I feel the GOP should save time and just have each canadate give a speech and which ever one mentions Ronald Reagan the most time wins :p
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Only if they are rational, my friend.

While i'm not surpised to hear that Mitt profitted from doing away with jobs what i do find surpising is to hear these charges from his own party

After all this is what the GOP fight and stand for the rich getting richer and the midclass becoming the new poor
Mitt is so full of it when he claims Bain was in business to make jobs
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP Bain was in busness for Mitt and his partners to make money by gutting companies and taking the profits and run
and now the GOP is blasting Newt and Perry for attacking Mitt on his suscess
Mitt's and the rest of the GOP agenda is for a race to the bottom
low pay jobs no workers rights no rules turn the clock back to the days of the robber barons
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Stuff the GOP and Mitt want you to not know
http://youtu.be/Ay0UAeUmrWQ

:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Now that is one of the ironies of this corporate personhood nonsense I never noticed. Thanks for the video Jen.

For a while there I thought it was Dan Aykroyd narrating.

I think Ron Paul would be a much better choice against Obama. He wouldn't be my first pick against Obama. Sure he'd slash government, but he'd also make us an isolationist country. We should pull back in some parts of the world, but not all. And I couldn't picture the leader of our country with a whiney voice like his. He's another religious nutjob, but who on the GOP side isn't? But yeah, I'd take him over BO.

Nomination
 

When all of these idiots crash in flames, my bet is that waiting in the wings is Jeb Bush. He is an intelligent experienced politician with a Hispanic wife and of course he is a member of the bush dynasty.
Also, he is the one who could beat Obama.

After the 2010 routing of the democrats as a result of BO's, Pelosi's & Reid's agenda you'd have to wonder how BO has any chance in 2012. But on the other hand, I know it will be difficult... not sure why. I guess because BO somehow got elected in the first place.

An we all see how well that worked out

they are the least productive house of reps of all time and cost us out top credit rating by almost shutting down the goverment and refusing to make any kind of deal what so even
BO has an excellent chance of a second term and the chances improve when the remaining for bozos only answer is trickle down cut taxes and bring out the Reagan playbook in other words lets go back to the same policies that started this mess to start with
Face the cold hard facts the whole GOP strongly believe in closing your eyes and hoping things fix themselves
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Buddy Holly said it a long time ago
THAT'LL BE THE DAY
:turnoff: jERSEYGIRL jEN

Jeb
 

I am beginning to think the unthinkable. What if Jeb Bush (a moderate Republican) was elected President and Congress was controlled by the Republicans. What would happen?
Would they pull together and do things for the country? Or--would they turn the country into a full fledged plutocracy.
Continuing the way things are is very bad for the country with endless logjams bickering and stalemates, we have no effective government. For more years of this and we could see a real depression with violence in the streets.
We should be taking a close look at the Wiemar Republic. :eek:

take a GOP president add a GOP controled house then add a GOP controled senate and add the lop sided GOP controled unsurpme court that equals the USA being a thrid world country
plus look at the top three remaining canadates and we'll be reliving the holy crusades
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Yeah, one of the top three could put us into the stone age with Islamists paddling over here in rowboats.

A president Mitt or president Newt or president Rick will have us refighting the holy crusades and will unleash a nucler hellacaust sending who ever is left in to the stoneages
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Jen, it's time to wake up. What I'm about to show you may come as a shock, but it's from the real world.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7746VF20110806
The article goes on to say:
That's why we lost our AAA credit rating - because we didn't cut enough. So ask yourself, why has the House been ineffective? Because Obama - the guy who's $2.1 trillion plan falls short of the $4 trillion requirement - has veto power. If any part of this isn't clear please speak up now, otherwise I know I'll have to drudge up facts again.

As long as people ignore the facts...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM8Srpu8es8

Re: Obama's speech.
Where has this guy been? :frown:

And who's fault is that they didn't give him a bill with the 4 trillion cut?

