Yes Gore and Cheney were superfluous.
Correct.
Does that position hold up to any scrutiny? That is one of the most uninformed and patently ridiculous statements you have made. I can't choose which is worse, your grasp of the role of law in our system and the world system, or your claim that the vice-president is "superfluous."
I was quoting Thomas Jefferson you idiot, but I guess you wouldn't know that. That goes for you too Schmo.
"Look at all the vice presidents in history.... They were about as useful as a cow's fifth teat."-
Harry S Truman"[Vice-President] is the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." -
John Adams"Superfluous excellency" -
Thomas Jefferson.
According to Trev, these men are the "most uninformed" about American politics. Sigh. Talk about a "lightweight."
As I said before, you should really educate yourself on politics before contributing. You're stealing some of the crow I've been preparing for Analytics.
Kevin is a prophet, and we should all trust his ability to divine the future.
No, I simply require evidence before someone tells me that a person with an outrageously high approval rating, should serve at least two termns before one can reasonably deduce that her constituents like her and approve of her work. You invent this crazy reasoning from thin air, knowing perfectly well your own candidate has not finished his first term, even though he promised he would.
Which, in Kevin speak, means that if I do not buy the bill of goods he has, then surely I cannot be a reasonable person.
Not at all. You simply illustrate your premise that nothing she does is good enough. You do this with double-talk, like this for example:
Whether her cuts were the right cuts and whether they will work in the long run is something that people who like evidence would want to wait to find out. For Kevin this is evidently an unqualified good without waiting for the second half to unfold
So in Trevor logic, when Palin spends, she is "leaving" her constituents in debt, but she cuts spending dramatically, she is probably acting irresponsibly and only time will tell if her cuts were wise. This is just too rich! You even dissected an article bragging about her and tried to find things that counted as valid criticism! If I want to father her children, then you must want to drown them. All rhetoric aside, you cannot distance yourself from the obvious hypocritical position where you've firmly planted yourself.
And I am sure that everyone on this board would agree with you when you claim that I lack all of those qualities.
Not generally, but on the issue of politics your mind is slammed shut.
My voting record in presidential elections alone reveals me for the shameless, unquestioning ideologue that I am.
Aren't you the same guy who said he was going to vote for someone you believe isn't qualified to be President? You don't care about the issues.
My argument was that your statement concerning Palin's and Obama's relative credentials regarding the economy were stupid. Maybe you have forgotten that by now.
And your belligerent attitude on this is what got you in this mess, maybe you have forgotton that by now. The fact is you haven't even demonstrated that you even understand my argument. Neither does Analytics apparently. The simple fact of the matter is that Palin has managed an economy and the results were not mediocre, they were astounding. Obama has done nothing except talk about the economy, and he says whatever his economic advisors tell him to say. I asked you for evidence that Obama knows the eeconomy and you laughably, give me his JD at Harvard!
My choice of Obama is a calculated risk. I prefer to have a better bench than a 72 year old man who has suffered malignant cancer and a half-term governor of a state with less than 1 million people. Some might call that good sense.
Only if that analysis also considered the downside to choosing Obama. You're willing to abandon your own principles and move away from McCain just because he picked a religious woman. Just admit it. Your reasoning isn't sound, not if you acknowledge Obama's inexperience.
The besotted conservative shill will overlook these problems and accuse anyone who refuses to do likewise lazy, ignorant, and partisan. Good luck, Kevin. Chuck Hagel is lazy, ignorant, and simply partisan in his opposition to the Palin pick. LOL.
Again, start thinking for yourself and stop reading web blogs. Do I really need to point out the numerous, former Obama/Hillary supporters who are going with McCain-Palin?
I am pretty sure that few people are ignorant of the fact that the suspension of the McCain campaign was a thinly-veiled stunt to revive his flagging position in the polls. If you deny it, you will only look like a complete idiot. The evidence is out there for everyone to see
Except that between the two of us, I'm the only one who actually provides evidence. You simply allude to it "out there" somewhere. You're literally quoting Barny Frank, who called this a "stunt." Barney Frank Trevor! The same guy who insisted there was no crisis with FM/FM just two years ago.
According to Bob Schieffer speaking with the Early Show's Maggie Rodriguez
I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you've got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you've got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don't do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that's how, McCain, apparently, became involved.
He has gotten what he wants, he's going to have this meeting, kind of a summit today with the president and Barack Obama. I'm told that the leaders of both parties are getting close to having some kind of a bill. The question, though, is whether rank-and-file Republicans, especially, are going to vote for this.
But this little factoid didn't appear anywhere in the liberal press, so you didn't hear about it.
By the way, you forget that I said McCain won the first debate. I thought he was much more eloquent than Obama, and that he put on a much better show. Frankly, he wiped the floor with Obama, who came off as a frightened, underprepared college lecturer.
So?
Since you are hellbent on portraying me as closed minded, contrary to a great deal of evidence on this board, past and present, you continue to neglect what I actually write. You only use what is convenient to you for wrenching and misusing to score points.
Score points with whom? I'm not the one calling for support from the crowd. I'm not here for a popularity contest.
I eagerly await all of the evidence you bring here that changes my mind.
You're too hellbent on demonizing Palin over every stupid thing. Until you rid yourself of that frame of mind, there is no chance of convincing you of much of anything.
Some people understand that I am open to evidence and good arguments. They know that I will acknowledge the truth when I am convinced I have found it. Do I seek their approval? No. But I am comfortable that their witness of my behavior would contradict your attempt to portray me inaccurately.
Yes, but you never admit being wrong after you've taken the dive into a heated argument, especially one where you've called your opponent idiot, stupid, moron, etc., all of which devolved from the initial "silly." Read over how all this started Trev.
So, cutting spending out of the pockets of her own constituents equals refusing federal earmarks. Astounding reasoning. Do you see that this claim simply makes no sense? Are you capable of saying, "Gee, I was wrong about that!"?
If I were. The fact is earmark requests were cut down as well. They went from over 700 million from her predecessor's term, to 500 million to under 250 million. Some reasonable people might consider that progress in spending cuts. But the spinsters will simply point out that last year she requested 250 million and then portray her as a hypocrite for saying she is against abusive spending!
This is one of the most brilliant and accurate descriptions of a typical Kevin post that I've ever read on these boards. I LOLed in a big way. Well done
The irony couldn't possibly be any thicker. All of this, based on Trev's ignorance of the phrase "superfluous excellency".
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein