Mitt Romney's failure was inevitable

[CBWx2]

I'm pro-choice and pro environment. I'm an agnostic with an extremely solid understanding of evolution. It must be my belief that a man should work for what he gets instead of suckling the government teat that has you labeling me conservative.

I'm against the patriot act , I favor gay marriage , I favor a non-interventionist foriegn policy , I favor the legalization of drugs , I favor seperation of church and state . It must be my belief that a man should work for what he gets instead of suckling the government teat that has him labeling me conservative.

What you are describing is a neoliberal position. One that advocates free trade, privatization, deregulation, and private control of the marketplace. It is a right-wing ideology. The only difference between neoliberlism and neoconservatism is that neoconservatives favor interventionism in regards to foreign policy and neoliberals oppose it. Other than that, they are ideologically indistinguishable.

[VinBucFan]

I guess that answers the question about what cuts you would be willing to make. None except the military.

What, not conservative enough for you? I guess that makes me a radical left-wing extremist. Anything not conservative seems to be labeled as radical, left-wing extremism on this MB. Hell, I'd imagine Dwight Eisenhower is probably the American equivalent to Mao Zedong to you folks.

That ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is classic CBW.  Rather than acknowledge the point now made by three different posters here -- that CBW would not make any cuts other then the military -- he tries to deflect attention from that point by playing victim.  SOP for an admitted intellectually dishonest poster. 

The intellectual dishonesty goes further than just me on this MB

Case and point. Like I said several pages ago, if you just let CBW go he will prove your points for you. 

[CBWx2]

I guess that answers the question about what cuts you would be willing to make. None except the military.

What, not conservative enough for you? I guess that makes me a radical left-wing extremist. Anything not conservative seems to be labeled as radical, left-wing extremism on this MB. Hell, I'd imagine Dwight Eisenhower is probably the American equivalent to Mao Zedong to you folks.

That ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is classic CBW.  Rather than acknowledge the point now made by three different posters here -- that CBW would not make any cuts other then the military -- he tries to deflect attention from that point by playing victim.  SOP for an admitted intellectually dishonest poster. 

Actually, you mongoloid, the question was "what cuts would you make?", not "what cuts would you make aside from the military". I answered the question, you idiot. That post was directly addressing the point made by three different posters, that only cutting the military makes one an extremist, you jackass.

You being on this whole intellectual dishonesty kick is the most laughable thing of all, because the comment I made about me not being the only one who ever engages in it was mostly about you. No one is perfect, and it is human nature to have occasional lapses in intellectual honesty when arguing positions. But you routinely omit relevant information when it contradicts your initial position. You routinely overstate the power of your argument and label others as "stupid" for disagreeing with you. You routinely show a double standard in your arguments. You routinely misrepresent opposing arguments. You are the freaking poster child for intellectual dishonesty, and I'd be willing to bet even those who may be inclined to agree with you on this particular topic would agree with this assessment of your posts.

[VinBucFan]

You being on this whole intellectual dishonesty kick is the most laughable thing of all, because the comment I made about me not being the only one who ever engages in it was mostly about you.

Hahahaah.  Actually, the comment I quouted was directed at Illum.  You went on to ask him to look in the mirror.  But the reason I keep quoting is is because a) its troe and b) you so often talk yourself in circles that sometime the truth shows through, especially when you are tyring to take a shot at others.  This is the PERFECT example. You were trying to fire a shot at Illum and in so doing you admitted what most on here have always known:

The intellectual dishonesty goes further than just me on this MB

Btw, NO it is not "natural" to occassionally have lapses in intellectual honesty.  One CHOOSES to be dishonest.  You CHOOSE to be dishonest.

[spartan]

I guess that answers the question about what cuts you would be willing to make. None except the military.

What, not conservative enough for you? I guess that makes me a radical left-wing extremist. Anything not conservative seems to be labeled as radical, left-wing extremism on this MB. Hell, I'd imagine Dwight Eisenhower is probably the American equivalent to Mao Zedong to you folks.

What makes you an extremist is that you are not willing to consider anything other than cutting the military budget and raising taxes. If you are unwilling to accept the full extent of the problem you will not fix it. Unless you are willing to address SS, Medi-whatever and other entitlement spending, you can eliminate the entire military budget and pretty soon you will get back to square one. I am on record as saying I am willing to entertain some tax increases if it is part of a balanced approach. That means cuts across the board. And, for the record I do not consider a balanced approach to be just raising taxes and gutting the military.

[CBWx2]

You being on this whole intellectual dishonesty kick is the most laughable thing of all, because the comment I made about me not being the only one who ever engages in it was mostly about you.