Have you forgotton the BS from the Tea party wing of the GOP who refused to make or agree to anything unless social security was ended while the rich have there taxes lowered even more
THE BIGGEST PART OF THE ENTIRE DEFICT IS FROM w'S TAX CUTS AND HIS UNFONDED WARS
and the teaparty refuses to make the rich start paying there share
Nice to see you still live in the land of make believe the land that holds W and the GOP blameless for everything
and once people fully listen to the GOP plans to fix everything is going back to the same old failed polices of Reagan Bush and Bush just cut taxes for the rich and everyone will live happy ever after
welcome to the world of make believe folks our god is Ronald Reagan and our patron saint is any one named Bush
and our gods number one rule is the rich shall never be taxed after all thats what the poor are for
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

BO's. He would veto anything with cuts that big.

I believe their demands were no new taxes

blame bush crap snipped
The rich do pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. We went over this.

Was W pushing for higher cuts? No. Was W pushing for lower cuts? No. New taxes? No. Anything? No. HE WASN'T IN OFFICE LAST SUMMER! Stick to the subject. You were talking about how the house of reps cost us our credit rating. They were pushing for larger cuts last summer but BO would veto anything higher than $2.1 trillion in cuts. That's why we lost our credit rating.

That was all the teaparty wanted to do was cut cut and put all the burden on the poor, everyone but the GOP said point blank that cuts plus raising taxes were need but the teaparty was all cuts and wouldn't give they wanted the goverment to shot down they said we can then pick and choose what bills get paid BO didn't say those things the teaparty did news flash the GOP are at fault
It was W's taxcuts the teaparty didn't want to touch so in away he was involved
So your with Mitt and Newt crying boo hoo hoo the rich pay to much and the poor don't pay enought
Jerseygirl Jen

This is bullshit, and you know it. The rich -- e.g., Romney -- are in a position to "earn" their "income" via non-work (capital gains) and pay armies of accountants to find every possible loophole (created for them).

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit ... and more bullshit.

Of course you do know that if the teaparty would have been willing to work with the president instead of demanding our way or nothing a deal for the 4 trillion could have been reached in a fair way consisting of the 2 trillion in cuts and ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich consisting of 2 trillion that would have gave us the 4 trillion needed
But the teaparty wanted nothing to do with makeing rich people going from a base rate of 30% up to 33% base rate and as Mitt has shown he already pays nowhere near 30% and yet the GOP cry his taxes are to to high
Jerseygirl Jen

Moonbase Alpha
 

So Newt wants to have a fully up and running moonbase on the moon by the end of his second term :lol:
Now all the GOP bozos are screaming about the trillons of debit and want to cut everything and yet here's Newt wanting to waste trillions on a dream
didn't we learn a lesson after showing a brain dead move actor Star Wars Reagan came up with his Star War defence system that cost us billions of wasted funds for a mini deathstar that was surposed to orbit the earth and be able to fire a deatray anywhere on the planet
So i guess someone showed Newt an old sci-fi tv show and like Reagan he comes up with a huge money wasting idea
http://youtu.be/vt8Nb2SbKog
who ever showed Newt this show needs a foot up his ass
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

It was Obama who put the burden on the poor when he spent trillions on useless stimulus packages without raising taxes. Because it's going to have to be paid off sometime, and even if the rich paid all their money into taxes it wouldn't be enough, so the poor MUST help pay off the debt as well eventually. And yes, that was Obama's decision not to raise taxes.

A mini deathstar? I never heard about that one lol. Reagan knew the starwars defense system wasn't feasible but we acted like we were developing it anyway. It was a scam. The russians spent billions trying to counter it and spent themselves into a hole. The Soviet Union collapsed trying to keep up with 1) what we actually had, and 2) what they thought we had. Brilliant move.

A moon colony has nothing to do with a real or imagined missile defense system. I'm in the business and while I'd love to see it happen I doubt it will at least not in 8 years, because yes, it will be expensive. What Newt is trying to do is create incentives for private industry to spend mostly their own money to develop the technologies that will eventually become profitable (like our aviation industry did in the 30s & 40s) for them with space tourism and access to literally worlds of resources beyond earth orbit. If it works even half as well as he hopes it will be profitable.

