Eric Cantor just lost his primary.

[birdog1960]

Nice unbiased source. Idiot.

how about you produce any source that refutes what it says?

[TakeYouToTasker]

how about you produce any source that refutes what it says?

 

You're asking for a refutation of an opinion piece? Should Tom provide sources outlining how the author's opinions of "better or worse" are not what he's claiming they are in your link?

[Nanker]

Here's source: "Hey BirdBrain, you're full of ****!" Nanker

[TH3]

how about you produce any source that refutes what it says?

 

Tom does not really do anything......so......

[birdog1960]

Here's source: "Hey BirdBrain, you're full of ****!" Nanker

tisk, tisk. i'm shocked none of you read the mother jones piece linked in the first piece! it included quotes from brat on a variety of subjects and those could easily be refuted if not true. but instead you're left with nankompoop's argument.

[Magox]

"called for slashing social security, medicare and education and says "rich" nations don't have to fear climate change..." http://themoderatevo...s-and-religion/. since i'm confident a link to a mother jones article will ber blown off, here's another link with that piece included: http://themoderatevo...s-and-religion/. and while it appears he's yet to make a major gaffe on social issues and he may well be an outlier among tea partiers in this regard, that's kinda the point, non?

 

how bout this: http://news.yahoo.co...-173536113.html. only his campaign manager, one of 2 paid staffers on his campaign. it doesn't take much looking cuz these dudes are mostly looney. it is what it is...

 

I just read the first link, and there isn't anything in there wacky owhatsoever other than the author's OPINION.

 

Point to a quote he made or a position he made that backs up what you had been saying. And no, an opinion from a wackobird doesn't count.

 

For crying out loud, the author somehow thought that:

 

In the paper, titled “Is Growth Exogenous? Taking Bernanke Seriously (But How Can a Fed Guy Forget the Institutions)”, Mr. Brat waded into a debate among economists over the determinants of long-term growth with this conclusion: Mr. Bernanke’s work on economic growth overlooked the role that religious institutions–particularly Protestant ones–play in driving a country’s growth rates.

In his argument against Mr. Bernanke, Mr. Brat draws on previous research titled “Economic Growth and Institutions: The Rise and Fall of the Protestant Ethic?” a 2004 paper in which he wrote that Protestantism “provides an efficient set of property rights and encourages a modern set of economic incentives” so “one might anticipate positive economic performance.”

“Give me a country in 1600 that had a Protestant led contest for religious and political power and I will show you a country that is rich today,” he wrote.

 

Was contradictory to:

 

Can Christians force others to follow their ethical teachings on social issues? Note that consistency is lacking on all sides of this issue. The political Right likes to champion individual rights and individual liberty, but it has also worked to enforce morality in relation to abortion, gambling, and homosexuality. The Left likes to think of itself as the bulwark of progressive liberal individualism, and yet it seeks to progressively coerce others to fund every social program under the sun via majority rule. Houston, we have a problem. Coercion is on the rise. What is the root word for liberalism? (Answer: Liberty)

 

Which btw, I believe that second observation is spot on.

 

Just stop, do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

how about you produce any source that refutes what it says?

Refute an opinion?????

 

You want him, to get you a link, to refute an opinion?

 

 

tisk, tisk. i'm shocked none of you read the mother jones piece linked in the first piece! it included quotes from brat on a variety of subjects and those could easily be refuted if not true. but instead you're left with nankompoop's argument.

I read it and I posted it above. Nothing wacky in there at all, as a matter of fact, the second paragraph is spot on!

 

The Left likes to think of itself as the bulwark of progressive liberal individualism, and yet it seeks to progressively coerce others to fundevery social program under the sun via majority rule.

 

Love it!

Edited June 16, 2014 by Magox

[DC Tom]

how about you produce any source that refutes what it says?

 

Produce a source that refutes "Liberals rule, Republicans drool?"

 

tisk, tisk. i'm shocked none of you read the mother jones piece linked in the first piece! it included quotes from brat on a variety of subjects and those could easily be refuted if not true. but instead you're left with nankompoop's argument.

