DeMint for President?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Oh, we are threatening now!
Well, too bad I haven't polls from 2004 in my pocket to satisfy the curiosity of a hack like you.

Of a hack like me. Wow. Apparently, people are hacks when they ask for proof of something especially when someone makes an outrageous claim!

Do a simple Internet search, my friend. I bet I know why you won't - the numbers you cited are made up.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...this all stemmed from me calling John Kerry too liberal. He was rejected. The exit polls showed that "moral values" were the top issue in 2004. That clearly was a sign that Kerry was too liberal. Everyone accepts this. However, you go on some silly rant about how only two pundits created that as a reason and you claimed that there were polls showing that the public agreed with the Dems had the "vast majority" of voters on their side. The burden of proof is on your shoulders.

By the way, you never answered why the "vast majority" agreed with the Dems but the vast majority didn't vote for Kerry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I get arrogant when I'm dealing with people like yourself; when you confront my accepted claim that Kerry was too liberal with your own arrogance.

And, by the way, you're mocking O'Reilly for not really been an Independent? Well, people in glass houses...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103102/Democratic-Party-Winning-Issues.aspx

Have a nice day... 
Hack.
 

LOL

That's from 2007! We were clearly talking about 2004.

What a failure.

There is a comparison with 2004, if you scroll the page.

But then again it's somewhat difficult to see it with your head up your ...derriere.

[Keystone Phil]

There is a comparison with 2004, if you scroll the page.

But then again it's somewhat difficult to see it with your head up your ...derriere.

My friend, the only "vast majority" you have there is on healthcare. The Dems barely had a lead on the other two issues. Sorry.

[Landslide Lyndon]

There is a comparison with 2004, if you scroll the page.

But then again it's somewhat difficult to see it with your head up your ...derriere.

My friend, the only "vast majority" you have there is on healthcare. The Dems barely had a lead on the other two issues. Sorry.

You're so predictable it's not even fun to mock you any more.
Have a nice day.

Hack.

[Keystone Phil]

There is a comparison with 2004, if you scroll the page.

But then again it's somewhat difficult to see it with your head up your ...derriere.

My friend, the only "vast majority" you have there is on healthcare. The Dems barely had a lead on the other two issues. Sorry.

You're so predictable it's not even fun to mock you any more.
Have a nice day.

Hack.

Yeah, right, predictable in calling out flat out lies.

Move along, troll.

[pbrower2a]

Oh, we are threatening now!
Well, too bad I haven't polls from 2004 in my pocket to satisfy the curiosity of a hack like you.

Of a hack like me. Wow. Apparently, people are hacks when they ask for proof of something especially when someone makes an outrageous claim!

Do a simple Internet search, my friend. I bet I know why you won't - the numbers you cited are made up.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...this all stemmed from me calling John Kerry too liberal. He was rejected. The exit polls showed that "moral values" were the top issue in 2004. That clearly was a sign that Kerry was too liberal. Everyone accepts this. However, you go on some silly rant about how only two pundits created that as a reason and you claimed that there were polls showing that the public agreed with the Dems had the "vast majority" of voters on their side. The burden of proof is on your shoulders.

By the way, you never answered why the "vast majority" agreed with the Dems but the vast majority didn't vote for Kerry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I get arrogant when I'm dealing with people like yourself; when you confront my accepted claim that Kerry was too liberal with your own arrogance.

And, by the way, you're mocking O'Reilly for not really been an Independent? Well, people in glass houses...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103102/Democratic-Party-Winning-Issues.aspx

Have a nice day... 
Hack.
 

LOL

That's from 2007! We were clearly talking about 2004.

What a failure.

The "base" has been shrinking. The GOP elector is now older than the electorate as a whole. Its organization has begun to falter, especially in GOTV efforts. In 2008, two of the televangelists of highest profile, Jerry Falwell (Virginia) and D. James Kennedy (Florida) died. Those two were powerful organizers of voters especially in their home states, and when they died their once-effective GOTV efforts went into disarray. Surely those two deaths hurt the GOP in either Virginia and Florida. It may not be coincidence that Obama won Virginia, Florida, and the election.

It shrunk that much since 2004? I don't think so.