OH i forgot that W had nothing to do with most of the debit like his two unfonded wars and his tax cuts for the rich

You and the rest of the GOP are so quick to shove the debit that W ran up over to the current president
W was given a balanced budget and a surplus and he flush both away with his first round of tax cuts then he started two unfonded wars followed by another round of tax cuts for the rich
Obama was unable to raise taxs because the GOP scream if the rich have to pay taxs the world would end
If the taxs on the poor go up the GOP don't give a shit they only care about the rich not paying taxs
Taxs going up is a delayed FU from W
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

WOW that's a major spin on Reagans stars wars defence system
But if that was just a big plot to get Russia to waste money trying to come up with an anti star wars defence system then why was it put in the budget for most of the 80s what did brain dead Reagan waste the money on?
oh wait i guess that paid for the weapons sent to Iran that Oliver North was the patsy for
by the by Russia didn't go bankrupt because of trying to make an anti star wars system it was the war in Afgan that bankrupted em
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

SDI research. But it wasn't the mass infusion of money that you imply. It was just $5 billion/year. That's $2 billion more than cash for clunkers. A drop in the bucket. Nothing like the hundreds of billions it would take to actually implement it.

Wow, you're more delusional than I thought. I could have sworn that what Newt was trying to do was merely pander for votes in Florida. He's been a very "chicken in every pot" at each campaign stop he makes. If New Hampshire needs a bridge, let's promise a bridge! Florida lost jobs in the space industry, so let's promise more space industry jobs!

He talks about "incentivizing" the private industry to do most of the spending, but with promises of a "reward" for the winners. Who's going to pay for the "reward?" The taxpayers you can be certain. Pretty odd talk coming from a politician who alleges to be for cutting the size of government and government spending.

Further, comparing the $5 billion/year on Star Wars spending to the $2 billion spent on cash for clunkers is really an apples to oranges comparison because you're not adjusting 1980's dollars for inflation. $5 billion was worth a LOT more back then than it'd be worth today.

You're right that he is pandering for votes, but that's what the majority of policticians do.

Not sure what the attitude is all about but whatever. Newt has been known to have a higher than average interest in space, and many if the ideas he's proposed in Florida has been mentioned by him repeatedly long before he even started campaigning.

Who pays airlines after the aviation infrastructure had finally been put in place? Customers. Yes, it does take seed money from the government to get it started. Unfortunately the way it's been running is very inefficient with each new president wanting to play rocket scientist. But this time it's going to require a president with some interest in space to undo the damage Obama has done to our manned space program.

p.s. I am rather surprised by a move that Romney made. He's always struck me as someone who couldn't give a crap about space. In response to Newt's speeches on space he's said he's going to put together a team and study it. And I'm thinking, oh no, here we go again with another think tank to tell us what we all know, that Nasa should be X Y & Z but that Nasa is underfunded, but this time we're going to fund it, but then it never really gets funded and we're back to square one again.

You don't need another space commission to figure it out. The Aldridge Commission got it exactly right. They put together a plan for a space program that wasn't just about putting foot prints on the moon, or attempting to inspire kids with visions of astronauts floating around in the space station slurping up floating balls of tang. They saw the solar system as a place full of resources that could be tapped and put together a plan to build up our capabilities in space to live off the land and get it done. Obama had another commission, which concluded the Aldridge commission was right, but that it would cost more money. Unfortunately at that time Obama was done giving out trillion dollar bills, and the extra 3 billion was just too much. And I wasn't interested in Romney's commission doing the same thing over again and coming up with the same answer again while wasting another few years and more money.

Then I heard who his advisers are: Robert Crippen, Gene Cernan, and Michael Griffin. Three people... well maybe two (Robert Crippen's a great guy who was in the right place at the right time, but I'm talking about the elites) of probably around 10 who really could do this right. The best of the best. And Romney has them? He couldn't possibly know what to do with them.

