PDA

View Full Version : You're nothing but a damn political phony



Qtec
09-02-2011, 08:01 AM
link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44366837#44366837)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed Schultz EXPLODES At Marco Rubio

</div></div>

Ed calls him out. Will he run?

Q

Gayle in MD
09-02-2011, 08:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44366837#44366837)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed Schultz EXPLODES At Marco Rubio

</div></div>

Ed calls him out. Will he run?

Q </div></div>

Another closeted Gay Repiglican? Oh noooooooooo, say it isn't so!

Regardless, this guy is even worse than Scott!

Another POS, which means, the right will love him, lol.

He'll get elected for catching Nancy Reagan, and saving her hip.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

eg8r
09-02-2011, 08:26 AM
It is a shame Marco Rubio does not want to run. He definitely would be the best option out of the ones we have to pick from.

eg8r

eg8r
09-02-2011, 08:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another closeted Gay Repiglican? Oh noooooooooo, say it isn't so!
</div></div>Spoken by a true closeted homophobe.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-02-2011, 11:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is a shame Marco Rubio does not want to run. He definitely would be the best option out of the ones we have to pick from.

eg8r </div></div>

While that may be true, it says a lot of negative things about the current crop of hopefuls. Rubio has been a government employee all his life, I've heard anyway. (Corrections always welcomed.) Kinda like that other professional politician, Perry, and as Romney would have also been, had he gained election the various times he failed.

So another professional politician with no experience in the private sector is the guy you say would be the best of the field? Aren't you concerned about the career politician problem with him?

eg8r
09-02-2011, 01:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So another professional politician with no experience in the private sector is the guy you say would be the best of the field? </div></div>Why is "experience in the private sector" all of a sudden a question for you? It did not seem to matter when you were voting for Obama?

Or are you asking because you believe that it is a bone of contention for me personally? I think it does say a lot about the current crop of hopefuls and again there isn't a single person that really stands out so he would be my front runner if he ran. I don't remember too much about his career as a politician that really struck me negatively and the things he campaigned for I agreed with.

In the future if you are going to question the "experience" of a candidate then you had better make sure you did not vote for Obama otherwise you really have zero ground to stand on.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-02-2011, 02:18 PM
Right. I do not take you for a Democrat or a liberal or an Obama voter/supporter, and I presumed you would have thought the criticism of him, that he lacked private sector experience, had merit.

That's what I based my inquiry to you on, not any claim that I found that troubling. I thought y'all did, not saying I have standing to complain on that score. Just that I thought your side would, to be consistent. (Which is fairly stupid on my part, as few if any are really all that consistent, in political positions.)

However, in the current crop, only Caine has much of a track record in the private sector. I think Romney's private sector experience is more a disqualifier than an asset for his candidacy, since it was based on amping up the 'creative destruction' part of late-stage financialist capitalism, where pieces of paper get shuffled around, businesses closed and employees fired, and those causing those things to come about get $10s of millions of dollars or 10 x that figure for their 'good work.'

Gayle in MD
09-02-2011, 02:24 PM
Bravo!!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

LWW
09-02-2011, 03:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44366837#44366837)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed Schultz EXPLODES At Marco Rubio

</div></div>

Ed calls him out. Will he run?

Q </div></div>What exactly do you agree with Ed on ... in your own words, because his rant is so full of lies.

Soflasnapper
09-02-2011, 05:14 PM
After I 'voted' once by texting in, I used to get text messages stating 'Ed's fired up tonight!' And then explaining the lead topic, or whatever.

Yes, Ed is always fired up. He's always calling someone out-- rightly, in my view, more often than not, although sometimes not rightly (black cloud over America, anyone?).

In this case, Ed's correct, I think, to say that MR's statement that the 'big 3' social welfare programs have harmed America is nonsense, and contrary to his own statements concerning the aid they've given to his mother in her old age.

It isn't credible to claim that old people would be better off with their dignity by not receiving benefits, or more likely to be in a stronger financial condition if they weren't relying on these programs. The opposite is true, and we have the historical evidence on which to base that claim.

LWW
09-03-2011, 01:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The opposite is true, and we have the historical evidence on which to base that claim.
</div></div>

I'm waiting.

Qtec
09-03-2011, 03:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SOCIAL SECURITY REDUCES PROPORTION OF ELDERLY WHO ARE
POOR FROM NEARLY ONE IN TWO TO LESS THAN ONE IN EIGHT

More than 60 Percent of Those Lifted From Poverty Are Women


<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Social Security reduces the proportion of elderly people living in poverty</span> from nearly one in two to fewer than one in eight, according to a new study released today of Census data. The study found that in 1997, nearly half of all elderly people 47.6 percent had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9 percent remained poor.

