Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The artist did this picture of Obama:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://marketingforhippies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/220px-Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg&imgrefurl=http://marketingforhippies.com/obamas-ad-makes-his-case/220px-barack_obama_hope_poster/&h=264&w=176&sz=1&tbnid=xDMjn-su8ev8aM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=106&zoom=1&usg=__K11k86_8aqkAD8JDLI6xkiRcD1k=&docid=mJlNsWY95epX_M&itg=1&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XPJ9Uv-VJtLHqAGVyIDoCA&ved=0CDEQ_B0wAA

It was used at the end in this North Korean style propaganda ad:


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=51kAw4OTlA0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D51kAw4OTlA0


He says he'd replace hope with a few different words, none good apparently.

http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_7qjwby5a/

TMZ, really?

Don't get me wrong, I'm cool with any attempt to embarrass BHO. This is just scraping the bottom of the barre...

OMG GUYS DID YOU JUST SEE JWOWW'S SIDE BOOB?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh man, and it looks like Dennis Rodman is talkin' smack down on Kobe. OOOOOH SNAP!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And wait till you hear about this threesome with Tami Erin and Tiger Wood's mistress. Off the hook!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TMZ

"War drones." Heh.

Truly, Obama is history's greatest monster.

 Ouze wrote:
Truly, Obama is history's greatest liar.

There... fixed it for ya.

 Ouze wrote:
Truly, Obama is history's greatest monster.

He'll go down as histories greatest something, but it's definitely not going to be as a statesman. It looks like more and more people are turning their backs on the prez. It'll be interesting to see if this one time high profile campagn artist for Obama begins putting out anti Obama material.

Relapse wrote:
It looks like more and more people are turning their backs on the prez.

What's would be interesting to see is how much of the lost support is because Obama is too liberal, and how much is because he isn't liberal enough. It's a pretty big difference in what happens in a couple years once the current chair warmer is gone.

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It looks like more and more people are turning their backs on the prez.

What's would be interesting to see is how much of the lost support is because Obama is too liberal, and how much is because he isn't liberal enough. It's a pretty big difference in what happens in a couple years once the current chair warmer is gone.

Good point.

Obama is a cheap chancer who had the stones to take his one shot and ran with it.

He has the orators gift, grant him that, and some of his policies are ground breaking for Americans, and are safe bets once introduced due to their provable success elsewhere. It was no gret mental leap to consider the Affordable Care Act, its just ther act of climbing over big medicine to do so.

The miracle of Obama however is just how disorganised and incompetent his poltiical opponents can get, and how the media machine can latych onto them like a rabid dog without anyone noticing if there is too much partisan press coverage.
Gaffs don't help matters and the Republicans made far more.

Obama should have been a one term president, the fact he was not is not a terstament to Obama but a testament to the infighting, incompetence and backwardness of the Republican party.

 Orlanth wrote:


Obama should have been a one term president, the fact he was not is not a terstament to Obama but a testament to the infighting, incompetence and backwardness of the Republican party.

He was on the ropes, even then the Republicans are so bound to their primaries that the presidential nominees list was like a line up of the usual suspects from the Mos Eisley cantina.

Only Huntsman could have taken him down, head and shoulders above the rest of the verminous halfwits they offered up, likely to sway a lot of the disillusioned middle ground voters, but because he believes in evolution and had previously worked with the Democrats, he was almost immediately knocked out from the running, because before the candidate goes before the general public, they must pass an assault course of the hardliners, which encourages people the rest of us wouldn't touch with a barge pole (pizzalord, mad staring woman, mysogenist religious fanatic in a cardigan, toadman of the many wives, gayhating dude with less smarts than toast, crazy old dude who wants everyone to do what the hell they want, and, the eventual winner, the beige billionaire who'd say anything to anyone at any time) and the people we would entertain in the middle ground are deemed RINOs or LIBERALS and eliminated.

