U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-17-2009, 09:22 PM
 
4,669 posts, read 4,070,179 times
Reputation: 409

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen View Post
I want to preface my comment by stating I'm a republican and a very libertarian minded one at that.

That said, where were all these protesters during the Bush administration? No actual tax raises have been implemented, they are protesting on the assumption of increased taxes in the future- which may or may not be a true assumption.

This to me seemed much much more an orchestrated Fox News event than an actual grass roots outpouring.

To suggest somehow that the citizens in the masses are upset with the administration is pretty silly.

Again, i'm a very libertarian minded republican and think fiscal responsibility should be of paramount consideration, but I put ZERO stalk into this display as its nothing but an outpouring of hypocrisy. People need to turn off Rush Limbaugh and actually read the newspaper for themselves.

The republican party right now is an absolute joke and about all they can muster is silly displays like the "tea parties" and the never ending of obsession with Obama's citizenship. The republican party needs actual leaders in the republican party, people like Reagan, Dole, even George Bush Sr. What they have now are these twisted followers who do nothing but pander to the religious extremists of the party. And if that doesn't work they trumpet the socialization of America on Fox News or on Rush, but never provide any actual objective reason for that conclusion!

I want one of them to actually step up and propose an actual and useful alternative!! Its pathetic and I'm currently embarrassed to call myself a republican.

Yes, GWB liked to spend money. But he never came anywhere remotely close to a $3.5 Trillion budget.

And I do find it interesting the MSM calling the protesters "racist". This has nothing to do with race.

 
Old 04-17-2009, 09:31 PM
 
Location: Chicago
3,340 posts, read 8,688,269 times
Reputation: 1215
Aren't we one big happy family?
 
Old 04-17-2009, 09:39 PM
 
1,156 posts, read 1,225,164 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen View Post
Okay! This is absurd. I don't know how many times i stated that my issue isn't whether the spending is good or bad. In fact, I stated I'm against!! So why do you keep asking me these ridiculously childish question about spending??

MY ISSUE IS WITH THE TEA PARTIES AND THE FACT THAT THOSE WHO ATTENDED WERE USED BY THE CRAZY RIGHT WING ZEALOTS (FOX, RUSH, BECK, AND ETC.) FOR PROFIT!

Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but then it was being reported by these same people that it was this amazing grass roots efforts. Ha! Then people like you get on and say things like: "oh its only been 100 days" - suggesting that there is so much social upheaval over it. Well, there isn't huge social upheaval over it. A few thousand in a few cities...does not equate an uprising.

Nevertheless, I went through and answered your questions. Here ya go!

First, your questions aren't really questions...they're rhetorical questions. So as far as a child goes...he/she would recognize there is nothing to answer...they're simple rhetorical jabs with not intellectual consequence.

Acorn: So what? I don't care about Acorn's tactics. I railed against them during the election. That is NOT the issue here. You have a real problem even recognizing what my premise is!

Media: Don't care what the media did! My whole thesis pertained to what the Tea Partiers were doing. I've never professed a love for the media. But that's not this conversation. Why is your questioin relevant? I could ask you what color of car you have...does it mean anything here???

Michael Steele: Again, how is this relevant??

Am I typically hypocritical or only when I pretend to be conservative: Well, this pretty much sums up your line of questioning. Nothing but rhetorical questions trying to jab at my character. This is exactly how the zealots I'm condemning act. But for the record, I answered that question several times. I stated that I am a conservative, as I'm a fiscal conservative and social libertarian.

How will it be paid without increased taxation: Well, again, I answered this. Increased GDP and as a result increased corporate profits...leading to more jobs...and an increase in per capita individual tax revenue and business tax revenue. Not to even mention the budgetary decreases that could occur because of improved efficiencies in various areas, efficiencies that may be realized via some governmental investment. Not to mention the equity positions taken in the bailouts. None of these require raising taxes on an individual. But again, why is this relevant?? I have already said I SUPPORT LOWER SPENDING!!!!!!!! But to couch it in terms of a checking account model as you do so so over simplifies the problem that it doesn't really even warrant a response. My point it is far more complicated than you try to paint it.

Is lending a friend $100 different than $300? $1,000 versus $3,000?: AGAIN! Why is this relevant??! This is exactly one of my points! You try to reduce the world's largest economy to a PIGGY BANK!! If lending a friend $3000 will allow him to fix his situation allowing him to make $5000 then its justified. Again, its incredibly simplistic and has zero intellectual consequence. Is a square different than a triangle...huh? Come on...provide the answer...it is the key to a trillion dollar stalling economy for a country with a population of 300 million+ people immersed in an era of failing infrastructure and robust global economic expansion and competion. duh!

