core, more Puritan than American.

[Hoot Gibson]

You would not hold the right of an adult to marry the person of his or her choosing to be an "essential liberty"? Two consenting adults in the pursuit of happiness? Not essential? For all your blather, you appear to be, at core, more Puritan than American.

With a full month to prepare a response, the best you could come up with was another childish insult? I am very deeply disappointed in you, CM.

FYI, not a single state in which the gay marriage issue has appeared on the ballot - including California - has failed to pass laws defining marriage as a legal union one man and one woman. Not one.

Apparently, we are a nation of Puritans according to that warped measuring stick that you are using. Heck, we even have some Puritanical gay people who oppose gay marriage.

[vundy33]

Right Wing Flirties keep saying about Obama, "when the economy collapses, when the economy collapses...." As Obama took office, after a Republican administration and control of Congress, THE ECONOMY HAD COLLAPSED. I'm not talking about blaming former President Bush here... I'm talking about something Right Wing Flirties often neglect: R E A L I T Y.

Man, just nut up and admit you're wrong. Come on...

[Captain Backdoor]

:popcorn:

[thecavemaster]

From the 14th Amendment: "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Before too much longer, America will live up to its creed in the matter of gays seeking marriage. True enough, Hoot, Puritans sought their own religious freedom; they didn't care about the principle of religious freedom, freedom of conscience... the story of Roger Williams demonstrates this.