What would be my answer to the question, "So, who do you think would win in a three-way race between George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and President Obama?"......And, yes, I would vote for the blankety blank, maybe even campaign for him.
wd, I'm quite sure Will was using this as a hypothetical what if it were possible scenario. He is no doubt quite aware of the existing constitutional limitations on Presidential terms.
As for Clinton, if it were possible, he would win hands down and walking away.
I think your read on this post, as well as your assumption with respect to " I knew it..." may be as far out in left field as your politics in general are.
Of course it was a hypothetical, gents. And all that I ever really said about Mr. Bush was that he wasn't a war criminal or that he hated poor people.............And I think that you know who I meant when I said blankety blank, wd. I was referring to Mr. Clinton and, yes, I would in fact vote for him.
I don't think bush hates poor people, he just doesn't care that much about them. Except when it comes to exploiting them, then he likes them quite a bit. Unless they complain about low wages. bush and dmarks have that in common (as do most Republicans).
Yes, Les, in so as much as the facts don't seem to matter much to him. As I've chronicled before, non-defense discretionary and entitlement spending both skyrocketed under Bush. In fact, it's one of the major reasons why a lot of the true-blue conservatives tend not to like the guy very much....But then I don't have to tell you about that, right?
you are absolutely correct Will. It is perhaps the single biggest reason I started to shun the independent conservative moniker in favor of the more accurate classical liberal/libertarian identifier.
Although I really believe few today really understand the definition of classical liberalism.
WD: The best solution to low wages is to work hard and get skills so you earn more. As opposed to doing a lousy job/sticking to a low worth job and whining piteously that you need handouts.
Doing a better job is a more sustainable solution than doing a lousy one and whining about it.
Fair pay isn't a handout. And the people holding these jobs performing necessary services would be rightfully insulted by your arrogant judgement that they do a lousy job and then whine about being underpaid.
Will: non-defense discretionary and entitlement spending both skyrocketed under Bush.
OK, I take it back. George bush loved poor people, that's why he worked hard to grow their numbers so significantly.
I think it's delusional to suggest that because a President's ecomomic polices are SO BAD that they necessitate doing more for poor people that poor people should be grateful.
The poverty rate in 2000 was about 12% and by 2008 it was up to 14%. So, yeah, it did go up under Bush. But like I said, the social spending went up even more dramatically. A wash? I don't know.......And I agree with dmarks. We don't have a wage deficit in this country. We have a skills deficit, an education deficit, an industriousness deficit. There are in fact many decent jobs out there. But they require skills that the present day work force just doesn't have. And we definitely have to fix that.
Will calls America's workers a bunch of lazy dummies and, instead of rightfull calling Will out for his arrogance (something dmarks LOVES to do)... we get total silence from him.
And dmarks does NOT support fair pay... that is a flat-out lie. He continually calls for the pay of hard working Americans to be as low as possible... like when he stated that he favored the repeal of Davis-Bacon.
"And dmarks does NOT support fair pay... that is a flat-out lie. He continually calls for the pay of hard working Americans to be as low as possible... like when he stated that he favored the repeal of Davis-Bacon."
Actually, I support the wage being the fair value. I oppose ignorant outsiders who have no idea what is going on setting wage values. Davis-Bacon does that.
Davis-Bacon is a major deficit and debt engine, as well as corruption. It forces government to waste a lot of money on contracts for no good reason.
Will said: "But they require skills that the present day work force just doesn't have. And we definitely have to fix that."
Yes! A real solution. Make these people's jobs and work more valuable so they earn more money. As opposed to having the government force business (mostly small ones) to give unearned handouts to store clerks.
Hey, wd, Bill Maher is always calling America a big fat stupid country. Aren't I entitled to agree with the man?............Hey, dmarks, remember in the good old days how we used to have apprentice programs and the like? People could actually learn a skill and end up getting paid handsomely for it. I think that we probably need something like that because there really is in fact a need for people like plumbers, auto technicians, computer repairmen/women, electricians, welders, etc..
Will: Hey, wd, Bill Maher is always calling America a big fat stupid country. Aren't I entitled to agree with the man?
I think he's referring to people like you, dmarks, Rusty and people who vote Republican against their own interests. He sure isn't talking about hard working Americans.