 

I read it. It's actually a better article than what you linked to. Idiot.

[birdog1960]

I just read the first link, and there isn't anything in there wacky owhatsoever other than the author's OPINION.

 

Point to a quote he made or a position he made that backs up what you had been saying. And no, an opinion from a wackobird doesn't count.

 

For crying out loud, the author somehow thought that:

 

 

 

Was contradictory to:

 

 

Which btw, I believe that second observation is spot on.

 

Just stop, do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

 

Refute an opinion?????

 

You want him, to get you a link, to refute an opinion?

 

 

 

I read it and I posted it above. Nothing wacky in there at all, as a matter of fact, the second paragraph is spot on!

 

 

 

Love it!

might it be that you and dc don't find the statements or positions extreme because yall share the same extreme positons? hate to break it to you but ppp is hardly a representative cross section of the electorate. there aren't enough angry white men to win elections in most districts much less on a national level.

[Magox]

might it be that you and dc don't find the statements or positions extreme because yall share the same extreme positons? hate to break it to you but ppp is hardly a representative cross section of the electorate. there aren't enough angry white men to win elections in most districts much less on a national level.

 

 

 

So which view in your view was extreme from that article?

 

And I guarantee you that your views are much more extreme in the eyes of the American public than mine. That's specially funny coming from the resident PPP socialist

Edited June 16, 2014 by Magox

[DC Tom]

might it be that you and dc don't find the statements or positions extreme because yall share the same extreme positons? hate to break it to you but ppp is hardly a representative cross section of the electorate. there aren't enough angry white men to win elections in most districts much less on a national level.

 

Yeah. I'm an extremist.

[Azalin]

might it be that you and dc don't find the statements or positions extreme because yall share the same extreme positons? hate to break it to you but ppp is hardly a representative cross section of the electorate. there aren't enough angry white men to win elections in most districts much less on a national level.

 

this is a mistake that people like you & Gator frequently make - you label people who take a literal view of the Constitution as being extreme, while forgetting that the US Constitution is by far the most liberal document in the democratic world. in addition, you cling to the notion that conservative and liberatarian Americans are the ones who are angry, while the modern left is in a perpetual state of protest, calling anyone who disagrees with them 'extreme', 'angry', and assuming that they're all white.

 

how is that not the definition of extreme, angry, or prejudiced?

 

 

[B-Man]

this is a mistake that people like you & Gator frequently make - you label people who take a literal view of the Constitution as being extreme, while forgetting that the US Constitution is by far the most liberal document in the democratic world. in addition, you cling to the notion that conservative and liberatarian Americans are the ones who are angry, while the modern left is in a perpetual state of protest, calling anyone who disagrees with them 'extreme', 'angry', and assuming that they're all white.

 

how is that not the definition of extreme, angry, or prejudiced?

 

 

Hey!..................get that common sense out of here.......................lol

 

Meanwhile , back at the thread.

 

 

 

Cantor will vote for Brat

 

The Hill

 

 

 

David Brat Is Right

 

 

.

[birdog1960]

this is a mistake that people like you & Gator frequently make - you label people who take a literal view of the Constitution as being extreme, while forgetting that the US Constitution is by far the most liberal document in the democratic world. in addition, you cling to the notion that conservative and liberatarian Americans are the ones who are angry, while the modern left is in a perpetual state of protest, calling anyone who disagrees with them 'extreme', 'angry', and assuming that they're all white.

 

how is that not the definition of extreme, angry, or prejudiced?

look at the demographics from the last prez election. all white? no, but certainly predominantly. and more white than is capable of carrying a national election.

 

So which view in your view was extreme from that article?

 

And I guarantee you that your views are much more extreme in the eyes of the American public than mine. That's specially funny coming from the resident PPP socialist

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/david-brat-eric-cantor-common-good-climate-change. i'll take paragraphs 2,3 and 4 and the second to last pp for 1000 alex.

[Azalin]

look at the demographics from the last prez election. all white? no, but certainly predominantly. and more white than is capable of carrying a national election.

