Well... do you? (in Debates)


Papa Bear [G6] April 21 2010 4:20 AM EDT

Pwned April 21 2010 4:25 AM EDT

its kinda like saying do you miss being "insert something that happens in prison here" on a daily basis.

Is how I see this.

Pwned April 21 2010 4:28 AM EDT

Not this

kevlar April 21 2010 4:39 AM EDT

Godpanda April 21 2010 10:22 AM EDT

No.

VsCountStrum [Black Watch] April 21 2010 10:25 AM EDT

Anything would be better that what we currently have.

Invader Sye April 21 2010 10:28 AM EDT

i want to go live in the woods like a mountain man :D

but that means no CB : I so i'll stay here ^_^

Eurynome Bartleby [Bartleby's] April 21 2010 10:33 AM EDT

As an outsider, I find the conspiracy theories funnier this time around.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] April 21 2010 10:37 AM EDT

Added the Great Pronunciator into Heaumehead this minute. Reagan was already there. :P

{CB1}Sparticus [Screwed Justice] April 21 2010 10:54 AM EDT

No Count,, thats sort of an ignorant statement. Obama becomes president in the middle of a crisis and you want to blame him for it. started about 7 years before him buddy.

And no. Missing Bush is like missing the IRS man after he's taken you for everything.

VsCountStrum [Black Watch] April 21 2010 10:59 AM EDT

The crisis was started long before Bush and is a product of both parties. I do not blame or give him credit for economic actions of it.

I do have big issues with the Health Care plan, which I believe will cause significant problems to the US economy.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 21 2010 11:06 AM EDT

as if we couldn't see this coming...could an admin please move this to debates? ; )

Admin{CB1}Slayer333 April 21 2010 11:09 AM EDT

Listening to CB talk politics is as much fun as being forced through a fine mesh screen.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 21 2010 11:10 AM EDT

...into a swimming pool full of vinegar!

QBsutekh137 April 21 2010 11:14 AM EDT

That neither precludes nor exonerates the extreme worthless nature of the statement:

"Anything would be better that what we currently have."

The above statement can never even be true (much less useful). For "anything" to be better, that must mean that the current state of affairs is exactly the opposite of _everything_ that _everyone_ in the country needs. That is logical fallacy.

If that were the case, how did you: Wake up this morning? Have any food on the table? Have any money in the bank? Drive to work? Have a place to drop off your kids for school? Wait, you were able to do all of these things? Weird. Something simply MUST be working, then. But, according to your logic, I could make an edict: "Fences must be put up through every highway in the nation," and because that is "anything" different from "what we currently have", you would sing its praises.

Bottom line: the statement simply doesn't help. So why say it? It isn't even creative.

And no, I don't have a solid solution to every (or even any) problem in our country and world. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go worship at the altar of "anything but this", and I'll play the pedant every time to show what a silly viewpoint that notion defines.

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- April 21 2010 12:01 PM EDT

Corrected:
ALMOST Anything would be better that what we currently have. --VsCountStrum, 10:25 AM EDT


:P

On a serious note, the problem in the United States isn't who the people have elected to represent them, it's the people.

As soon as people stop looking for someone to blame and realize we are ALL to blame, the sooner we can start tackling problems together.

Unfortunately we live in a third grade society where most people view the opposite party as having "cooties".

If I ran for president, I would say the first thing I would do is impose all government jobs with an IQ test. Followed by the internet.

An example of one of my speeches, (mostly because it's 9am and I haven't fully woken up)

"The time has come for our country to unite and say, "WE'VE HAD ENOUGH". No longer will stupid people be accepted into positions of power and privilege. No longer will we be led by the least among us. No longer will we sit there eating our morning breakfast, screaming "LOOK AT THIS IDIOT, A DAMN WALRUS WOULD DO A BETTER JOB!" From now on you must earn your keep, Congress... You must prove your paycheck, Senate... My goal going forward would be to rid these positions of all intellectually void candidates. Also, no longer will positions be filled by empty shells. If you become incoherently stupid during your term, whether you've suffered a stroke, or decreased brain functions as a result of doing way too many drugs (whichever happens to be Hank Johnson's case) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/03/hank-johnson-guam-.html... THATS IT!!! BACK TO RETAIL FOR YOU!!!
...Also on a side note, the internet will now require personalized entry via ID cards (complete with real time IQ virtual stamps), and all websites will be given IQ restrictions in order to view the content... Pushing 99?? Looks like you're stuck browsing yahoo. Rockin' low 70s? Straight to AoL for you! Lower? CNN.com all day long baby!

"Change? You want Change? YOU CAN'T HANDLE CHANGE!!!" <3

Message sponsored and endorsed by the following; Enron, Wall Street, GM, the American People. "Put your money and faith into us, and we'll give you the tax payer's money in return. We just need... a little bit, more..."

:)

Now it's time to start my day, good morning CB!

Windwalker April 21 2010 12:16 PM EDT

Reagan and Bush and his goofy son. So it's all Obama's fault? LOL It amazes me people can't figure out why the country is in the shape it's in.