Mitt speaks a haftruth of CNN
 

So Mitt admits he can care less about poor people no surpise there after all he's GOP
then comes the lie he quickly states the poor have safetynets so they are fine :lol:
Excuss me but the GOP have for decades wanted and do everything they can to ripe to shreds any safenets that help the poor after all safenets that help the poor is socialism
So the poor have safetynets which he and the rest of the GOP have stated time and time agian there goal is to do away with all safety nets
Just a anoter :coupling: from the GOP
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

ps remember that an aborted baby can't grow up to become a died solider :no:

The GOPers know the poor don't vote.

Are conservatives stupid?
 

Watching the campaign rhetoric and behavior of the candidates, it's not hard to agree with some of the following.


From Huffpost,

]]

I would agree with that about social conservatives. They're typified by right wing religious anti science conservatives such as those who have hijacked the tea party. I would also say that coming up with a balanced budget is a pretty easy IQ test. One which both parties fail at and Obama, Pelosi and other progressives spectacularly so.

Junk science masquerading as legitimate fact.

Please tell me who has come up with a balanced budget in the past thirty years? It seems just about all politicians are stupid.

Some more food for thought.

Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?

1. Jaime L. Napier and
2. John T. Jost

+ Author Affiliations

1. New York University

1. Jaime L. Napier, Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10003?6634, e-mail: jnapier@nyu.edu.

Abstract


Personally, I think this is BS. All the conservatives I know are pissed off all the time. LOL

And liberals are happy all the time. Oops sorry, they aren't. They're usually too pissed off and railing at the conservatives to have any happiness in their lives.

But on second thought liberals are happiest when they're pissed off and ranting about conservatives. It's the whole purpose of their being.

That one's easy...

Sure is just look at the conseratives you have pictured

Take a good look and ask yourself what do they all have in common?
Answer they are all total whackjobs
And no one is happier then a total nut
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

It would be interesting to compare the IQs of those two groups of females.;)

I'd take Miss Crowley's body & brains any time :inlove:... I'd keep my cock though ;)

Oh! I thought you were into Ann Coulter. :lol:

The Republicans need to reincarnate Ronald Reagen and
The Democrats need to reincarnate Franklin Roosevelt then
everybody would be happy.
In the meantime :frown:

:lol: Good one, Randolph.

This might surprise some of our Liberal friends.

so if cutting taxes for the rich creates jobs then where's the jobs?
 

All you hear from the GOP is the rich create jobs and by cutting there taxes the rich in turn will create jobs
So W cut taxes for the rich not once but twice and those cuts are still in effect and unlike all the BS from the GOP the truth is Obama did not add or raise taxes on these so called job creating saints
So taxes on these job creaters has been cut for 12 years now so where are these jobs
All four wanna be GOP presidents are screaming make the Bush tax cuts periment and give them even more tax cuts and it will put everyone back to work
Why do people buy in to this BULLSHIT?
it hasn't worked so far so way by keeping this :coupling: policy going will all of asudden work
So far all the GOP plans to restore America is keep the the failed agenda going by
:coupling: the poor
deregalating rules for big bussiness and wallstreet
Doing away with social security and medicare
starting more wars
and make sure the top one percent never pay any taxes
just the same tired old GOP FU to the working class
been there seen it lived it done it 2001-2008, 1980-1992,1968-1976
WAKE UP AMERICA
A GOP whitehouse will make us a thrid world country
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

The unemployment rate during most of W's presidency has been pretty good - around 5-6%. Since financial collapse (a consequence of lending practices not taxing), Obama has decided to keep the Bush tax cuts not so much to create jobs but because he knows if he raises taxes that will increase unemployment. But you know that already.

And you know that Obama decided to keep the tax cuts because it was the only way he could get the Republicans to agree to other measures that were necessary at the time.

Tracy Coxx: Friend of the Working Man. Fighting for Capital, the Commodification of Man and the American Way!

Can you see it ladies and gentlemen? Can you see those beautiful green pants and that brilliant white shirt emblazoned with dollar signs--a gaudy display that would make the Riddler squeal in joy?