 

but most conservatives didn't show up to vote in 2012. the base didn't turn out. you pay too much attention to skin color.

[birdog1960]

but most conservatives didn't show up to vote in 2012. the base didn't turn out. you pay too much attention to skin color.

if you don't think campaign managers on both sides are paying attention (with the possible exceptions of bart's - and what about him, btw?) then your naivete is near record levels. Edited June 16, 2014 by birdog1960

[Magox]

look at the demographics from the last prez election. all white? no, but certainly predominantly. and more white than is capable of carrying a national election.

 

http://www.motherjon...-climate-change. i'll take paragraphs 2,3 and 4 and the second to last pp for 1000 alex.

 

This is the only quote from paragraph 2

 

"My hero Socrates trained in Plato on a rock. How much did that cost? So the greatest minds in history became the greatest minds in history without spending a lot of money."

 

That's extreme? Only in the mind of a bankrupting socialist would they consider that to be extreme.

 

In paragraph 3, there is no quote.

 

And in paragraph 4

 

well, there is no paragraph 4, because Mother Jones issued a correction.

 

Keep searching, you still haven't found anything.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Magox

[birdog1960]

This is the only quote from paragraph 2

 

 

 

That's extreme? Only in the mind of a bankrupting socialist would they consider that to be extreme.

 

In paragraph 3, there is no quote.

 

And in paragraph 4

 

well, there is no paragraph 4, because Mother Jones issued a correction.

 

Keep searching, you still haven't found anything.

you might try clicking on the underlined words in those paragraphs. seems mother jones already did the searching. Edited June 16, 2014 by birdog1960

[Azalin]

if you don't think campaign managers on both sides are paying attention (with the possible exceptions of bart's - and what about him, btw?) then your naivete is near record levels.

 

I'm not talking about campaign managers. I'm talking about you. you cling to the stereotype of the angry white male, using it to dismiss those with opposing viewpoints by asssigning them a charicature you feel comfortable in dismissing. that's what Gator does, but he uses less syllables and smaller words in doing so.

 

with regard to Brat, all I've read pertains to his upsetting Cantor, and that he was backed by people from the TEA party movement. his record will determine my feelings on the man as a representitive, but for the record, I don't trust any of them. I just distrust some more than I do others.

[TakeYouToTasker]

you might try clicking on the underlined words in those paragraphs. seems mother jones already did the searching.

I checked the links in the second paragraph and then stopped there. Here's why:

 

In the link Mother Jones claims is slashing Social Security for seniors, Brat speaks about how seniors today are dependant on this money, and further, that individuals approaching senior status may also be dependant upon it, and would require some "grandfathering in to the old system", but that moving forward, the system must be reformed in order that in remain solvent. So, he's not talking about slashing Social Security for seniors at all. He's talking about reforming the system for future generations, and being honest about the solvency of the system.

 

Oh-for-one.

 

The second link, in which Mother Jones claims Brat says he favors the dissolving of the IRS implying an end to federal taxation, or atleast an end to progressive taxation, Brat says no such thing. He mentions, almost in passing, how the Steve Forbes Fair Tax would have elminated the need for the IRS, then moves on to talk about other legislative efforts to simplify the tax code and eliminate loopholes, and how tax code reform is continually shelved by Republicans because it's politically difficult durring election years.

 

Oh-for-two.

 

The final link in the paragraph, Mother Jones uses as an example of how Brat favors drastically reducing education spending. This, once again, is an outright fabrication. Brat very clearly articulates that he believes that spending on education is much better allocated at the state level, because he believes that state governments are more responsive to individual communities, and that individual communities know better how to educate their own kids than a top down federal bureaucracy with a one size fits all approach does.

 

That oh-for-three, which is what is known as a strikeout.

 

That's where I stopped with your "source".

[Tiberius]

 

 

this is a mistake that people like you & Gator frequently make - you label people who take a literal view of the Constitution as being extreme

oh? You don't think that the literal interpretation of a document written in the 18th century isn't extreme? Like the brilliant idea--supported by a member of this board--that paper and electronic money are not Constitutinal? No, I'm not the one making the mistake moron