QBRanger April 21 2010 12:24 PM EDT

While W was not a great or even good president, he certainly is far better than the current "wolf in sheep's clothing" that we currently have.

I would rather have a corpse as president rather than this piece of garbage. IE:
http://www.theonion.com/video/zombie-reagan-raised-from-grave-to-lead-gop,14385/

And while we can debate at nauseam Count's statement, I think the intention is clearly understood, however over the top it is.

QBsutekh137 April 21 2010 12:39 PM EDT

Yep. And my intention can be clearly understood as well (because I explained it). No differences there, and it's all consistent. As I stated, if meaningless, unhelpful, over-the-top "figures of speech" are fine, then so is pedantry.

Meanwhile, the Onion DOES know how to say "Anything is better than this..." via clever humor. I take no issue with that. *smile*

Lochnivar April 21 2010 12:41 PM EDT

Where do we stand on the 'Zombie Reagan' vs 'Robot Nixon' question though?

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- April 21 2010 12:42 PM EDT

I would put my money on Robot Nixon, I'd imagine he's immune to being "bitten" or "Scratched" you know... due to the metal?

QBsutekh137 April 21 2010 12:44 PM EDT

Where do we stand on the 'Zombie Reagan' vs 'Robot Nixon' question though?


Robot Nixon, for several reasons:

-- A robot has no organic brain, so there is nothing for Zombie Reagan to claw after.
-- Robots are hearty.
-- Nixon is what Jules (from Pulp Fiction) has stitched on his wallet.

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- April 21 2010 12:44 PM EDT

Double post, sorry!

Actually it all depends on if we are talking "robo-cop" style bot, or "Bishop" Style (arguably this is an android compared to a robot, but whatever)

:P

Lord Bob April 21 2010 12:47 PM EDT

Well... do you?

No.

Not only no, but heck no.

And that goes double for Reagan.

Demigod April 21 2010 1:03 PM EDT

While W was not a great or even good president, he certainly is far better than the current ...



I'm glad to see you're not suckling on the teet of W like the people I work with.

I'm against straight-ticket voting, and I try to focus on the current and upcoming issues. I voted for junior Bush during his first election, but I was jaded by the end of his 1st term. By the end of his 2nd, I felt the Republican party lost track of their former selves and were bound to screw the lower and middle class in favor of the wealthy, all the while spending not-so-conservatively in military actions and further diminishing our international relations.

McCain didn't impress me much, either. I voted for our president mostly in hopes of correcting the last president's problems, adjusting the tax burden to where I feel it should be, and advancing social issues (I'm economically conservative/moderate but socially liberal).

The healthcare reform had to be done in some form, and it was clear that no sitting president wanted to pull the bad-PR trigger. It's now moving forward, and it's hellishly expensive. Odds are, we'll have a new president in a few years who will try to curtail some of the expenses, but the main body of the reform will have to stay in place. Though I'm not happy about the cost of this reform, I'm trying to keep an open mind as there are many other important political areas beyond healthcare. But push come to shove, I hope the Republican party has more to offer in the next election than Palin.

Lochnivar April 21 2010 1:04 PM EDT

Looks like a human head and brain to me!



Even if we go with the futurama version of Robot Nixon there is still a brain for the zombies. (Can zombies open glass jars?)
I still give the edge to Robot Nixon, but these small issues must be addressed during the campaign.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] April 21 2010 1:10 PM EDT

I was never really scared by (slow moving) Zombies.

They don't have any sort of super strength, and possibly even less strength than normal due to muscle deterioration.

They just don't seem to be able to bite through study clothing, and if you wear a bikini in a Zombie invasion, well you deserve what you get. ;)

Lord Bob April 21 2010 1:21 PM EDT

Zombie Reagan and Robot Nixon? THOSE are my choices? We need a Democratic candidate. I propose Naked Clinton. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRG9r8tQ9zg

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- April 21 2010 1:36 PM EDT

If Palin becomes President, I will have completely lost all faith in humanity, and will be FORCED to move out of the United States forever.

Lochnivar April 21 2010 1:49 PM EDT

Geez LB, Zombie Reagan would totally have Naked Clinton for lunch...

QBRanger April 21 2010 2:09 PM EDT

If Palin becomes President, I will have completely lost all faith in humanity, and will be FORCED to move out of the United States forever.

Palin will likely never get the Republican nomination.

The current crop of Republicans that are mentioned are nothing to get excited about either.

Romney: RINO to the 10th degree. NO thanks
Jeb Bush: Possibly but the Bush name and the 2000 election debacle in FL assures he will not get the nomination
Huckabee: Time has passed him by

The person who would be the best Republican nominee is Paul Ryan. The man dominated the Blair House debate. Even overwhelmed Obama with the facts about Obamacare. Pointed out all the double accounting tricks used to say this is a deficit neutral bill.

However, if the 2012 choice is between Obama and Palin, the chick gets my vote every time.

But then again, I would vote for a corpse over Obama anyway given my desire for a free market, limited government, personal freedom nation.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] April 21 2010 2:12 PM EDT

http://is.gd/bCnZC

Don't worry, Ron Paul's going to win the 2012 election.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] April 21 2010 2:19 PM EDT

All I can say is, I wish we had a conservative version of Sutekh, that would be a fun debate to watch. :)

QBRanger April 21 2010 2:20 PM EDT

I did not include Ron Paul, even though he has good ideas, due to the fact he will be 78 at the time of the '12 election.