As you well know, I rarely agree with Tracy Coxx on anything political or economic. But he makes a claim in the post to which you refer, by inference, that raising taxes will increase unemployment. That is a position that can be debated and shown to be patently false. How about taking on that, Enoch Root? It would be a far greater contribution to the discussion.

Low taxes are always spoken of in terms of a "keystone." That is, they are the most important part without which the rest of the system--the "arch" in the analogy--would not work. The way in which they work is namely raising employment: the lower the taxes the higher the employment. The corollary is obvious and has already been stated: raising taxes lowers employment. Bush instituted the cuts, they survive to this day, we still have an unemployment problem. All things which Jen has stated in the past.

But, if I understand smc's post correctly, there is a better way to go about this:
Tracy, by what method do lower taxes lead to higher employment?

Jen - I LOVE your definition. You sum it up neatly.

Are you sure about that? You might want to look up the numbers of republicans and democrats in the house at that time.

The majority does not rule in the senate? Huh?

This election year is going to the dogs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEBN8wOKjMo

Uhhh, I take it you've completely missed this meme? This in no way compares Obama to hitler. There's a bunch of these videos on youtube with the same scene where Hitler's going ballistic about something. On Youtube people change the subtitles to all kinds of funny things, like this one where he doesn't like the ending to harry potter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rytV6i6bSnA

There's another one where he finds out his car has a parking boot put on it, or that Santa isn't real or that someone blew up his death star. This is yet another one that someone made with the revelation (recent revelation if you haven't read Obama's book) that he's eaten dog before. Did you miss that too? Dog recipes are flying all over the internet now (golden fried retriever, etc) and of course the hitler meme is not immune to it either.

I missed none of it. There's nothing funny about Hitler. How about answering the question I posed.

The joke obviously wasn't meant for you then.

Answer my question.

Anyone else think Hitler is funny? How about in the context of Tracy Coxx's other political posts about Obama and Obama's positions, and given the Tuse of Hitler images at public Tea Party events. Or how about the recent statement by a Catholic bishop likening Obama to Hitler and Stalin?

Do you repudiate all of the liberals who made such comparisons about Bush?

Absolutely, without equivocation. Any such comparison, besides being wrong, is scurrilous and without historical merit. And please note that I do not consider myself to be a liberal, nor do I hold liberal views by any genuine definition of that term. My views are considerably to the left of any "liberal," whether the U.S. definition of the term or the more widespread definition of the term globally.

Thanks:kiss: enough said.

I don't mind people offering criticism about specific actions. What I don't llike is people who make blanket statments (basically ammounting to, he's just stupid) based on political party lines, personal opinion, or (dare I even say it) race.

See this is what smc does. The video I posted makes absolutely no comparison between Obama and Hitler. But what has smc turned this into? An accusation that I did precisely that. And now others are asking smc if he would repudiate liberals who would _compare_ Bush to Hitler. The topic has now been successfully changed and I will be accused of not responding to criticisms or direct questions about my posts when in fact you are now talking about something I never did: comparing people to Hitler which has now been attributed to me.

I don't think Hitler is funny, but I do think the posted video is funny. I've seen the same video with Hitler going to Sturgis on a Honda and another when Hitler found out that Toronto had been eliminated from the playoffs. I found all of them funny as they are just spoofs. I'm pretty sure the creators of these video clips did not intend to compare Hitler or his actions to anyone else. I'm equally sure that the videos were created to give others a laugh.

smc, I'm sorry for what happened to your family. It was a crime against humanity, but I don't see the video as attenuating the circumstances of what happened to your family and to the Jewish people. Nor do I see the video as making light of Hitler's and his regime's criminal acts.

It took you a week to find the reference to Obama in the title? Hopefully it doesn't take you another week to realize that reference does not mean comparison.

Fine. Then leave me out of it and whine about jpjoiner, the person who posted the video on youtube if you're not attributing the comparison to me.

Your point shifted focus away from the humor of the video. Have you considered that?