As a result, the study said, Social Security raised out of poverty more than one in every three elderly Americans. The program lifted 11.4 million elderly people above the poverty line.

Without Social Security, the study found, 15.3 million elderly had incomes below the poverty line. After Social Security, only 3.8 million elderly did. Three-fourths of those elderly people who would have been poor without Social Security were lifted from poverty by it. </div></div>

A simple search by you could avoid all these embarrassing claims you make in almost every post.


Q...BTW, you always demand proof from the other poster and answer a Q with a Q. In this case you could have said 'you are wrong and here is why."

You didn't.

Too lazy to do your own research? Want others to do it for you? Sounds like Socialism to me.

Just another dependant.

Q

LWW
09-03-2011, 04:26 AM
I'm not necessarily disputing Ed's claim on this ... but I'm not licking the spoon clean, as you are, either.

A study by SS itself is inherently flawed in so many ways.

The primary flaw is that it works off of the assumptions:

1 - That if you took SS recipients today and stripped them of the money they would be deeply damaged.

2 - That if the same people would have had access to the SS funds ... quite substantial ... over their lifetime, they would have done nothing productive with it.

Point #1 is undoubtedly true, but it certainly doesn't prove Ed's point ... in fact it actually is a point on Rubio's side.

Point #2 is the big variable. Although many would have squandered the money, many more wouldn't have.

Beyond that ... any analysis of SS returns to participants versus what they would have had they invested a similar amount over the last 50 years shows that SS has done immense financial harm to our seniors.

Your problem is that you get all of your "TRUTH" from moonbat crtazy leftists pimping the state agenda.

eg8r
09-05-2011, 05:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just that I thought your side would, to be consistent. </div></div>As you point out later in your post, the Right does not have a great group to choose from so if Rubio ran then I would consider him a front runner for me.

eg8r

eg8r
09-05-2011, 05:58 PM
Loopy and the new CCB lapdog. Bravo gayle bravo.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-06-2011, 10:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SOCIAL SECURITY REDUCES PROPORTION OF ELDERLY WHO ARE
POOR FROM NEARLY ONE IN TWO TO LESS THAN ONE IN EIGHT

More than 60 Percent of Those Lifted From Poverty Are Women


<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Social Security reduces the proportion of elderly people living in poverty</span> from nearly one in two to fewer than one in eight, according to a new study released today of Census data. The study found that in 1997, nearly half of all elderly people 47.6 percent had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9 percent remained poor.

As a result, the study said, Social Security raised out of poverty more than one in every three elderly Americans. The program lifted 11.4 million elderly people above the poverty line.

Without Social Security, the study found, 15.3 million elderly had incomes below the poverty line. After Social Security, only 3.8 million elderly did. Three-fourths of those elderly people who would have been poor without Social Security were lifted from poverty by it. </div></div>

A simple search by you could avoid all these embarrassing claims you make in almost every post.


Q...BTW, you always demand proof from the other poster and answer a Q with a Q. In this case you could have said 'you are wrong and here is why."

You didn't.

Too lazy to do your own research? Want others to do it for you? Sounds like Socialism to me.

Just another dependant.

Q

</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

IMHO, providing proof for righties is a waste of time.

Proof, isn't part of their goal.

RW Spin, and distraction from the facts, is their only response, regardless of the PROOF, or any links, that any of us provide for them.

IMO, when someone denies cimate change,
denies The Theory Of Evolution,
denies the shame Bush brought to our country, by breaking our Treaty the Geneva Conventions, and using torture, then they are not worth our time.

If they continue to deny that Bush illegally spied on Americans, breaking the FISA laws,
deny that Bush et al, set about in ann concerted effort to create the outing a covert Noc CIA SECRET AGENT, for which Libby took the fall, and hence, Bush kept him out of jail, after he was convicted of obstruction and lying to the FBI,
or they continue to deny that Bush et al, lied us into the war in Iraq, then they are relegated to being just another one of the many brain washed, ignorant, RW Sheepies, bah bah bah! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

If you give them proof, it doen't stick, because PROOF, isn't what they want. PROOF, is what they hate!

G.

Qtec
09-08-2011, 07:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMHO, providing proof for righties is a waste of time. </div></div>

I agree. Its futile.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest </div></div>

Q..the Boxer

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 09:32 AM
We must destroy Repiglican Fascism before it's too late!