We are talking about a primary audience that booed a war veteran for being gay. These people, who the republicans welcomed into their bosom back in 09 and 10 with glee, are now so firmly rooted that the entire party is being steered by their extremist noise and whilst they retain positions of power, the party will continue to become less and less electable and less appealing to the middle ground.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We are talking about a primary audience that booed a war veteran for being gay. These people, who the republicans welcomed into their bosom back in 09 and 10 with glee, are now so firmly rooted that the entire party is being steered by their extremist noise and whilst they retain positions of power, the party will continue to become less and less electable and less appealing to the middle ground.

Or, we can go with informed analysis.

 Orlanth wrote:

Obama should have been a one term president, the fact he was not is not a terstament to Obama but a testament to the infighting, incompetence and backwardness of the Republican party.

That's a fair assessment.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We are talking about a primary audience that booed a war veteran for being gay. These people, who the republicans welcomed into their bosom back in 09 and 10 with glee, are now so firmly rooted that the entire party is being steered by their extremist noise and whilst they retain positions of power, the party will continue to become less and less electable and less appealing to the middle ground.

Or, we can go with informed analysis.

Who owns the Wall Street Journal, Seaward?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Who owns the Wall Street Journal, Seaward?

Not Andrew Kohut, the person who wrote the article.

News Corp.

Are you suggesting the polling presented in that article is mythical? Because I'm pretty sure Murdoch doesn't own Pew.

 Seaward wrote:
News Corp.

Are you suggesting the polling presented in that article is mythical? Because I'm pretty sure Murdoch doesn't own Pew.

I know right!

It's like they pulled a survey that said what they wanted it to say for the article, rather than one that didn't.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx

Who'd have thought we can produce any result we want by asking a question in a certain way, it's a revelation!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I know right!

It's like they pulled a survey that said what they wanted it to say for the article, rather than one that didn't.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx

Who'd have thought we can produce any result we want by asking a question in a certain way, it's a revelation!

I'm disappointed. Republicans' low favorability is directly referenced in the article.

You didn't even read it, did you?

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I know right!

It's like they pulled a survey that said what they wanted it to say for the article, rather than one that didn't.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx

Who'd have thought we can produce any result we want by asking a question in a certain way, it's a revelation!

I'm disappointed. Republicans' low favorability is directly referenced in the article.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You selected an article to demonstrate a counter to what I said about electability of the Republican party, the article gives a favorable opinion of the Republicans on handling the economy, among swing voters, yet the headline reads 'GOP in better shape than you think'. You cited this as a counter to my point, I then provided you a link to an article with a headline and angle that promotes the antithesis, again, using a poll to evidence this.

Because the suggestion that the Republicans are in better shape, countering what I said about their electability, based on if swing voters think they are good with the economy, despite your already admitted (and the article you quoted admitting) that their popularity is in the toilet, is facile.

Do you not understand that?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You selected an article to demonstrate a counter to what I said about electability of the Republican party, the article gives a favorable opinion of the Republicans on handling the economy, among swing voters, yet the headline reads 'GOP in better shape than you think'. You cited this as a counter to my point, I then provided you a link to an article with a headline and angle that promotes the antithesis, again, using a poll to evidence this.

Because the suggestion that the Republicans are in better shape, countering what I said about their electability, based on if swing voters think they are good with the economy, despite your already admitted (and the article you quoted admitting) that their popularity is in the toilet, is facile.

Do you not understand that?

No, because it's absurdly elementary analysis. Seriously, I suggest reading the article. It directly counters your, "Republican favorability is low, therefore they lose forever!" argument with...well, things like actual hypothetical congressional ballots.

If you've got independents splitting on those and pluralities favoring Republicans on both economy and government management, "likability" is a deceptive and not entirely useful metric.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You selected an article to demonstrate a counter to what I said about electability of the Republican party, the article gives a favorable opinion of the Republicans on handling the economy, among swing voters, yet the headline reads 'GOP in better shape than you think'. You cited this as a counter to my point, I then provided you a link to an article with a headline and angle that promotes the antithesis, again, using a poll to evidence this.

Because the suggestion that the Republicans are in better shape, countering what I said about their electability, based on if swing voters think they are good with the economy, despite your already admitted (and the article you quoted admitting) that their popularity is in the toilet, is facile.

Do you not understand that?