Hahahaah.  Actually, the comment I quouted was directed at Illum.  You went on to ask him to look in the mirror.  But the reason I keep quoting is is because a) its troe and b) you so often talk yourself in circles that sometime the truth shows through, especially when you are tyring to take a shot at others.  This is the PERFECT example. You were trying to fire a shot at Illum and in so doing you admitted what most on here have always known:

The intellectual dishonesty goes further than just me on this MB

Btw, NO it is not "natural" to occassionally have lapses in intellectual honesty.  One CHOOSES to be dishonest.  You CHOOSE to be dishonest.

I know who it was directed at, you moron. I used Illuminators argument as an example, but I didn't levy that criticism just at Illuminator. The point I was making, which I'm sure that anyone with half a brain could pick up on, is that calling people out for intellectual dishonesty in the confines of a partisan political debate is hypocritical, because everyone is susceptible to it at one point or another, which is why I didn't leave myself out of that critique.

Interestingly enough, one of the most glaring examples of intellectual dishonesty is the constant accusation of another poster of being intellectually dishonest. It seems for many, it has become the way of choice for attempting to suppress opposing viewpoints and avoiding the substance of an argument. Case and point being...

[VinBucFan]

You being on this whole intellectual dishonesty kick is the most laughable thing of all, because the comment I made about me not being the only one who ever engages in it was mostly about you.

Hahahaah.  Actually, the comment I quouted was directed at Illum.  You went on to ask him to look in the mirror.  But the reason I keep quoting is is because a) its troe and b) you so often talk yourself in circles that sometime the truth shows through, especially when you are tyring to take a shot at others.  This is the PERFECT example. You were trying to fire a shot at Illum and in so doing you admitted what most on here have always known:

The intellectual dishonesty goes further than just me on this MB

Btw, NO it is not "natural" to occassionally have lapses in intellectual honesty.  One CHOOSES to be dishonest.  You CHOOSE to be dishonest.

I know who it was directed at, you moron. I used Illuminators argument as an example, but I didn't levy that criticism just at Illuminator. The point I was making, which I'm sure that anyone with half a brain could pick up on, is that calling people out for intellectual dishonesty in the confines of a partisan political debate is hypocritical, because everyone is susceptible to it at one point or another, which is why I didn't leave myself out of that critique.

The part in bold is you applying salve to your enormous ego.  Intellectually dishonesty is not a virus that people catch unwittingly. LOL  It is a choice, particulalry in a "partisan political debate."  That is the point. because your interest in "partisan" outweighs your interest in "political debate" you CHOOSE to be dishonest.  You do not fall victim to intellectual dishonesty, you choose to be dishonest, all too often in your case, as evidence by many poster's comments in dealing with you.

Also, I don't care what "point you were making."  My point -- which you illustrate over and over -- is that you are admittedly dishonest.

Pretty simple stuff actually, but I am sure you could talk it in circles for pages.

[VinBucFan]

CBW, the fact that you have in two posts called me a "mongoloid" and a "moron" means that you know my comments about you are true.  Like I have posted many times, left to your own devices you will often illustrate the points others make

[CBWx2]

I guess that answers the question about what cuts you would be willing to make. None except the military.

What, not conservative enough for you? I guess that makes me a radical left-wing extremist. Anything not conservative seems to be labeled as radical, left-wing extremism on this MB. Hell, I'd imagine Dwight Eisenhower is probably the American equivalent to Mao Zedong to you folks.

What makes you an extremist is that you are not willing to consider anything other than cutting the military budget and raising taxes. If you are unwilling to accept the full extent of the problem you will not fix it. Unless you are willing to address SS, Medi-whatever and other entitlement spending, you can eliminate the entire military budget and pretty soon you will get back to square one. I am on record as saying I am willing to entertain some tax increases if it is part of a balanced approach. That means cuts across the board. And, for the record I do not consider a balanced approach to be just raising taxes and gutting the military.

I am willing to consider cutting things other than the military budget. I am actually all in favor of sweeping entitlement reform, just so long as it doesn't gut the intended purpose of the program. I just happen to be of the mind that conservatives have overstated and politicized the extent of our problems in an effort to justify ending programs that they are ideologically opposed to.

For example, you mentioned SS. Well, there has not been a single year in which SS receipts have been less than SS payments in the entire existence of the program. The federal government actually makes money off of SS. Reagan and O'Neil actually fixed the SS solvency issue on paper in the 80's. The problem with SS, however, lies in it continuing to be an on budget expenditure. Take it off budget like it used to be prior to 1968, and stop allowing it to be used as a "slush fund" to pay for other things, and that program will take care of itself. All that would likely be necessarily to fix what problems remained is a few minor tweaks.

And when you speak of raising taxes, you are saying it in a way that suggests that lowering taxes hasn't been a major reason for our debt problem to begin with. I'm not advocating raising taxes to New Deal era levels. I am simply advocating raising them to a level that actually funds the things that we have traditionally been able to fund prior to the Reagan Revolution without incurring massive deficits.