Financial Stake of Fox, etc.: The point is it was being heralded as a grass roots effort!! That can't be the case if its an orchestrated event by a billion dollar news network!! Further, Fox is suppose to report the news...not make it! Oh wait...I already answered this one.

Am I gay? Wow! How unbelievably little of you! No. I'm not gay! But why would that matter! I don't just get upset when my rights are intruded on! I get upset when the government tries to intrude in other people's bedroom too! Again...how very "Rush" of you.

How much do i make: Its none of your business, but my wife and I will have our taxes go up under Obama's plan. But that's what happens when you have two doctorates and law degree between the two of you. Where exactly you get the 80% number is beyond me?! Again....a bit of zealous speculating (er...rather fear mongering).

And, again, I stated about 87 times now that I think spending should be restrained!!!!!!!!!!! For god's sake, how many times do I have to say that is NOT THE ISSUE HERE!! My whole freaking point is I HATE THE ZEALOUS RIGHT WING AND I BELIEVE THE TEA PARTIERS WERE USED BY THOSE RIGHT WINGERS, INCLUDING FOX NEWS, GLEN BECK, AND RUSH LIMBAUGH!!

Reagan: Loved him! But he would never behave in the way the republican leaders of today do. And he would never condone the behavior of Rush, Beck or Fox News. He was actually a statesman....kind of a forgotten species. Today its nothing but twist, misconstrue, misquote and take out of context, and fear peddle. Oh wait...you're familiar with that!
You ask how many of the questions are even relevant when you were told that they were removed from their context. It seems you couldn't even make it past the first full paragraph. You can't figure out that that means you need to refer to the original posts to figure out what their relevance is? Are you kidding?

And no, the questions weren't rhetorical. They establish your character. You make some obviously hypocritical comments and then want to condemn protesters for being hypocrites. Obviously that means you're just as worthless as they are. That is, unless you show how you weren't being hypocritical thus the several opportunities to defend yourself. Nothing rhetorical.

But hey you're all about casting stones against others and then refusing to justify your own faults.

you want to pretend that your issue is only the Tea Parties but it's obvious from your posts that it goes beyond it. Heck you're almost frothing at the mouth because someone insist that you answer their questions after they have answered yours.

You've contradicted yourself so many times it's ridiculous. Supposedly, it's not about the protesters it's about those behind it. Then you use pejoratives to describe the protesters.

If you would just be consistent, open, honest, and answer questions when they're asked there'd be a lot less confusion.
 
Old 04-17-2009, 11:08 PM
 
Location: West Omaha
1,181 posts, read 3,646,232 times
Reputation: 477
I'm done! Of course I know I had to take them in the context of the original post!!! The questions were irrelevant even then! And you absolutely know that's what I meant when I said they were irrelevant! I even referenced the original comments. You're simply dodging the actual issues again.

If you don't think so then go through and explain why they're relevant. I answered all your childish questions. Now why don't you respond to my answers?? You can't. You simply try and turn it into an attack on my character...which you practically admit openly. You know nothing about my background or my character! And the fact that you can follow the most simple argument is not an indictment of my character.

My whole post is about the Tea Parties...NOT the idea of fiscal responsibility!

Give me a break. Your have turned your entire argument into an ad hominem attack. But that is what one usually has to resort to when they're out of substance.

I have answered nearly every single one of your comments. Now you're just being pathetic. I have also never contradicted myself. I have repeatedly said it's about the protesters but that I don't think they're all to blame...I stated that in my first post! In general, I blame Fox and Co., but to be successful there has to be a nice sized portion of no name zealots who fell into the whole affair.

Anyway, you basically have refused to even address my comments. You simply respond to my responses completely redefining the discussion.

Again, not really sure where I'm being hypocritical. I'm not sure how many times i have to tell you that I'm a fiscal conservative. But just because I am does not mean I have to be petty and little and resort to the politics that so many of the right wing zealots take part in right now. I'm not so sure why that's hard for your to understand...other than you know you're being petty and you're trying to rationalize your behavior.

And how do you come up with "I'm practically frothing at the mouth??" What are you? A 12 year old??!!



My entire thesis boils down to this statement:

I think many of the Tea Partiers were manipulated by entities such as Fox, Rush, and Glenn Beck, and, thus, it was not the organic grassroots movement as many of the zealous would want us to believe.