I have given a possible cause, and I recognize Falwell and Kennedy as some of the more rational figures of the Religious Right, and very good organizers of their pet causes -- but they were right wing, nonetheless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. Youth born between 1961 and 1981 (Generation X)  have proved much more conservative in their political beliefs, except on race, than their predecessors. Youth born since 1981 have been more liberal than their predecessors. Ronald Reagan was able to ride the tide of young, anti-union, pro-business conservatives. May I suggest Generations by Neil Howe and the late William Strauss, followed by The Fourth Turning?

You cannot ignore demographics in political life. 

Oh, by the way: the simple past for the verb shrinkis shrank. Shrunk is the past participle.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In psychology, the term is projection: one accuses others of one's own behavior. An example: one inveterate bank robber explained why he robbed banks. The crook claimed, "the banks are the worst crooks".

Me? A troll? Trolls don't give analysis. Maybe you are the troll.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who doesn't have much to learn?

I am 53 years old, fellow, in case you think that I am a child.

I will quit believing that this is some liberal dawn among voters when the young voters begin to vote more conservatively.

[Keystone Phil]

Wrong. Youth born between 1961 and 1981 (Generation X)  have proved much more conservative in their political beliefs, except on race, than their predecessors. Youth born since 1981 have been more liberal than their predecessors. Ronald Reagan was able to ride the tide of young, anti-union, pro-business conservatives. May I suggest Generations by Neil Howe and the late William Strauss, followed by The Fourth Turning?

Maybe more conservative but, on the whole, most are still left leaning Dems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't give analysis. Yeah, you are new here...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this is the first time liberalism has struck a chord with young voters? Oh my.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Dear pbrower2a.
One word of advice regarding Keystone Phil:

 

[Keystone Phil]

Dear pbrower2a.
One word of advice regarding Keystone Phil:

 

How is the Dems +4 standing on two issues proof of a "vast majority" of support for them, Px? Please answer. I'm dying to know.

[Lunar]

Everyone is a troll!

Seriously, Phil, don't call pbrower2a a troll, it just looks asinine, he contributes more per post than almost anyone else here.  And px75, what's your prob?

[Keystone Phil]

Everyone is a troll!

Seriously, Phil, don't call pbrower2a a troll, it just looks asinine, he contributes more per post than almost anyone else here.  And px75, what's your prob?

Pbrower is a troll though. He tries to hide it by posting insanely lengthy posts to make himself seem all knowing. Read the posts. 75% of it is rhetoric that a conservative Republican just can't argue against. It's pointless.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Everyone is a troll!

Seriously, Phil, don't call pbrower2a a troll, it just looks asinine, he contributes more per post than almost anyone else here.  And px75, what's your prob?

Nothing special.
I just don't like intellectually dishonest hacks who prefer to argue about semantics instead of adressing a point.
 

[pbrower2a]

Wrong. Youth born between 1961 and 1981 (Generation X)  have proved much more conservative in their political beliefs, except on race, than their predecessors. Youth born since 1981 have been more liberal than their predecessors. Ronald Reagan was able to ride the tide of young, anti-union, pro-business conservatives. May I suggest Generations by Neil Howe and the late William Strauss, followed by The Fourth Turning?

Maybe more conservative but, on the whole, most are still left leaning Dems.

Only on matters of sexuality and personal consumption, and they are less religious on the whole than Boomers. They tend to libertarianism, and they abandoned the Hard Right when it began to show totalitarian characteristics.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't give analysis. Yeah, you are new here...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this is the first time liberalism has struck a chord with young voters? Oh my.
[/quote]

No, but this is your last communication from me before I put you on the Ignore List.

[Nixon in '80]

Everyone is a troll!

Seriously, Phil, don't call pbrower2a a troll, it just looks asinine, he contributes more per post than almost anyone else here.  And px75, what's your prob?

Nothing special.
I just don't like intellectually dishonest hacks who prefer to argue about semantics instead of adressing a point.
 

Semantics are kind of important in a debate... and one could argue that using the phrase "vast majority" when the truth is a either a slim majority or a plurality is a cornerstone of intellectually dishonest hackery.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Everyone is a troll!