You've said that before and no one took it seriously. It's funny that you say it again... which is ironic if there's no humor allowed in political threads.

Just passing this on...
""Of course jokes are posted in the political thread.
Anything posted about the big "O" or by smc."

You don't think this has serious readers do you?:no:"

Ooh, should I go complain to the site owner or another moderator about you insulting me in a post? I've always wondered how it would feel to be Tracy Coxx, and this could be my chance to live the Tracy Coxx life vicariously, if even for a brief moment. (By the way, I saw the title when I first saw your post, but don't let that get in the way of trying to make me look stupid.)

Once again, I didn't attribute the comparison to you. But keep making that claim. Say it enough times, and eventually -- truth be damned -- someone other than you will believe it.

I stand by what I wrote about Hitler earlier.

I didn't write that humor wasn't allowed in the political threads. But, as is typical, you dodge the main point I did make on this particular subtopic of the argument: why did YOU choose to put it in a political thread? I don't expect you to answer, or address the issues about the comparisons made by others that make it so disgusting.

And once again leave me out of it and whine about jpjoiner, the person who posted the video on youtube if you're not attributing the comparison to me.

Then you're just nitpicking again? Thanks for clarifying.

I know you're not stupid, so why do you keep pretending to be?

And once again, I didn't attribute the comparison to you. You know it, I know it, and anyone with half a brain reading this knows it. As I wrote earlier, keep making that claim. Say it enough times, and eventually -- truth be damned -- someone other than you will believe it.

Then you're just dodging the issue again. Thanks for clarifying.

Fine, and I'll say again, you should make comments like the following:
to someone else. You're not attributing it to me. Ok, I believe you. I thought you raised that point because it had something to do with the video I posted, but apparently it's just some random trivia. So you have a problem with some people comparing Obama to Hitler. That is #1, irrelevant to anything mentioned before, and #2 irrelevant to me. Again, take it to someone else, I don't care who.

Ok, so we're done with the comparison thing, and you'll take that up with someone else. I wish you luck in resolving that. I think that just leaves why I chose to put a humorous youtube video in a political thread. You've eliminated forum rule violations as your motivation for asking this, so I guess it's just a curiosity of yours.

Sure. We can do that. The issue we're now discussing is why TracyCoxx wanted to post a Hitler spoof video where it makes it look like Hitler is angry about discovering that Obama ate his dog Fluffy. Yes smc, I will do that for you. Would you prefer to split this thread into this new discussion or should we just continue along in here to discuss this issue?

I merely took your odd accusations and demands to their logical conclusions.
You're right in one sense - it is not a victory I would want to celebrate. Not because of the enormous cost of winning or the devastated state I now find myself in but because this petty argument you insisted on having could have ended up no other way. By becoming so indignant over trivial things like a headmaster demanding little Johnny share his joke with the rest of the class you put yourself in this position.

Might I suggest the addition of this for the site?
http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-9529.gif

On the contrary I said I would go so far as split this thread or devote my time in this one to discuss your issue. In response you waved the white flag. I am still open to discuss it if you'd like. It can only get better lol.

LOL well wha-d'ya know... smc made a funny. Well played.

Ok, attention everyone following this thread. This thread that I started was intended to be a place to discuss the GOP candidates. I posted a spoof video that had nothing to do with GOP candidates. I know that was poor form. Neither Hitler, Obama or Obama's dog eating past have anything to do with the GOP, but I thought well it's just one quick post. I figured people would look at it, laugh, or not, and go on with their lives. Yeah I know, I keep forgetting about smc. So the posted video and the following posts are now one tenth of a 6 page thread on GOP candidates. smc sees nothing wrong with continuing with his hitler spoof video interrogations in this same thread so fine. There's only one GOP candidate now anyway. At least only Romney has more than a snowball's chance in hell. So fine, might as well.

Why did I post a Hitler spoof video where it looks like Hitler is angry about discovering that Obama ate his dog Fluffy?

BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY! And as I mentioned before, I figured I'd just post it and people would look at it, laugh, or not, and go on with their lives. And you know what? Other people thought it was funny too. Now you know. Shall we make it one fifth now?

