W approval rating continues to decline - Page 8

ShangriLaTroubl · #**106** 10-18-2005, 02:06 AM

I don't know if you are racist or not Brown Eyes, but I have read your jokes about fried chicken and watermelon, which I'm sure had no racial intention at all in them. We also saw you tell that you can't comprehend WHY it's inappropriate for white people to use the "n-word"

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**107** 10-18-2005, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

Yes and your argument for that is it's OK for you guys to say equally as "mean" things about us because the difference is it is all "True." We all hate America (funny I love America!), We wanted to "offer therapy" to the terrorists..lol

I don't think you ALL HATE AMERICA. However, I do think you are associated with the party that always seems to take the side that will most undermine America.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**108** 10-18-2005, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

I don't know if you are racist or not Brown Eyes, but I have read your jokes about fried chicken and watermelon, which I'm sure had no racial intention at all in them. We also saw you tell that you can't comprehend WHY it's inappropriate for white people to use the "n-word"

I don't remember saying anything about white people using the "n-word". I personally feel the word should be done away with all together. I don't think anyone should use it, regardless of their race.

ShangriLaTroubl · #**109** 10-18-2005, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

I don't think you ALL HATE AMERICA. However, I do think you are associated with the party that always seems to take the side that will most undermine America.

The party who since 9/11 has wanted to dismantle the Al Qaeda terrorist network, and get rid of those who attacked our country on that day...and NOT the party of those who I guess felt it was too hard to catch Osama Bin Laden, and to take focus off of those failures decided to take us to war with a country that had never attacked America at all...and base the war on lies and faulty intelligence..Who's undermining America???

Chris

tynan88 · #**110** 10-18-2005, 02:10 AM

What is it about you guys.

In all serious it appears to me that every single political discussion in this place seems to resort to name calling, doube standards and illogical arguments on both sides.

Political discussion is important, however it is not very enlightening when both sides are so distinctly closed minded and set in interpreting the other in a particular way that will more effectively suit their needs.

I don't want to sound big, but it gets frustrating because this is not really a political discussion.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**111** 10-18-2005, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heyjupiter678

Aaaand "No True Scotsman" rears its ugly head . . . It was just a matter of time.

You do realize that that statement was intended with much sarcasm, right?

ShangriLaTroubl · #**112** 10-18-2005, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynan88

What is it about you guys.

In all serious it appears to me that every single political discussion in this place seems to resort to name calling, doube standards and illogical arguments on both sides.

Political discussion is important, however it is not very enlightening when both sides are so distinctly closed minded and set in interpreting the other in a particular way that will more effectively suit their needs.

I don't want to sound big, but it gets frustrating because this is not really a political discussion.

Well first off, most of what we have discussed is in fact POLITICAL. Of course not all of it is, sometimes we like to go off topic, as in most threads..and sometimes we like to have a little fun with "the other side."

Johnny Stew · #**113** 10-18-2005, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Ok these numbers are from early in his administration. Who was President before him? Thank you...

Reagan was elected in November of 1980.
1983 was near the end of his first term.

Keeping in mind that those fiscal reports were issued in 1984, it seems illogical to believe that Carter could be responsible for a $129 billion dollar increase that happened while someone else was in the White House for a full three years.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**114** 10-18-2005, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynan88

What is it about you guys.

In all serious it appears to me that every single political discussion in this place seems to resort to name calling, doube standards and illogical arguments on both sides.

Political discussion is important, however it is not very enlightening when both sides are so distinctly closed minded and set in interpreting the other in a particular way that will more effectively suit their needs.

I don't want to sound big, but it gets frustrating because this is not really a political discussion.

You are correct. It started out that way...but it now has segued into something else. Which I will be blamed for I'm sure.

ShangriLaTroubl · #**115** 10-18-2005, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

You are correct. It started out that way...but it now has segued into something else. Which I will be blamed for I'm sure.

Well I don't blame you for "IT" at all actually..because I don't think any wrongful discussion has taken place here this evening. I think all of us, for the most part ,have been somewhat civil here..

Chris

ragandbone · #**116** 10-18-2005, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Ok these numbers are from early in his administration. Who was President before him? Thank you...

The low deficit was from Carter. The deficit grew under Reagan as a result of tax cuts and military spending (defense contracts, not a war) and even Reagan's people were dismayed at the deficit. Then the spin was that deficits are not such a bad thing.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**117** 10-18-2005, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

Well first off, most of what we have discussed is in fact POLITICAL. Of course not all of it is, sometimes we like to go off topic, as in most threads..and sometimes we like to have a little fun with "the other side."

Which is just represented by me usually...

I feel so alone sometimes!

BUT IT IS FUN TOO!

tynan88 · #**118** 10-18-2005, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

Well first off, most of what we have discussed is in fact POLITICAL. Of course not all of it is, sometimes we like to go off topic, as in most threads..and sometimes we like to have a little fun with "the other side."

Like I said I like political discussions but generally some based on a sense of objectivity. I am hardly conservative but I am often able to see the perspective of one, nor do I consider myself a liberal.

It seems that it is often it turns in to everything conservative is bad or everything liberal is bad.

Johnny Stew · #**119** 10-18-2005, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

I don't remember saying anything about white people using the "n-word". I personally feel the word should be done away with all together. I don't think anyone should use it, regardless of their race.

To clarify... you never said that you don't understand why using the word is inappropriate. But you've certainly demonstrated that you lack that understanding.

And, without speaking for Chris, I think that's what he meant.

amber · #**120** 10-18-2005, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

You are right. I stand corrected. You are more of an insult, hang around and then insult some more...type of person. Come on, don't I at least garner that much attention from you?

A) That's not actually true.
B) No, you don't warrant/garner that much attention.
C) You just think that because I always insult YOU. I'm not like that with normal people.