Now that restatement I agree with. Republicans are so bad today that they can’t even admit something they disagreed with worked. Look at the auto bailout. Mitt, besides driving to Canada with his dog strapped to the top of the family car, is now saying that letting the auto companies go through full Chapter 11 without Federal aid would have worked better. This despite the fact that no one (including Bain) would lend them any money. Like Bush, he won’t admit he ever said anything wrong, and he is best of the lot. There was more truth in an average issue of Pravda than in all the Republican stump speeches put together.
So, when you said, “remember that guy,” the guy you were referring to was an anonymous stranger none of us have ever heard of?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proverbial
A proverbial guy is kinda hard to meet. But you can try.
Oh, the proverbial guy who said “How did Bush win when no one I know voted for him?” Okay. So, um… which of the five definitions for “proverbial” that you linked to are you using? Because none of them really make much sense in that context.
Third or fifth. It has become a “meme” (or a “proverb” if you prefer). As I said, I can cite quite a few examples both of people referring to it as a proverbial saying. Apart from which I am sure I can scrounge up quite a few examples of people expressing the sentiment quite honestly.
Then it should have been far easier for you to make that refutation than it was to type in all the whiny nonsense you’ve posted.
If it’s “exceedingly easy” to refute, why haven’t you done so? :dubious:
You keep claiming you can do this, but you never do it? Why is that?
You continue to make my point. That you seriously request that I provide a single example of someone in the GOP saying something that’s not stupid helpfully categorizes you and lets me know how seriously to take your input. You miss the point while making mine, thinking you’ve scored something here. This can be your cue to post, “So, you got nothing then,” since you’ve already gotten a couple of the other board memes out of the way. That will yet again firmly place you in a particular category of thinker and poster. Thanks.
That’s one difference between me and the GOP in the fiscal sector (I’m more idealist in other sectors.) I was against the wall street bailout the way it was implemented and mildly against the Detroit bailout, although to the extent that the automakers didn’t cause the crisis but were victims of it, the latter bailout was more understandable than the wall street bailout.
But there’s no denying that in the automaker sector at least the bailout was a huge success. We as a nation are doing much better than we would have without the bailout. At the time I assumed that it would be a fairly big money loser for the government and not help the car companies all that much, but neither of those scenarios came to pass. So while the US government loses points for doing more to help big business than the average joe, they gain points back by doing it successfully and cheaply in this instance.
The financial sector is another story. The bailout should have come with a lot more strings attached. And while I’m sure that the bailout was necessary, I can’t really say that the financial sector has “recovered”.
No, you aren’t reading for comprehension well. I asked you to explain why you haven’t just posted some refutation. I did not ask you to post said refutation.
But again you come back and post more whiny nonsense and declare victory.
You know, this started as a very interesting thread.
I found the Krugman article linked in the OP very enlightening. It’s discussions about when Economics becomes most useful, and about “salt water economics” versus “wet water economics” are, for me at least, fascinating and educational.
Little Nemo’s link to The Onion article, although it’s satire (maybe because it’s satire), really hit home on the idea that the GOP started by pandering to the lowest common denominator and as a result ended up with that lcd as a large proportion of their actual candidate pool.
But now the thread has degenerated into a bunch of callouts and arguments about burden of proof. I could point out who I think is to blame for that, and even which of those may be doing it on purpose in order to derail any substantive conversation, but doing so would just be more of the same.
Maybe I’ll start another thread on Krugman’s article since I’d really like to see some discussion on it. Then again, maybe I’d just be wasting my time.
Yes, I’ll agree reading comprehension is an issue in this thread, since I’ve explained it several times. It is pointless to provide a counter to a statement such as this one that is absolute and without qualification. “Republicans only say stupid things. They never say anything not stupid. Never, ever.” Only an idiot would ask for evidence that this is not true; it isn’t worthy of a response. Every instance where one is requested, is another opportunity–tilting at windmills, I know–to point this idiocy out again. Actually providing a refutation is pandering to imbecility. You keep trying though–this is a real gem.
BTW, are there talking points that say that anyone who doesn’t join the chorus of groupthink is whining, regardless of tone or the actual argument made? Is that supposed to be cutting or emasculating or something, this whole “conservatives are whiny bitches” standard response? That’s pretty funny, too. Am I supposed to cry or piss my pants or something over your cutting commentary?
I just realized that this thread is in the Pit. So, carry on, I guess.
Can I explain to you why you’re retarded?
Attributing the quote to Pauline Kael proves your point better than attributing it to some dude. See the 1972 was one of the most lopsided popular vote results in modern history. Considering that JOhn Kerry received over 48% of the popular vote, it would not be particularly surprising for someone to not know any Bush voters.
I would think that sort of statement would be the easiest to refute. Taken literally, one good counter-example is all it would take. If the OP was meant to be figurative, it might lead to a more nuanced conversation; but it’s hard to see why you’d be so worked up as to call it “idiocy” in that case.
I’m not following the Strat/Bo subthread at all. Nor the “proverbial” subthread.
It is easy to refute, which I mentioned. Exceedingly easy. But my point was to ask if it occurred to anyone here in the chorus that it was offered not as hyperbole, but as a given. The thread then became random free-associations about people’s pet peeves with the GOP, masquerading as some sort of unified theory regarding why that party is universally and comprehensively without merit. I think there is nuanced discussion possible about the GOP’s (or Dem’s) flaws in strategy and policy, but it doesn’t proceed from a foundation of “Well, since we’re all in agreement that nothing they say isn’t stupid, let’s theorize why.” What invariably proceeds from that is a circle jerk about how shitty the GOP is, no exceptions in that vileness.
Nuanced discussion is possible on this board about politics, and some on either side of the debate are better at it than others. This thread didn’t start out as a shining example.
You know, a bunch of liberal-leaning posters have actually done a better job than you at defending Republicans, and coming up with some good ideas from the party.
You?
You’re still just whining.
Damn, this is the one that pushed me over the edge. Now I’m in tears. Really, you can tell me. Are there talking points that say you have to respond with this one whenever someone doesn’t fall in line with the should-be-unquestioned orthodoxy?
Why do you think I have any stake in defending Republicans? I’m pointing out the logical fallacy at play here, a fallacy that is not intrinsically Republican or Democrat. I even mentioned that conservatives are just as idiotic when they do so. I’ll point out, again, that the point eludes someone that the starting assertion requires no counter from any sane person, liberal or conservative.
What IS your point? I don’t have the slightest idea what you’re on about. Just re-read the entire thread and I’ll be damned if I can find one from you that is vaguely referencing some earlier post that I can’t find.