No, because it's absurdly elementary analysis. Seriously, I suggest reading the article. It directly counters your, "Republican favorability is low, therefore they lose forever!" argument

At no time did I say that, I was saying that the beholden to the extremists was hampering public likeability = rending them unelectable, as both the article you linked and the article I linked backed up. Don't accuse me of not reading the article when you don't even read what I wrote...

 Seaward wrote:

with...well, things like actual hypothetical congressional ballots.

Actual hypotheticals you say?!?! Stop the press! Actual hypotheticals. I laughed out loud at that one, pure gold mate!

 Seaward wrote:

If you've got independents splitting on those and pluralities favoring Republicans on both economy and government management, "likability" is a deceptive and not entirely useful metric.

We had independents telling us Obama was a dead duck all the way up to the primaries for the Republican party, then the Republican party had a very long drawn out fight, in-party, of people who didn't fire the public popularity.

You can say what you want about likability, but the Republicans have cited it multiple times as the reason Obama's won twice, the second time by dint of being the less unlikable choice.

'I'm not pleased with Obama, but that other guy seems even worse...' seems to, for me, be a good way of summing up the 2012 voting.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
At no time did I say that, I was saying that the beholden to the extremists was hampering public likeability = rending them unelectable, as both the article you linked and the article I linked backed up. Don't accuse me of not reading the article when you don't even read what I wrote...

Ah, okay. So your contention is simply that Republicans are unelectable.

Starting when, exactly? Because it seems like they keep getting elected. I hear one just beat the tar out of a Democrat in a governor's race in a deep blue state. And a guy who wanted to outlaw condoms lost out in Virginia's by only 50,000 votes.

Actual hypotheticals you say?!?! Stop the press! Actual hypotheticals. I laughed out loud at that one, pure gold mate!

Indeed. They're these fun little polls that ask, "If your congressional election was held today, would you vote for a generic Democrat or a generic Republican?"

We had independents telling us Obama was a dead duck all the way up to the primaries for the Republican party, then the Republican party had a very long drawn out fight, in-party, of people who didn't fire the public popularity.

We did indeed, but you appear to be countering your own point about Republican "extremists" hampering public likability. Romney wasn't remotely close to an extremist. Anybody that's governed Massachusetts in the last fifty years couldn't be called a dedicated conservative. He was deeply personally unlikable, but it had nothing at all to do with extremism.

The generic favorability of the political 'brand' polling often bears not at all on specific races, which is why it's not a terribly useful statistic. It's like pointing to congressional approval ratings; they're inching towards single digits, yet congressional incumbent victories remain the norm rather than the exception. Everybody hates the job Congress is doing, yet keeps re-electing their Congressman.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
At no time did I say that, I was saying that the beholden to the extremists was hampering public likeability = rending them unelectable, as both the article you linked and the article I linked backed up. Don't accuse me of not reading the article when you don't even read what I wrote...

Ah, okay. So your contention is simply that Republicans are unelectable.

Starting when, exactly? Because it seems like they keep getting elected. I hear one just beat the tar out of a Democrat in a governor's race in a deep blue state.

Where did this happen?

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/06/starnes-chris-christie-rino-nj-says-he%E2%80%99s-conservative

 Seaward wrote:

Actual hypotheticals you say?!?! Stop the press! Actual hypotheticals. I laughed out loud at that one, pure gold mate!

Indeed. They're these fun little polls that ask, "If your congressional election was held today, would you vote for a generic Democrat or a generic Republican?"

Ah, so a 'what if' question, limited to one facet of a potential congressional election credentials, answered only by the people who answer these questions, proves your point?

Well, I don't feel that even remotely counters my point and was a frankly bizarre choice to hold up

 Seaward wrote:

We had independents telling us Obama was a dead duck all the way up to the primaries for the Republican party, then the Republican party had a very long drawn out fight, in-party, of people who didn't fire the public popularity.

We did indeed, but you appear to be countering your own point about Republican "extremists" hampering public likability. Romney wasn't remotely close to an extremist. Anybody that's governed Massachusetts in the last fifty years couldn't be called a dedicated conservative. He was deeply personally unlikable, but it had nothing at all to do with extremism.