I agree with you about apprenticeships though. They were done away with by greedy rich people who didn't want to pay to train people. They only want to hire workers someone else paid to train.
WD said: "I think he's referring to people like you, dmarks, Rusty and people who vote Republican against their own interests"
I know my own life. Rusty knows his. We vote for our own interests... of course we do, we know our interests... Not some arrogant ass who only knows his own life.
-------
As for apprentices, the forced unionization system strongly discourages this, as they oppose apprentices being paid for the fair value of their beginner-level work. More jobs destroyed by the unions.
Correction, wd. My career voting pattern is approximately 60(D)-20(R)-20(I) and I haven't voted Republican for President since 1988 (not that you necessarily care about factual things, mind you).
I was referring to your posts on this blog, most of which promote Conservative ideas. Voting for Democrats doesn't prove anything. Many Democrats embrace these Conservative ideas. When have you voted for a Liberal Democrat because you liked his ideas? I know you said you voted for Lamont over Lieberman, but when I mentioned the fact that Lamont is anti-free trade you didn't confirm that was a reason he got your vote.
I already told you that I voted against Liebermann because of the war in Iraq. And you're crazy. I have consistently said that I was in favor of raising revenues as a part of an overall debt reduction strategy (that stance alone would get me bounced from the Republican party of today and you know it), that I was in favor of extending unemployment benefits, and that I was in favor of universal health care coverage (yes, my proposal had health savings accounts but it also had subsidies for poor people, health boards to set standards for minimum care, and a catastrophic care provision - the fact that you would claim this plan as a "conservative plan" simply underscores what an high falutin idiot that you are). The fact that you would label me (yet again with the good guys and bad guys) a conservative really says more about what you and your agenda.
I basically consider myself a centrist, dmarks; a Rockefeller Republican/Boren Democrat who thinks that both parties have some pretty good ideas and that they should definitely work more together (like Reagan and the Tipster did on Social Security, like LBJ and Dirksen did on civil rights, and like Clinton and the Newtster did on cutting government spending). I mean, I know that I'm an endangered species and all (what with people like Sean Hannity and wd crowding us out) but I actually do in fact believe that.
Exactly, dmarks; pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, anti-war, pro-progressive taxation, pro-universal health-care coverage. The guy is an absolute paranoid cherry-picking stooge.
[1] Actually, all your posts on abortion focus on abortions you think should be restricted.
[2] Gay rights should actually be a conservative position, as they say they are in favor of the government staying out of people's private lives. This position is in line with that of a traditional Conservative or a Libertarian.
[3] You are pro-war in regards to Afghanistan. You rejected the offer by the Taliban that would have put bin Laden in custody 10 years earlier!
[4] You are only pro Clinton rates. This is only a bare minimum reasonable position. Someone who truly supported progressive taxiation would be in favor of the Progressive Caucus' "People's Budget"... and you frequently rail against taxing corporations (AT ALL!!) and defend exorbitant CEO pay.
And how about the many, many posts you authored whinning about your concern that rich people might be overtaxed?! And near-constant whinning about the percentage of taxes wealthy people pay. Just recently you said you "hate it" (in reference to the President's and Democrat's call for the wealthy to pay their fair share).
[5] You often rail against univeral health care coverage (single payer).
I don't need to do any "cherry picking" at all. You are clearly a Conservative, albeit a Moderate to Liberal one. Although your stooge-like defense of the wealthy and hatred of the working class pushes you back quite a bit toward the Conservative side. Significantly back toward the Conservative side, in fact.
dmarks: Voting? He votes for the liberal President most of the time.
Did he say he voted for Nader? That would be once. Once isn't "most of the time". I've never voted for a liberal president. Don't use that against me though... I would have voted for Nader if he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
30 comments:
If this election was held tomorrow I'd guess Clinton would get over 60%....hell,I'd even vote for him.
Given the weaknesses of both "major" party candidate Clinton takes it by a landslide.
Will: I would vote for the blankety blank, maybe even campaign for him.
I knew it. This explains all the posts where you defend bush! (the only "blankety blank" you listed).
And Clinton would lose, since he wouldn't be on the ballot, being Constitutionally ineligible.
wd, I'm quite sure Will was using this as a hypothetical what if it were possible scenario. He is no doubt quite aware of the existing constitutional limitations on Presidential terms.