Seriously, Phil, don't call pbrower2a a troll, it just looks asinine, he contributes more per post than almost anyone else here.  And px75, what's your prob?

Nothing special.
I just don't like intellectually dishonest hacks who prefer to argue about semantics instead of adressing a point.
 

Semantics are kind of important in a debate... and one could argue that using the phrase "vast majority" when the truth is a either a slim majority or a plurality is a cornerstone of intellectually dishonest hackery.

Wow! What a mouthful!

I wish you guys were that dilligent when McCain was arguing that Obama favored sex education for kindergarteners.
 
Or even better, when the Bush administration was talking about smoking guns and mushroom clouds some years ago.

But, better late than never.

[Nixon in '80]

Everyone is a troll!

Seriously, Phil, don't call pbrower2a a troll, it just looks asinine, he contributes more per post than almost anyone else here.  And px75, what's your prob?

Nothing special.
I just don't like intellectually dishonest hacks who prefer to argue about semantics instead of adressing a point.
 

Semantics are kind of important in a debate... and one could argue that using the phrase "vast majority" when the truth is a either a slim majority or a plurality is a cornerstone of intellectually dishonest hackery.

Wow! What a mouthful!

I wish you guys were that dilligent when McCain was arguing that Obama favored sex education for kindergarteners.
 
Or even better, when the Bush administration was talking about smoking guns and mushroom clouds some years ago.

But, better late than never.

I hope that equating your own hyperbole with that of prominent Republicans has helped you see the error of your ways.

[Keystone Phil]

Everyone is a troll!

Seriously, Phil, don't call pbrower2a a troll, it just looks asinine, he contributes more per post than almost anyone else here.  And px75, what's your prob?

Nothing special.
I just don't like intellectually dishonest hacks who prefer to argue about semantics instead of adressing a point.
 

Semantics? You got called out, dude. You claimed the American electorate backed the Dems on several issues by a "vast majority." Totally, totally wrong.

Wow! What a mouthful!

I wish you guys were that dilligent when McCain was arguing that Obama favored sex education for kindergarteners.
 
Or even better, when the Bush administration was talking about smoking guns and mushroom clouds some years ago.

But, better late than never.

LOL

Tell me again...who is the hack?

No, but this is your last communication from me before I put you on the Ignore List.

Oh, no. What a threat!

So you put me on ignore because you don't want to have a substantive discussion (you know, without the partisan rhetoric thrown in here and there) and I'm supposed to care?

The ignore function is for people that give up too easily on things. There's no point in being here if you have to "ignore" certain people that you disagree with on the issues.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Everyone is a troll!

Seriously, Phil, don't call pbrower2a a troll, it just looks asinine, he contributes more per post than almost anyone else here.  And px75, what's your prob?

Nothing special.
I just don't like intellectually dishonest hacks who prefer to argue about semantics instead of adressing a point.
 

Semantics? You got called out, dude. You claimed the American electorate backed the Dems on several issues by a "vast majority." Totally, totally wrong.

Whatever...
Dude!

I don't want to spoil your fantasy. Now go and have a good night's sleep where you will be dreaming the inaugauration of President Santorum and Vice President DeMint.

Wow! What a mouthful!

I wish you guys were that dilligent when McCain was arguing that Obama favored sex education for kindergarteners.
 
Or even better, when the Bush administration was talking about smoking guns and mushroom clouds some years ago.

But, better late than never.

LOL

Tell me again...who is the hack?

Well, of course you are.
Dude!

Oh, no. What a threat!

So you put me on ignore because you don't want to have a substantive discussion (you know, without the partisan rhetoric thrown in here and there) and I'm supposed to care?

The ignore function is for people that give up too easily on things. There's no point in being here if you have to "ignore" certain people that you disagree with on the issues.

Dude!

[Keystone Phil]

I don't want to spoil your fantasy. Now go and have a good night's sleep where you will be dreaming the inaugauration of President Santorum and Vice President DeMint.

Mature...as is everything else in this thread.

[RosettaStoned]

Palin/Demint '12 perhaps?

[Coburn In 2012]

Thanks for your posts in this thread Keystone Phil.  You are clearly one of the smartest and most non-hackish people here.  I agree with you too about Conrad Burns he really did have to go...corrupt