As far as you being on record for a balanced approach, that isn't what you've said in the past, but I can respect the fact that you are saying it now. Believe it or not, I am all for finding a middle ground. It just so happens that in these debates on this particular MB, as is the case in real life negotiations, nobody starts at the center.

[CBWx2]

I don't care what "point you were making."  My point -- which you illustrate over and over -- is that you are admittedly dishonest.

Interestingly enough, one of the most glaring examples of intellectual dishonesty is the constant accusation of another poster of being intellectually dishonest. It seems for many, it has become the way of choice for attempting to suppress opposing viewpoints and avoiding the substance of an argument. Case and point being...

[VinBucFan]

Well, there has not been a single year in which SS receipts have been less than SS payments in the entire existence of the program. The federal government actually makes money off of SS.

     

My guess is that anyone with the brains to finish the thought might laugh at that comment, but hey . .

[Dolorous Jason]

I'm pro-choice and pro environment. I'm an agnostic with an extremely solid understanding of evolution. It must be my belief that a man should work for what he gets instead of suckling the government teat that has you labeling me conservative.

I'm against the patriot act , I favor gay marriage , I favor a non-interventionist foriegn policy , I favor the legalization of drugs , I favor seperation of church and state . It must be my belief that a man should work for what he gets instead of suckling the government teat that has him labeling me conservative.

What you are describing is a neoliberal position. One that advocates free trade, privatization, deregulation, and private control of the marketplace. It is a right-wing ideology. The only difference between neoliberlism and neoconservatism is that neoconservatives favor interventionism in regards to foreign policy and neoliberals oppose it. Other than that, they are ideologically indistinguishable.

Those are huge differences ,moron. That's like saying , " Other than size , the Blue Whale and the Spinner Dolphin are the same creature ."

Neoconservatives have the same social views as I do ? Pro-gay marriage , Immigration , right to privacy , legalization of drugs and prostitution , etc  ?    Are you kidding me? Since when ?

Basically you are saying they disagree with me on EVERYTHING except a few economic issues , and I wouldn't even say they agree with me there , because they've never practiced what they preached in office .

[CBWx2]

I'm pro-choice and pro environment. I'm an agnostic with an extremely solid understanding of evolution. It must be my belief that a man should work for what he gets instead of suckling the government teat that has you labeling me conservative.

I'm against the patriot act , I favor gay marriage , I favor a non-interventionist foriegn policy , I favor the legalization of drugs , I favor seperation of church and state . It must be my belief that a man should work for what he gets instead of suckling the government teat that has him labeling me conservative.

What you are describing is a neoliberal position. One that advocates free trade, privatization, deregulation, and private control of the marketplace. It is a right-wing ideology. The only difference between neoliberlism and neoconservatism is that neoconservatives favor interventionism in regards to foreign policy and neoliberals oppose it. Other than that, they are ideologically indistinguishable.

Those are huge differences ,moron. That's like saying , " Other than size , the Blue Whale and the Spinner Dolphin are the same creature ."

No it isn't, jackass. It's a whole list of ideological similarities and one ideological difference. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have the exact same foreign policy stance. Does that make them ideologically the same?

Neoconservatives have the same social views as I do ? Pro-gay marriage , Immigration , right to privacy , legalization of drugs and prostitution , etc  ?    Are you kidding me? Since when ?

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with social conservatism. In fact, the original neoconservatives were actually former liberals who broke from mainstream liberalism because of the peace movement in the 60's. They were social liberals who took a more hawkish stance on foreign policy. Since then, neoconservatives have widely adopted neoliberal economic principles, with the one caveat being a hawkish foreign policy position.

Basically you are saying they disagree with me on EVERYTHING except a few economic issues

I'm not saying that. You are, and you are wrong.

[spartan]

I just want to point out here that the moment you start calling each other names the discussion ends and the fight starts. Even if you "win" the fight it sure as hell gonna end up bloody.

[Dolorous Jason]

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with social conservatism. In fact, the original neoconservatives were actually former liberals who broke from mainstream liberalism because of the peace movement in the 60's. They were social liberals who took a more hawkish stance on foreign policy. Since then, neoconservatives have widely adopted neoliberal economic principles, with the one caveat being a hawkish foreign policy position.

So by using your bizarro logic , you are as close to a TRUE neoconservative as I am, if not even closer . To sum up what you are saying : Neocons have changed thier stance on economic issues overtime , but the one thing that has always intentified and distinguished them is thier hawkish foriegn policy. A policy which happens to be the opposite belief of mine ...yet somehow that makes me a neocon also...

Excellent points  , retard.