As for Clinton, if it were possible, he would win hands down and walking away.
I think your read on this post, as well as your assumption with respect to " I knew it..." may be as far out in left field as your politics in general are.
Of course it was a hypothetical, gents. And all that I ever really said about Mr. Bush was that he wasn't a war criminal or that he hated poor people.............And I think that you know who I meant when I said blankety blank, wd. I was referring to Mr. Clinton and, yes, I would in fact vote for him.
I don't think bush hates poor people, he just doesn't care that much about them. Except when it comes to exploiting them, then he likes them quite a bit. Unless they complain about low wages. bush and dmarks have that in common (as do most Republicans).
wd I believe has just confirmed by his own words that he is in the very least mildly delusional.
Yes, Les, in so as much as the facts don't seem to matter much to him. As I've chronicled before, non-defense discretionary and entitlement spending both skyrocketed under Bush. In fact, it's one of the major reasons why a lot of the true-blue conservatives tend not to like the guy very much....But then I don't have to tell you about that, right?
you are absolutely correct Will. It is perhaps the single biggest reason I started to shun the independent conservative moniker in favor of the more accurate classical liberal/libertarian identifier.
Although I really believe few today really understand the definition of classical liberalism.
WD: The best solution to low wages is to work hard and get skills so you earn more. As opposed to doing a lousy job/sticking to a low worth job and whining piteously that you need handouts.
Doing a better job is a more sustainable solution than doing a lousy one and whining about it.
Fair pay isn't a handout. And the people holding these jobs performing necessary services would be rightfully insulted by your arrogant judgement that they do a lousy job and then whine about being underpaid.
Will: non-defense discretionary and entitlement spending both skyrocketed under Bush.
OK, I take it back. George bush loved poor people, that's why he worked hard to grow their numbers so significantly.
I think it's delusional to suggest that because a President's ecomomic polices are SO BAD that they necessitate doing more for poor people that poor people should be grateful.
The poverty rate in 2000 was about 12% and by 2008 it was up to 14%. So, yeah, it did go up under Bush. But like I said, the social spending went up even more dramatically. A wash? I don't know.......And I agree with dmarks. We don't have a wage deficit in this country. We have a skills deficit, an education deficit, an industriousness deficit. There are in fact many decent jobs out there. But they require skills that the present day work force just doesn't have. And we definitely have to fix that.
Fair pay isn't a handout... which is why I support fair pay.
Will calls America's workers a bunch of lazy dummies and, instead of rightfull calling Will out for his arrogance (something dmarks LOVES to do)... we get total silence from him.
And dmarks does NOT support fair pay... that is a flat-out lie. He continually calls for the pay of hard working Americans to be as low as possible... like when he stated that he favored the repeal of Davis-Bacon.
wd, do you ever NOT extrapolate imaginary suff from what is said by people and then call them liars?
"And dmarks does NOT support fair pay... that is a flat-out lie. He continually calls for the pay of hard working Americans to be as low as possible... like when he stated that he favored the repeal of Davis-Bacon."
Actually, I support the wage being the fair value. I oppose ignorant outsiders who have no idea what is going on setting wage values. Davis-Bacon does that.
Davis-Bacon is a major deficit and debt engine, as well as corruption. It forces government to waste a lot of money on contracts for no good reason.
Will said: "But they require skills that the present day work force just doesn't have. And we definitely have to fix that."
Yes! A real solution. Make these people's jobs and work more valuable so they earn more money. As opposed to having the government force business (mostly small ones) to give unearned handouts to store clerks.
Hey, wd, Bill Maher is always calling America a big fat stupid country. Aren't I entitled to agree with the man?............Hey, dmarks, remember in the good old days how we used to have apprentice programs and the like? People could actually learn a skill and end up getting paid handsomely for it. I think that we probably need something like that because there really is in fact a need for people like plumbers, auto technicians, computer repairmen/women, electricians, welders, etc..
Will: Hey, wd, Bill Maher is always calling America a big fat stupid country. Aren't I entitled to agree with the man?
I think he's referring to people like you, dmarks, Rusty and people who vote Republican against their own interests. He sure isn't talking about hard working Americans.
I agree with you about apprenticeships though. They were done away with by greedy rich people who didn't want to pay to train people. They only want to hire workers someone else paid to train.
WD said: "I think he's referring to people like you, dmarks, Rusty and people who vote Republican against their own interests"
I know my own life. Rusty knows his. We vote for our own interests... of course we do, we know our interests... Not some arrogant ass who only knows his own life.
-------
As for apprentices, the forced unionization system strongly discourages this, as they oppose apprentices being paid for the fair value of their beginner-level work. More jobs destroyed by the unions.
Correction, wd. My career voting pattern is approximately 60(D)-20(R)-20(I) and I haven't voted Republican for President since 1988 (not that you necessarily care about factual things, mind you).
I was referring to your posts on this blog, most of which promote Conservative ideas. Voting for Democrats doesn't prove anything. Many Democrats embrace these Conservative ideas. When have you voted for a Liberal Democrat because you liked his ideas? I know you said you voted for Lamont over Lieberman, but when I mentioned the fact that Lamont is anti-free trade you didn't confirm that was a reason he got your vote.
I already told you that I voted against Liebermann because of the war in Iraq. And you're crazy. I have consistently said that I was in favor of raising revenues as a part of an overall debt reduction strategy (that stance alone would get me bounced from the Republican party of today and you know it), that I was in favor of extending unemployment benefits, and that I was in favor of universal health care coverage (yes, my proposal had health savings accounts but it also had subsidies for poor people, health boards to set standards for minimum care, and a catastrophic care provision - the fact that you would claim this plan as a "conservative plan" simply underscores what an high falutin idiot that you are). The fact that you would label me (yet again with the good guys and bad guys) a conservative really says more about what you and your agenda.
WD claimed: "I was referring to your posts on this blog, most of which promote Conservative ideas"
In actual fact, a minority of them promote Conservative ideas. The ideas promoted by the majority are centrist or Liberal.
I basically consider myself a centrist, dmarks; a Rockefeller Republican/Boren Democrat who thinks that both parties have some pretty good ideas and that they should definitely work more together (like Reagan and the Tipster did on Social Security, like LBJ and Dirksen did on civil rights, and like Clinton and the Newtster did on cutting government spending). I mean, I know that I'm an endangered species and all (what with people like Sean Hannity and wd crowding us out) but I actually do in fact believe that.
dmarks lied: In actual fact, a minority of them promote Conservative ideas. The ideas promoted by the majority are centrist or Liberal.
I challenge you to give me one post from Will that promoted a Liberal idea.
His many posts on abortion/choice. Slam dunk he is a liberal on that. And you were there.
Gay rights? Another liberal position. Voting? He votes for the liberal President most of the time in the recent era.
These are covered in countless posts and comments by Will.
Exactly, dmarks; pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, anti-war, pro-progressive taxation, pro-universal health-care coverage. The guy is an absolute paranoid cherry-picking stooge.
Will: pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, anti-war, pro-progressive taxation, pro-universal health-care coverage.
[1] Actually, all your posts on abortion focus on abortions you think should be restricted.
[2] Gay rights should actually be a conservative position, as they say they are in favor of the government staying out of people's private lives. This position is in line with that of a traditional Conservative or a Libertarian.
[3] You are pro-war in regards to Afghanistan. You rejected the offer by the Taliban that would have put bin Laden in custody 10 years earlier!
[4] You are only pro Clinton rates. This is only a bare minimum reasonable position. Someone who truly supported progressive taxiation would be in favor of the Progressive Caucus' "People's Budget"... and you frequently rail against taxing corporations (AT ALL!!) and defend exorbitant CEO pay.
And how about the many, many posts you authored whinning about your concern that rich people might be overtaxed?! And near-constant whinning about the percentage of taxes wealthy people pay. Just recently you said you "hate it" (in reference to the President's and Democrat's call for the wealthy to pay their fair share).
[5] You often rail against univeral health care coverage (single payer).
I don't need to do any "cherry picking" at all. You are clearly a Conservative, albeit a Moderate to Liberal one. Although your stooge-like defense of the wealthy and hatred of the working class pushes you back quite a bit toward the Conservative side. Significantly back toward the Conservative side, in fact.
dmarks: Voting? He votes for the liberal President most of the time.
Did he say he voted for Nader? That would be once. Once isn't "most of the time". I've never voted for a liberal president. Don't use that against me though... I would have voted for Nader if he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
Post a Comment