What can I say, some moderators bring the best out of people. Don't stop now. We have arrived here at your insistence. I've tried ignoring you in the past, so now I'm indulging you. People are wondering why one tenth of this thread is filled with this nonsense. Show them what is so important about your issues that make turning one insignificant post into a 30 post train wreck. We are dying to know!

If you're not accusing me of making the comparison, then what does the obama/hitler comparison have to do with anything? It's not me or something I said, and it's not the video -there's no obama/hitler comparison at all in the video. If you can show how the random fact that some people somewhere carry signs of Obama made to look like Adolf Hitler has anything to do with a Hitler spoof video made to look like Obama ate Hitler's dog then I'll answer your question. Otherwise you're trying to derail the discussion again. And no, I'm not dodging. I'm not going to answer every random inflammatory, extraneous, off-topic remark you make. The Obama/Hitler comparison has nothing to do with the video. You're just flinging crap to see what sticks.

I've pretty much tuned out this entire Hitler back-and-forth. But for what it's worth, Tracy, you DO have a pretty well established history of dodging the meat and potatoes of a post and trying to change the topic. Presumably this is because you don't have a substantive argument to back up your beliefs.

Impressive associative reasoning, no doubt invented right before you wrote the above post, but you made the link. A tenuous one, but a link, so I'll indulge you some more.

So are you saying you're asking my thoughts about the Obama/Hitler comparison because this is a GOP candidates thread, and the Hitler video reminded you that some supporters of the tea party, a political movement that the GOP candidates gave varying degrees of lip service to, have made Obama/Hitler comparisons? And not because the video itself compares Obama to Hitler in any way?

In other words, you haven't read this post, but you're going to say because you've seen me dodge smc in the past I have no point now. Yes, I've dodged him in the past when he's used administrative measures to settle an argument. He's doing better now so I'm indulging his attempts to derail the topic. I don't know if you've noticed, but I've always done my best to answer your posts to me. I know smc has a habit of answering for you, as he does for other people, so maybe you think me avoiding him and his attempts to derail topics equates to me avoiding answering you. But as far as I know, I have always responded to you. I don't expect you to notice every nuance between smc and me, because frankly, most if it is pretty juvenile, so I cut you slack for your perception of me, and your rude posts to me and answer calmly and to the best of my ability because you seem like an intelligent person that I'd like to have a conversation with if you know who wouldn't keep getting in the middle of it.

prediction: smc will now accuse me of wanting private conversations. I am not though. It would just be nice to have a conversation with other people on this forum without being interrupted by the same person every single time.

uh oh... smc is using font size 3 now. This must be serious! I'd hate to get him up to font size 4 :(
Careful GRH, you wouldn't want to read my response to you without being properly framed by smc. smc, you are denigrating GRH and everyone else here you answer for by presuming they cannot think for themselves.

And did I nail it or what?
more font size 3 stuff...
LOL it shouldn't amuse me so much to predict the oh so predictable. But seriously... I'm not saying conversations have to be private at all, but after 4-5 years on here I just wonder what it's like to talk to someone without being interrupted by the moderator. Just wondering... Can I wonder?

No, now hold on. I'm going to have to get you on that one. You said:
So in your round-about reasoning this is a legitimate discussion for the thread. Fine, you go and discuss it. I still don't see how this is a discussion I provoked.

Dodge and dissemble. Your name must be Tracy D. Coxx.

Sure, it looks like you did since you use the time-honored trick of doing something, calling it something else, and then making a big issue of it as the "something else" every time you're called on doing the "something" it really is.

More dodge and dissemble. You just don't want to have to answer when you can't ... just as GRH wrote in her response to you above.

Of course you "don't see" because you choose not to see, and because doing so requires that you answer the simple question I posed, and that tslust saw as a simple question, and that the two of us were able to answer to each other quite easily. I've lost track of how many times you've dodged the question now.

By the way, where's your post excoriating tslust for intervening in the discussion? :rolleyes: