Tea Party/ GOP-

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

So how are #2 and #3 supported or are you going to vaguely group those in with people that disagree with Obama?


These numbers don't really support your argument much at all aside from the HC part. Oh, so people that don't like Obama and didn't like the HC proposal voted for the guy that's a Republican and against the HC proposal?

And you still haven't address your "Dropping Like Flies" comments that you try to continue making. It would be easy to say that the Dems see the writing on the walls and are jumping ship, if it weren't for the same number of total Republicans, in both the House and Senate combined, that are not running re-election.

Wiki has a clean layout of who's dropping out.
* Retiring Democrats (5 seats)
* Retiring Republicans (6 seats)
* Democratic incumbents (13 seats)
* Republican incumbents (12 seats)

United States Senate elections, 2010

your combining two concepts/posts. You said very clearly that the Brown win was not a reflection on Dems or Obama, the data draws a different conclusion, you decide.

The points I noted where key points Brown was running on, he was very clearly running on these. the poll data does not address it, however i would infer that less taxes = less government and that was clearly outlined in the poll.

As Far as Dems dropping like flies, I dont know of any high profile Reps dropping out, my ignorance, but the headlines the past few weeks have been filled with dems - Dodd, Dorgan, Kennedy, Bayh, . Bayh is not leaving saying he is to old, he is leaving saying things suck and I want out. I have to say that if you think this has nothing to do with Brown's win, the tea party movement or anti-Obama sentiment. Your nuts. Look at how bad this was for Repubs during the Bush years but you didnt see this kind of Exodus.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

your combining two concepts/posts. You said very clearly that the Brown win was not a reflection on Dems or Obama, the data draws a different conclusion, you decide.

I did?

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Thus the problem with your argument. You assume that everyone votes based on policy and the issues. If the Presidential campaign taught us anything, it's that many people vote on sensationalism and voting against what's currently happening in the state.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I did?

from Johnny D -
"Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree."

The poll data suggests otherwise.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

from Johnny D -
"Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree."

The poll data suggests otherwise.

Now you're the one combining two different concepts/posts.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

your combining two concepts/posts. You said very clearly that the Brown win was not a reflection on Dems or Obama, the data draws a different conclusion, you decide.

The points I noted where key points Brown was running on, he was very clearly running on these. the poll data does not address it, however i would infer that less taxes = less government and that was clearly outlined in the poll.

I love it...

RIJIMMY sez = the data draws a different conclusion

RIJIMMY sez = the poll data does not address it

So the facts are clear, yet to make his point he relies on his inference

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it...

RIJIMMY sez = the data draws a different conclusion

RIJIMMY sez = the poll data does not address it

So the facts are clear, yet to make his point he relies on his inference

-spence

I was too distracted by his inaccurate reference to my position that I missed his comical inference that taxes = less government. So, as long as the government cuts taxes, they should be entitled to regulate every facet of my life?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I was too distracted by his inaccurate reference to my position that I missed his comical inference that taxes = less government. So, as long as the government cuts taxes, they should be entitled to regulate every facet of my life?

They already do. Join the "tea party". Your a better fit then you'll admit

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

They already do. Join the "tea party". Your a better fit then you'll admit

Are you a member?

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you a member?

-spence

Sure, didn't you see me in the pics. JD posted

[Backbeach Jake]

G.W. Bush's greatest accomplishment was the polarization and division of the people and legislature of the United States. He used it as a tool to get elected, but the division lives on as a cancer that prevents anything positive from getting accomplished in America. So much distrust and hatred has dragged us down to an impotent blustering, fumbling, incompetent caricature of what we once were. Negative is the daily norm, two negatives make a nothing. It's high time to just knock it the hell off and concentrate on the job at hand. That job includes us all. Who wants to live in a country with very rich vs. very poor? Other peoples failure does not make your success greater. In fact, it is to the contrary.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it...

RIJIMMY sez = the data draws a different conclusion

RIJIMMY sez = the poll data does not address it

So the facts are clear, yet to make his point he relies on his inference

-spence

F'in stupidity, if you and Johnny cant follow a logical discussion, dont waste my time. Brown had issues he was running on..period. The poll has data...period. Some of Browns running points were addressed as key MA issues in the poll, others were not. I noted which where addressed and which were not. Has nothing to do with my opinion. I clearly separated them. as I said twice, now 3 TIMES. you draw your own conclusion. the data is there......

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

F'in stupidity, if you and Johnny cant follow a logical discussion, dont waste my time. Brown had issues he was running on..period. The poll has data...period. Some of Browns running points were addressed as key MA issues in the poll, others were not. I noted which where addressed and which were not. Has nothing to do with my opinion. I clearly separated them. as I said twice, now 3 TIMES. you draw your own conclusion. the data is there......

I don't think it's a matter of stupidity with JD and Spence. Spence just likes to play devil's advocate. You know he's actually not all that liberal. He likes a good debate and when proven wrong, he stops visiting the thread. It happens all the time, when he runs out of ways to spin his argument.
With JD, he just can't accept when he's been proven wrong. If he sees that someone's getting the upper hand, he makes personal attacks on their intelligence. I guess when you think you're the smartest person in the room, you feel entitled to act like it. Wait a second, I jsut realized that describes our current President to a tee.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

I don't think it's a matter of stupidity with JD and Spence. Spence just likes to play devil's advocate. You know he's actually not all that liberal. He likes a good debate and when proven wrong, he stops visiting the thread. It happens all the time, when he runs out of ways to spin his argument.