We got Romney because the various factions couldn't agree with which shade of flying rodent gak to go with, so we got the man who said yes to anything and everything and actually stood for nothing at all. Unless you count socially ignorant dancing horse owning billionaire as a viable political platform.

 Seaward wrote:

The generic favorability of the political 'brand' polling often bears not at all on specific races, which is why it's not a terribly useful statistic. It's like pointing to congressional approval ratings; they're inching towards single digits, yet congressional incumbent victories remain the norm rather than the exception. Everybody hates the job Congress is doing, yet keeps re-electing their Congressman.

Indeed, and congressmen and women know the only thing they have to worry about is serving a perceived majority of the populace of their own constituency, instead of working to the betterment of the nation, that is something that needs revising.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Where did this happen?

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/06/starnes-chris-christie-rino-nj-says-he%E2%80%99s-conservative

New Jersey. You just linked to an opinion piece about the guy, in fact. I'm not sure why you'd question whether Christie's really a registered Republican or not, but I assure you, he is.

Whether he's any given level of conservative is a different question, though I'm not sure how that matters. Many left-wing extremists claim Obama's not liberal, yet he's still a Democrat. (Still liberal, too, for that matter.)

Ah, so a 'what if' question, limited to one facet of a potential congressional election credentials, answered only by the people who answer these questions, proves your point?

Well, I don't feel that even remotely counters my point and was a frankly bizarre choice to hold up

Not alone it doesn't, no. That's why I've asked you several times to read the entire thing. Believe it or not, multiple factors affect electability, and several of them are discussed. Which is why it's more nuanced analysis than, "Favorability low, election lost, ung ung."

We got Romney because the various factions couldn't agree with which shade of flying rodent gak to go with, so we got the man who said yes to anything and everything and actually stood for nothing at all. Unless you count socially ignorant dancing horse owning billionaire as a viable political platform.

So this guy who stood for nothing at all was so extremist that nobody voted for him.

Indeed, and congressmen and women know the only thing they have to worry about is serving a perceived majority of the populace of their own constituency, instead of working to the betterment of the nation, that is something that needs revising.

Why? Because you don't like it? They're doing what they were elected to do. You know, as amusing as your, "I've come from Britain! Your government must change! Your free speech laws must change!" schtick is, I think you're going to find your transformational aspirations sorely disappointed.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Where did this happen?

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/06/starnes-chris-christie-rino-nj-says-he%E2%80%99s-conservative

New Jersey. You just linked to an opinion piece about the guy, in fact. I'm not sure why you'd question whether Christie's really a registered Republican or not, but I assure you, he is.

Whether he's any given level of conservative is a different question, though I'm not sure how that matters. Many left-wing extremists claim Obama's not liberal, yet he's still a Democrat. (Still liberal, too, for that matter.)

I linked the piece for the fairly obvious demonstration that if Christie does try out for the presidency, a sizable amount of the right wing will freak out about it and do everything and anything to stop it, again, part of the original point I raised about the further right wing/teaparty/religious right holding the rest of the party to ransom. You held his victory in a 'blue' state up when many Republicans have accused him of being a RINO/democrat in republican's clothing, so his victory isn't something wondrous when put into perspective and scale of political leaning.

Left wingers in the democrats may well complain about Obama and likely did about his predecessors, but it seems to me that they remain a fringe rather than the steering force of the party, hence why the democrats get a more palatable candidate rather than someone out on the fringe. That, again, was my point, the furthest right is currently experiencing power in the GOP whilst the Democrats are seemingly fairly unified. I hear a lot of talk about parties within a party and civil war within the GOP, I hear nothing like that about the democrats.

 Seaward wrote:

Ah, so a 'what if' question, limited to one facet of a potential congressional election credentials, answered only by the people who answer these questions, proves your point?

Well, I don't feel that even remotely counters my point and was a frankly bizarre choice to hold up

Not alone it doesn't, no. That's why I've asked you several times to read the entire thing. Believe it or not, multiple factors affect electability, and several of them are discussed. Which is why it's more nuanced analysis than, "Favorability low, election lost, ung ung."