He is also more of a true libertarian and likely not main stream enough for the Republican party as a whole.

Paul Ryan is the man. I have not seen anyone on any show, both liberal and conservative shows, with more intelligence and command of the issues facing our nation.

This website alone should convince most true conservatives that his is the real deal:

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

And as an added bonus, he has been in office for more than 10 years. So he will not learn on the job.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] April 21 2010 2:23 PM EDT

You heard it here first people, Ranger thinks Palin is more suited than Obama for running the country.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] April 21 2010 2:37 PM EDT

If she was president, at least congress could do their job, but they're not doing a great job now either...

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] April 21 2010 2:40 PM EDT

And just so it's noted, nothing there is nothing in this thread that a logical Republican should disagree with Fex.

QBsutekh137 April 21 2010 2:42 PM EDT

Ranger has said before he doesn't care for Palin -- where does he say he thinks she would be better than Obama?

And hey, a big piece of me is quite Conservative, and I debate with myself ALL the time. It's classic bear vs. alligator.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] April 21 2010 2:45 PM EDT

Right when he said this:
However, if the 2012 choice is between Obama and Palin, the chick gets my vote every time.

Lord Bob April 21 2010 2:47 PM EDT

If she was president, at least congress could do their job, but they're not doing a great job now either...

They could do their job now. They choose to be obstructionists.

Ranger has said before he doesn't care for Palin -- where does he say he thinks she would be better than Obama?
However, if the 2012 choice is between Obama and Palin, the chick gets my vote every time.

QBsutekh137 April 21 2010 3:11 PM EDT

Ah, sorry, missed that.

QBRanger April 21 2010 3:12 PM EDT

You heard it here first people, Ranger thinks Palin is more suited than Obama for running the country.

I think a corpse would be better than Obama. So of course I would vote for Palin over Obama. Lesser of the 2 evils. However, if the Democrats elect a more true moderate as their candidate and Palin is the Republican candidate, I reserve the right to evalute the choices again.

They could do their job now. They choose to be obstructionists.

I am sick and tired of this obstructionistic argument. It is NOT obstructionistic to not vote for things that are against the American ideals. At least the ideals that I and millions of other conservatives believe in.

Democrats did it all the time when they were the minority and will start to do it again in '10 and '12.

When Obama presented the few moderate bills, he did get bipartisan support. When he presents his ultra liberal, anti capitalism bills, he gets no conservative support.

However, if to stop American on the road to financial ruin is to be called obstructionistic, fine. Use that verbiage.

Lord Bob April 21 2010 3:21 PM EDT

I am sick and tired of this obstructionistic argument. It is NOT obstructionistic to not vote for things that are against the American ideals.

Correct, at least partially. It is not obstructionist to vote against, well, anything. It is obstructionist to grind the Senate to a halt by filibustering everything, including Obama's appointments, which the Republicans threw a fit over when the Dems did it to Bush.

And I am sick and tired of this "against the American ideals" argument, so I guess we're even.

Lord Bob April 21 2010 3:35 PM EDT

It is obstructionist to grind the Senate to a halt by filibustering everything, including Obama's appointments, which the Republicans threw a fit over when the Dems did it to Bush.

Here's an example!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/21/gop-objects-and-objects-a_n_546064.html

QBRanger April 21 2010 3:55 PM EDT

Ah yes, the Huffington Post. About as good a news source as MSNBC these days. Good enough for kitty litter at best.

Try to post something a bit more neutral instead of liberal rags.

PS: It is the same discussion that you give me when I post something from Foxnews or Hotair, so live with it.

And I am sick and tired of this "against the American ideals" argument, so I guess we're even.

Ever see the polls lately? The health care "bounce" that was all the rage in liberal circles has not materialized and more people want to get rid of this budget breaking bill than keep it.

Pretty scary when a sitting president 2+ years away from reelection who brought such "hope and change" to the people is now behind some people in a mock '12 race.

Care to place a bet on whether the Republicans retake the house? 500 bucks?

Yes, Obama is against American ideals. Completely.

QBRanger April 21 2010 4:00 PM EDT

There is another up and coming person to look out for in '12 if you're a Republican:

Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey.

A man who successfully took on the teacher's union and won.

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/commentary/nj-school-budget-elections-the-new-christie-paradigm-is-triumphant

Something that will be needed throughout the country as entitlements to unions become ever more onerous on city/state/federal budgets.

Admin{CB1}Slayer333 April 21 2010 4:18 PM EDT

As to the continuance of this thread, I must object.

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- April 21 2010 4:22 PM EDT

Care to place a bet on whether the Republicans retake the house? 500 bucks? -Ranger


Make a PR

AdminNightStrike April 21 2010 4:22 PM EDT

Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey


3 cheers for Jersey!

AdminNightStrike April 21 2010 4:23 PM EDT

Sorry, slayer :(
This thread is closed to new posts.