Your response boils down to this:

1) What is wrong with cutting back spending and how are we going to pay this off without raising taxes; and 2) My comments are hypocritical and I refuse to answer your questions.


Do you see any correlation between your response and my original objection to the Tea Party?? Show me exactly where I said the spending plan was good! I didn't...I explicitly said it was bad! But instead of actually directing your rage at my actual original claim you just start making assumptions about my political beliefs and my lifestyle. You claimed I wasn't conservative, made an inference that I was in a lower tax bracket - thus benefiting from the spending plan on the backs of others; and 3) suggested I were gay. This, all because I had the audacity to question the legitimacy of an alleged "grassroots uprising" of Tea Party partakers, whose entire attendance, at a maximum represented less than 0.08% of the population.

And as far as 2) goes...you haven't shown one example of me being hypocritical and I have answered nearly every single one of your questions...all without you ever responding to mine.

Your tactics are a joke and your antics have done nothing but illustrated exactly what is so so so wrong with much of the republican party. You're a close minded hack who could not argue his way out of a way paper bag, so, rather, you turn the argument into an attack on me personally. Its petty, childish and completely transparent.

I'm officially done with this conversation as you've wasted enough of my time.

Last edited by mattpoulsen; 04-17-2009 at 11:17 PM..
 
Old 04-17-2009, 11:17 PM
 
1,156 posts, read 1,225,164 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen View Post
I'm done! Of course I know I had to take them in the context of the original post!!! The questions were irrelevant even then! And you absolutely know that's what I meant when I said they were irrelevant! I even referenced the original comments. You're simply dodging the actual issues again.

If you don't think so then go through and explain why they're relevant. I answered all your childish questions. Now why don't you respond to my answers?? You can't. You simply try and turn it into an attack on my character...which you practically admit openly. You know nothing about my background or my character! And the fact that you can follow the most simple argument is not an indictment of my character.

My whole post is about the Tea Parties...NOT the idea of fiscal responsibility!

Give me a break. Your have turned your entire argument into an ad hominem attack. But that's what one usually has to resort to when they're out of substance.

I have answered nearly every single one of your comments. Now you're just being pathetic. I have also never contradicted myself. It is about the protesters but I don't think they're all to blame...I stated that in my first post! I blame Fox and Co.

Anyway, you basically have refused to even address my comments. You simply respond to my responses by saying...completely redefining the discussion.

Again, not really sure where I'm being hypocritical. I'm not sure how many times i have to tell you that I'm a fiscal conservative. But just because I am does not mean I have to be petty and little and resort to the politics that so many of the right wing zealots take part in. I'm not so sure why that's hard for your to understand...other than you know you're being petty and you're trying to rationalize your behavior.

And how do you come up with "I'm practically frothing at the mouth??" What are you? A 12 year old??!!



My entire thesis boils down to this statement:

I think many of the Tea Partiers were manipulated by entities such as Fox, Rush, and Glenn Beck, and, thus, it was not the organic grassroots movement as many of the zealous would want us to believe.

Your response boils down to this:

1) What is wrong with cutting back spending and how are we going to pay this off without raising taxes; and 2) My comments are hypocritical and OI refuse to answer your questions.

Do you see any correlation between your response and my original objection to the Tea Party?? Show me exactly where I said the spending plan was good! I didn't...I explicitly said it was bad! And as far as 2) goes...you haven't shown one example of me being hypocritical and I have answered nearly every single one of your questions...all without you ever responding to mine.

Your tactics are a joke and your antics have done nothing but illustrated exactly what is so so so wrong with much of the republican party. You're a close minded hack who could not argue his way out of a way paper bag, so, rather, you turn the argument into an attack on me personally. Its petty and childish and completely transparent.

I'm officially done with this conversation as you've wasted enough of my time.
Yeah, the your premise that Republicans are running the Tea Parties yet you say it's irrelevant to ask about Michael Steele who, as chairman of the Republican National Committee, was refused the opportunity to speak at a Tea Party. Yeah, totally irrelevant except to anyone up for an honest debate.

Then you presume to speak for me and my position.

You're right the converstation is over but not because of my behavior rather it's your incosistent and vapid positions that ended this before it ever began.

But you go on pretending to be a conservative it's entertaining. I especially like you whining about ad hominem attacks when you began this discussion denigrating everyone who attended the rallies.

You're such a joke.
 
Old 04-17-2009, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,878 posts, read 102,269,915 times
Reputation: 32945
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
Yes, GWB liked to spend money. But he never came anywhere remotely close to a $3.5 Trillion budget.