And what I said was more nuanced than your glib little soundbite. If you at least attempted to sound less like a petulant school child, I'm sure more people would take the time to listen to your point of view, but by all means continue to spout pointless insult and make your argument look even less like it was constructed from rational thought and even more from the kneejerk reactions of a partisan at all costs pedant.

 Seaward wrote:

We got Romney because the various factions couldn't agree with which shade of flying rodent gak to go with, so we got the man who said yes to anything and everything and actually stood for nothing at all. Unless you count socially ignorant dancing horse owning billionaire as a viable political platform.

So this guy who stood for nothing at all was so extremist that nobody voted for him.

Nope, as I said earlier, so many were vying for their fanatical corner, so quick to dismiss the moderate conservative due to some of his 'radical' stances, that instead they all ended up with a man with no stances whatsoever, or rather a man willing to take whatever stance he was asked to, even if it was at odds with the stance he'd made five minutes prior.

 Seaward wrote:

Indeed, and congressmen and women know the only thing they have to worry about is serving a perceived majority of the populace of their own constituency, instead of working to the betterment of the nation, that is something that needs revising.

Why? Because you don't like it? They're doing what they were elected to do. You know, as amusing as your, "I've come from Britain! Your government must change! Your free speech laws must change!" schtick is, I think you're going to find your transformational aspirations sorely disappointed.

We aren't talking about where I'm from, nor about free speech, but it is as amusing for me to see you're still here arguing against me, not because you have a point to make, but because you have taken a dislike to me personally.

I'll pray for you.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I linked the piece for the fairly obvious demonstration that if Christie does try out for the presidency, a sizable amount of the right wing will freak out about it and do everything and anything to stop it, again, part of the original point I raised about the further right wing/teaparty/religious right holding the rest of the party to ransom. You held his victory in a 'blue' state up when many Republicans have accused him of being a RINO/democrat in republican's clothing, so his victory isn't something wondrous when put into perspective and scale of political leaning.

So because we've had that occur in one presidential cycle, it's now the default? No, I don't think so.

Left wingers in the democrats may well complain about Obama and likely did about his predecessors, but it seems to me that they remain a fringe rather than the steering force of the party, hence why the democrats get a more palatable candidate rather than someone out on the fringe. That, again, was my point, the furthest right is currently experiencing power in the GOP whilst the Democrats are seemingly fairly unified. I hear a lot of talk about parties within a party and civil war within the GOP, I hear nothing like that about the democrats.

Currently.

What's just so amusing about all this, "Woe to the Republicans, they shall never be elected again!" bs is that it takes such a remarkably short-sighted view of history. I recognize that a lot of the posters on this site are just barely into their twenties, but seriously. You want to talk about things looking bleak for a party, look at Mondale and Dukakis' results on the electoral map. Mondale won one state. One. Ten years later, it was Clinton living in the White House. "The way polls are going now is the way polls are always going to go," is a remarkably stupid way of interpreting politics.

And what I said was more nuanced than your glib little soundbite.

Only if we redefine 'nuance.'

If you at least attempted to sound less like a petulant school child, I'm sure more people would take the time to listen to your point of view, but by all means continue to spout pointless insult and make your argument look even less like it was constructed from rational thought and even more from the kneejerk reactions of a partisan at all costs pedant.

Ah, rich, rich irony.

Nope, as I said earlier, so many were vying for their fanatical corner, so quick to dismiss the moderate conservative due to some of his 'radical' stances, that instead they all ended up with a man with no stances whatsoever, or rather a man willing to take whatever stance he was asked to, even if it was at odds with the stance he'd made five minutes prior.

No, that wasn't what you said earlier. It's what you should have said earlier, because you might actually have managed to sound like you knew what you were talking about for once.

We aren't talking about where I'm from, nor about free speech, but it is as amusing for me to see you're still here arguing against me, not because you have a point to make, but because you have taken a dislike to me personally.

Don't feel special, I dislike an awful lot of the far left on a personal level.

Fortunately, I'm arguing against you because you're wrong, rather than out of spite. Watching you sling petty insults and then pretending to be above it is just icing on the cake.

Where you're from was brought up simply because it's amusing to watch you barge into threads and demand that the US conform to British models of doing things, always with little to no reason given.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I linked the piece for the fairly obvious demonstration that if Christie does try out for the presidency, a sizable amount of the right wing will freak out about it and do everything and anything to stop it, again, part of the original point I raised about the further right wing/teaparty/religious right holding the rest of the party to ransom. You held his victory in a 'blue' state up when many Republicans have accused him of being a RINO/democrat in republican's clothing, so his victory isn't something wondrous when put into perspective and scale of political leaning.

So because we've had that occur in one presidential cycle, it's now the default? No, I don't think so.

Left wingers in the democrats may well complain about Obama and likely did about his predecessors, but it seems to me that they remain a fringe rather than the steering force of the party, hence why the democrats get a more palatable candidate rather than someone out on the fringe. That, again, was my point, the furthest right is currently experiencing power in the GOP whilst the Democrats are seemingly fairly unified. I hear a lot of talk about parties within a party and civil war within the GOP, I hear nothing like that about the democrats.

Currently.

We were debating current affairs, Seaward, yes, not the 1800s or the Cuban Missile Crisis, we were talking about what is currently happening. If you wished to extend the discussion to the moral implications of the Weregild or the new political landscape following the death of Caesar, you should have stated your intention to expand the discussion beyond what the rest of us were talking about, we can't all be in your head now can we...

 Seaward wrote:

What's just so amusing about all this, "Woe to the Republicans, they shall never be elected again!" bs is that it takes such a remarkably short-sighted view of history. I recognize that a lot of the posters on this site are just barely into their twenties, but seriously. You want to talk about things looking bleak for a party, look at Mondale and Dukakis' results on the electoral map. Mondale won one state. One. Ten years later, it was Clinton living in the White House. "The way polls are going now is the way polls are always going to go," is a remarkably stupid way of interpreting politics.

Again, we're not talking about a decade from now, we're talking about now. I was talking about the current state of the party, not what they'll look like in 10 years, when a sizable portion of their current voters are dead.

 Seaward wrote:

And what I said was more nuanced than your glib little soundbite.

Only if we redefine 'nuance.'

Quite comfortable with my command of the English language, unless it means something different in your head and again, we're back to nobody else being in there, mate.

 Seaward wrote:

If you at least attempted to sound less like a petulant school child, I'm sure more people would take the time to listen to your point of view, but by all means continue to spout pointless insult and make your argument look even less like it was constructed from rational thought and even more from the kneejerk reactions of a partisan at all costs pedant.

Ah, rich, rich irony.

If you adhere to the Alanis Morrisette school of irony I guess...?

 Seaward wrote:

Nope, as I said earlier, so many were vying for their fanatical corner, so quick to dismiss the moderate conservative due to some of his 'radical' stances, that instead they all ended up with a man with no stances whatsoever, or rather a man willing to take whatever stance he was asked to, even if it was at odds with the stance he'd made five minutes prior.

No, that wasn't what you said earlier. It's what you should have said earlier, because you might actually have managed to sound like you knew what you were talking about for once.

Again, you're reading comprehension isn't really my problem, it's yours, it's why you're angrily fighting against so many people on this section of this forum (and likely several other places on the nets...), you don't actually read what I'm saying, you read what that 'far leftist foreigner coming over here and telling me how my country should run' is saying which brings me neatly to:

 Seaward wrote:

We aren't talking about where I'm from, nor about free speech, but it is as amusing for me to see you're still here arguing against me, not because you have a point to make, but because you have taken a dislike to me personally.

Don't feel special, I dislike an awful lot of the far left on a personal level.
Fortunately, I'm arguing against you because you're wrong, rather than out of spite. Watching you sling petty insults and then pretending to be above it is just icing on the cake.
Where you're from was brought up simply because it's amusing to watch you barge into threads and demand that the US conform to British models of doing things, always with little to no reason given.

That I should debate and have a viewpoint on something from my experiences really shouldn't surprise you. That if I came from Tennessee and thought something there worked well and wanted to see it implemented nation wide, I should 'mind mine' instead of stating it? Or is it, as it reads, that you just resent a foreigner having the temerity to state a political opinion in America, despite being an American tax payer and being married to an American woman and, lest we forget, living here.