This is utter nonsense.

I have demonstrated a consistent ability to keep mindless political threads going longer than perhaps anyone else on the site

-spence

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

This is utter nonsense.

I have demonstrated a consistent ability to keep mindless political threads going longer than perhaps anyone else on the site

-spence

AGREED

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

With JD, he just can't accept when he's been proven wrong. If he sees that someone's getting the upper hand, he makes personal attacks on their intelligence. I guess when you think you're the smartest person in the room, you feel entitled to act like it. Wait a second, I jsut realized that describes our current President to a tee.

The irony of the above if amusing. I've yet to make a personal attack that wasn't in reciprocation. I'm sure it'll be easy to quote some of my posts here out of context to 'prove' the contrary. Then there is you who chooses to chime in and make consistent personal attacks and criticisms of me that are completely unprovoked. I guess when you're arrogant, you feel entitled to act however you see fit.

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

F'in stupidity, if you and Johnny cant follow a logical discussion, dont waste my time. Brown had issues he was running on..period. The poll has data...period. Some of Browns running points were addressed as key MA issues in the poll, others were not. I noted which where addressed and which were not. Has nothing to do with my opinion. I clearly separated them. as I said twice, now 3 TIMES. you draw your own conclusion. the data is there......

A logical discussion? You mean make a point, then find a poll and say that it supports your point, and then say that the poll doesn't address everything and we should draw our own opinions? But then "less taxes = less government" for some reason so the poll did include everything.

However, it all comes down to your original point:

from Johnny D -
"Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree."

The poll data suggests otherwise.

...which I still disagree with.

The poll data demonstrates correlation but gives no suggestions for causation. As such, the poll data suggests the tendencies of voters but not the reason behind their votes.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The irony of the above if amusing. I've yet to make a personal attack that wasn't in reciprocation. I'm sure it'll be easy to quote some of my posts here out of context to 'prove' the contrary. Then there is you who chooses to chime in and make consistent personal attacks and criticisms of me that are completely unprovoked. I guess when you're arrogant, you feel entitled to act however you see fit.

Wow, that's even weaker than I expected. I'm not going to waste my time looking for some of your insulting comments. Although I enjoy reading much of what you post, you sometimes come across as an intellectual elitist. You can ask for proof, but I'll just tell you to go back and read your own posts. Or, you can ask others in here how they interpret them. Maybe it makes you feel better if you think I'm singling you out and if it does, continue to believe it. But if you ask Spence, he'd probably tell you that I target him more than anyone. And he doesn't bitch and moan. He usually comes back with some witty retort. And please don't ever call me arrogant. I'm anything but that. In fact, the word I most often hear to descibe me is a-hole and I'm fine with that.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Wow, that's even weaker than I expected. I'm not going to waste my time looking for some of your insulting comments. Although I enjoy reading much of what you post, you sometimes come across as an intellectual elitist. You can ask for proof, but I'll just tell you to go back and read your own posts. Or, you can ask others in here how they interpret them. Maybe it makes you feel better if you think I'm singling you out and if it does, continue to believe it. But if you ask Spence, he'd probably tell you that I target him more than anyone. And he doesn't bitch and moan. He usually comes back with some witty retort. And please don't ever call me arrogant. I'm anything but that. In fact, the word I most often hear to descibe me is a-hole and I'm fine with that.

you mean "pseudo" intellectual elitist

sorry JD...couldn't resist

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Wow, that's even weaker than I expected. I'm not going to waste my time looking for some of your insulting comments. Although I enjoy reading much of what you post, you sometimes come across as an intellectual elitist. You can ask for proof, but I'll just tell you to go back and read your own posts. Or, you can ask others in here how they interpret them. Maybe it makes you feel better if you think I'm singling you out and if it does, continue to believe it. But if you ask Spence, he'd probably tell you that I target him more than anyone. And he doesn't bitch and moan. He usually comes back with some witty retort. And please don't ever call me arrogant. I'm anything but that. In fact, the word I most often hear to descibe me is a-hole and I'm fine with that.

Like I said, anything I've posted that could be construed as a personal attack has almost always been as a direct response of the same on to me. Quite frankly, I don't care if you single me out or not, nor do I really care about your comments of me. On the other hand, I'm not going to sit idly and accept you chiming in as is so typical and accuse me of making personal attacks on someone, while you're hypocritically in the midst of doing the same.

It must be easy sitting in the shadows, rarely adding anything and then popping in to belittle those that don't stand up to your moral perspicacity.

Originally Posted by scottw

you mean "pseudo" intellectual elitist

sorry JD...couldn't resist

I laughed...

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Wow, that's even weaker than I expected. I'm not going to waste my time looking for some of your insulting comments. Although I enjoy reading much of what you post, you sometimes come across as an intellectual elitist. You can ask for proof, but I'll just tell you to go back and read your own posts. Or, you can ask others in here how they interpret them. Maybe it makes you feel better if you think I'm singling you out and if it does, continue to believe it. But if you ask Spence, he'd probably tell you that I target him more than anyone. And he doesn't bitch and moan. He usually comes back with some witty retort. And please don't ever call me arrogant. I'm anything but that. In fact, the word I most often hear to descibe me is a-hole and I'm fine with that.

If you target me so frequently I'd think you'd get a hit at least once and a while

-spence