And I do find it interesting the MSM calling the protesters "racist". This has nothing to do with race.
I don't know what went on at the tea parties in Omaha/Papillion, but I've seen pictures from various rallies around the country, and believe me, there was a lot of racism there. Go over to Politics and Other Controversies and look at the pictures on some of the tea party threads. Some of the pix are totally appalling.
 
Old 04-17-2009, 11:27 PM
 
Location: West Omaha
1,181 posts, read 3,646,232 times
Reputation: 477
kdbrich,

I agree, it generally isn't about race. But that isn't my complaint. See the above 95 pages to see my initial point.

As far as Bush's budget, well, if he had been in power for another 6 months he would have spent about the exact same amount. Obama's plan essentially paralleled Bush's. It may have been a bit smaller or larger, but it would have been in the same ball park.

This is another issue I have with the Tea Partiers complaints. This budget includes one time spending plans that are for bailout, a stimulus bill, and a mortgage bailout. I have issues with all of them, but its dishonest to take this budget of Obamas and compare it to Bush's, as Obama's would not have included the 3 above things if Bush had not driven the economy into the ground in the first place.

We can both agree on being fiscally conservative. But all I'm asking for is an actual honest appraisal of the factual situation and an actual recognition that the spending in this administration isn't much different than the previous administration...the circumstances are different not the philosophy. This Tea Party movement, for that failure, in my opinion, is completely disingenuous. I agree they both are bad, but, again, I think it peculiar that the Tea Party movement was nonexistent during the Bush administration.
 
Old 04-17-2009, 11:37 PM
 
Location: West Omaha
1,181 posts, read 3,646,232 times
Reputation: 477
Omaha,

How do you say I'm pretending to be a conservative??? What evidence is there of that??!

The fact that I can't stand zealotry?? Nothing that I stated suggested that I didn't agree with fiscal conservatism! I explicitly stated I disagreed with the recent spending bills! How do you make that leap? Seriously! You have accused me of not being a conservative about 5 times now but have yet listed ONE SINGLE REASON FOR IT...other than I disagree with you on an unrelated issue. wow!

And how am I speaking for YOUR position?? About what?? That's just utter nonsense. I'm not assuming to speak on your behalf for anything.

And it can't be an ad hominem attack when I'm talking about a 3rd party! Ad hominem debate tactics are faulty by definition! It doesn't mean that one can't discuss the behavior of a third party for crying out loud. By that same logic I couldn't condemn sexual predators!

I also didn't say republicans were running the Tea Parties!!!!!!!! I said Fox, Rush, and Glenn Beck, who are part of the zealous group of republicans that has hijacked the entire republican party, were running the Tea Parties. But go ahead and ignore this recent clarification and accuse me of saying something else that I didn't say.
 
Old 04-17-2009, 11:54 PM
 
1,156 posts, read 1,225,164 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I don't know what went on at the tea parties in Omaha/Papillion, but I've seen pictures from various rallies around the country, and believe me, there was a lot of racism there. Go over to Politics and Other Controversies and look at the pictures on some of the tea party threads. Some of the pix are totally appalling.
Really, I haven't seen a racist one yet. Have an example or is anything anti-Obama in your book racist?

If there is an effigy of Bush being hanged is that racist? If there is an effigy of Obama being hanged is that racist?

I'd just like to know what you qualify as racist.
 
Old 04-18-2009, 12:09 AM
 
1,156 posts, read 1,225,164 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen View Post
Omaha,

How do you say I'm pretending to be a conservative??? What evidence is there of that??!

The fact that I can't stand zealotry?? Nothing that I stated suggested that I didn't agree with fiscal conservatism! I explicitly stated I disagreed with the recent spending bills! How do you make that leap? Seriously! You have accused me of not being a conservative about 5 times now but have yet listed ONE SINGLE REASON FOR IT...other than I disagree with you on an unrelated issue. wow!
Except like everything in this thread you skip over it and then feign that it wasn't addressed or that it was irrelevant.

Quote:
And how am I speaking for YOUR position?? About what?? That's just utter nonsense. I'm not assuming to speak on your behalf for anything.
We're done. You can't even keep your story straight from one post to the next.

"Your response boils down to this: "

That's from your own post. Yep, you're not speaking for me at all. You whine about things being oversimplified yet you had absolutely no problem oversimplifying my points. Again, the hypocrisy.

But really, this is going nowhere.

Maybe we can debate some other time and you can actually read what I post, address or correct my assumptions, and answer my questions as they are asked.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:35 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top