PS: I was unaware I'd 'slung' any insults at you in this thread and if I have, you should, at once, use the report button as that isn't tolerated on this site. Or could it be that you already have and no-one else thought I was insulting, leading us once again to the disconnect between what's in your head and what's happening for the rest of us?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We were debating current affairs, Seaward, yes, not the 1800s or the Cuban Missile Crisis, we were talking about what is currently happening.

And currently, the Republicans aren't in as bad of shape as you wish they were, despite your single-minded reliance on one vague polling statistic. Insisting on only looking at a single point-in-time snapshot that doesn't tell anywhere remotely near the whole story without the context of political trends in the United States is a pretty hilarious way of trying to go about making whatever desperate point you're trying to make.

Again, we're not talking about a decade from now, we're talking about now.

You mean a year from now? There aren't any national elections being held in 2013.

I was talking about the current state of the party, not what they'll look like in 10 years, when a sizable portion of their current voters are dead.

Not from a well-informed position, which makes me question why you're even bothering. Dismissing every possible statistic that disagrees with your amateur analysis in favor of the single one that does is...well, see above.

Quite comfortable with my command of the English language, unless it means something different in your head and again, we're back to nobody else being in there, mate.

Hey, whatever you say. "Republican favorability is low now because of extremists so they will not win," is pretty much the antithesis of nuance, but as long as you're comfortable with it, I guess that's what matters.

Again, you're reading comprehension isn't really my problem, it's yours, it's why you're angrily fighting against so many people on this section of this forum (and likely several other places on the nets...), you don't actually read what I'm saying, you read what that 'far leftist foreigner coming over here and telling me how my country should run' is saying which brings me neatly to:

If you've interpreted anyone who tried to correct your misguided views as simply being angry at you, that might explain why you hold such remarkably ill-informed positions. I don't really know what to do about that. Shall I use softer words? Set them to a nursery tune? I dunno.

That I should debate and have a viewpoint on something from my experiences really shouldn't surprise you.

Nor should the irrelevance of that experience surprise you.

That if I came from Tennessee and thought something there worked well and wanted to see it implemented nation wide, I should 'mind mine' instead of stating it? Or is it, as it reads, that you just resent a foreigner having the temerity to state a political opinion in America, despite being an American tax payer and being married to an American woman and, lest we forget, living here.

I'm fine with foreigners voicing their opinion on American politics. I'd simply prefer it if they bothered to educate themselves first.

PS: I was unaware I'd 'slung' any insults at you in this thread and if I have, you should, at once, use the report button as that isn't tolerated on this site.

All I can say is...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Watching you sling petty insults and then pretending to be above it is just icing on the cake.

Take your own advice, mate.

Or could it be that you already have and no-one else thought I was insulting

None that I'm aware of.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Again, you're reading comprehension isn't really my problem, it's yours, it's why you're angrily fighting against so many people on this section of this forum (and likely several other places on the nets...), you don't actually read what I'm saying, you read what that 'far leftist foreigner coming over here and telling me how my country should run' is saying which brings me neatly to:

[

It's funny because you used the contraction in the wrong place while critiquing reading comprehension. Thanks for the morning laugh.

 cincydooley wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Again, you're reading comprehension isn't really my problem, it's yours, it's why you're angrily fighting against so many people on this section of this forum (and likely several other places on the nets...), you don't actually read what I'm saying, you read what that 'far leftist foreigner coming over here and telling me how my country should run' is saying which brings me neatly to:

[

It's funny because you used the contraction in the wrong place while critiquing reading comprehension. Thanks for the morning laugh.

That one word jumped out at me.

-Shrike- wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Again, you're reading comprehension isn't really my problem, it's yours, it's why you're angrily fighting against so many people on this section of this forum (and likely several other places on the nets...), you don't actually read what I'm saying, you read what that 'far leftist foreigner coming over here and telling me how my country should run' is saying which brings me neatly to:

[

It's funny because you used the contraction in the wrong place while critiquing reading comprehension. Thanks for the morning laugh.

That one word jumped out at me.

Yeah. Like, you have to intentionally use that form of the word incorrectly. It's not like typing "your" but meaning "you are" and just leaving the E off. That can happen.