Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Which poster shows more bias
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Which poster shows more bias
Tweet Topic Started: May 30 2009, 12:13 AM (444 Views)
HoosierLars Jun 1 2009, 09:31 PM Post #16
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
yawnzzz
Jun 1 2009, 05:42 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 1 2009, 05:09 PM
Brumdog: "In terms of the McCain/Obama vote, I don't see the GOP's budget as being much different"

Bump to see how Brum can explain that statement besides blaming the chart on partisan hacks like me and the Heritage Foundation.
So you're saying that McCain/Bush/Any Republican are all created equal when it comes to spending?
No, there's a huge difference between fiscal conservatives and relatively big spending repubs like Bush 43. The point is people went ape shit over Bush's spending, and he looks frugal compared to The Messiah's future budgets.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 1 2009, 09:48 PM Post #17
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 1 2009, 05:09 PM
Brumdog: "In terms of the McCain/Obama vote, I don't see the GOP's budget as being much different"

Bump to see how Brum can explain that statement besides blaming the chart on partisan hacks like me and the Heritage Foundation.
14-5.

I'll explain that when you explain how the Heritage Foundation is an unbiased group. I don't need to examine a chart that took me five minutes to find the initial $850 billion bias on it.

When I spot crap I don't bother to examine it any further; crap is crap.

I also stated that Obama had not kept his promise on the budget, which you conveniently ignored. You're too tied up on 'the GOP is better.'

There is a reason that people are voting for you as the bias one and it has nothing to do with your 'disagreeing' with everyone and everything to do with your spin.

But hey, keep up your Messiah chants. You can see how seriously everyone takes you. Viva la Patriot Act, eh, Lars?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 1 2009, 11:44 PM Post #18
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 1 2009, 09:48 PM
I also stated that Obama had not kept his promise on the budget, which you conveniently ignored. You're too tied up on 'the GOP is better.'

There is a reason that people are voting for you as the bias one and it has nothing to do with your 'disagreeing' with everyone and everything to do with your spin.
I would have definitely voted for Ron Paul in the general election over McCain and The Messiah. Saying he's the only fiscal conservative in the Repub party is dizzying spin even for you. Early on I said McCain was a poor candidate, and hoped that Obama would move to the center and be an effective president, far from a partisan hack. It's become apparent that B.O. is far worse fiscally than most Paul supporters could have imagined, and he will do great damage to our country if he isn't stopped in 2010. I don't care if he's stopped by conservative Repubs, Libertarians, or card carrying Marxists (who are more fiscally conservative than B.O.)
http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2009/05/russian-warns-america-of-obama-marxism.html
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.


For now I'll just be happy that you've admitted that The Messiah lied about the budget. And the fact that you have an interest in Ron Paul is a big improvement, and maybe you will eventually figure out that "domestic liberals" can't be Paul supporters, and change your value system.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 2 2009, 12:21 AM Post #19
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 1 2009, 11:44 PM
brumdog44
Jun 1 2009, 09:48 PM
I also stated that Obama had not kept his promise on the budget, which you conveniently ignored. You're too tied up on 'the GOP is better.'

There is a reason that people are voting for you as the bias one and it has nothing to do with your 'disagreeing' with everyone and everything to do with your spin.
I would have definitely voted for Ron Paul in the general election over McCain and The Messiah. Saying he's the only fiscal conservative in the Repub party is dizzying spin even for you. Early on I said McCain was a poor candidate, and hoped that Obama would move to the center and be an effective president, far from a partisan hack. It's become apparent that B.O. is far worse fiscally than most Paul supporters could have imagined, and he will do great damage to our country if he isn't stopped in 2010. I don't care if he's stopped by conservative Repubs, Libertarians, or card carrying Marxists (who are more fiscally conservative than B.O.)
http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2009/05/russian-warns-america-of-obama-marxism.html
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.


For now I'll just be happy that you've admitted that The Messiah lied about the budget. And the fact that you have an interest in Ron Paul is a big improvement, and maybe you will eventually figure out that "domestic liberals" can't be Paul supporters, and change your value system.
I am a social liberal...but I am by and large an isolationist in terms of military presence and foreign aid. The first fits a democratic point of view, the second fits neither the current DNC or GOP.

Ron Paul supports several 'non-republican' traditinoal values, such as being against a national definition of marriage to be 'man-woman.' He supports legalizing drugs, which I am not necessarily in favor of, but that is most definitely not traditional republican thinking.

The point is that I am not going to limit my political choices to a single issue, not even social issues. The truth is that what has lead the republican party to the current state it is in is their focus on the targeted social conservative base they have and not the fiscal conservative base.

If you give me a choice of Bill Clinton or Barak Obama, I'd choose Clinton ten times out of ten. But that wasn't the choice in the last election, and I still don't see McCain as a better option.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 2 2009, 01:14 AM Post #20
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 2 2009, 12:21 AM
I am a social liberal...but I am by and large an isolationist in terms of military presence and foreign aid. The first fits a democratic point of view, the second fits neither the current DNC or GOP.

Ron Paul supports several 'non-republican' traditinoal values, such as being against a national definition of marriage to be 'man-woman.' He supports legalizing drugs, which I am not necessarily in favor of, but that is most definitely not traditional republican thinking.

The point is that I am not going to limit my political choices to a single issue, not even social issues. The truth is that what has lead the republican party to the current state it is in is their focus on the targeted social conservative base they have and not the fiscal conservative base.

If you give me a choice of Bill Clinton or Barak Obama, I'd choose Clinton ten times out of ten. But that wasn't the choice in the last election, and I still don't see McCain as a better option.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't been playing very close attention to my posted positions:

1) Pro-choice although am for strictly limiting abortions. I believe they have a very negative effect on our national conscience, and can lead to a lack of respect for life.

2) I haven't taken a strong stance on drug legalization. If liberals weren't running the country and tough love could be used, I say go for it.

3) I don't have a strong position on whether gays should marry. It's not a priority for me. The Messiah supports the traditional views on marriage. You don't see that ever mentioned in the NY Times.

4) Getting our fiscal house in order trumps all other issues for me. Ignore this year and next and admit that the CBO budget numbers paint a very depressing, bleak future.

5) I'm afraid that it will become painfully apparent that McCain would have been a better choice. However, I believe the pain we're feeling now could lead to a much brighter future. Young Messiah followers like Btown will see how much they were misled, and won't be as susceptible to being hypnotized by the cult of personality in the future.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 2 2009, 03:55 PM Post #21
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
If McCain would have been elected, he wouldn't have been running the country. In the end of the end, he was spouting what he was told to spout. He didn't have the energy to fight his own handlers.

That much was obvious in the choice of V.P.

The bottom line is that Palin wasn't his first choice. Or second. I have no idea how far down the list she would have been, but in the end it was clear he had no say in the matter. It was also obvious that he wasn't calling the shots on the campaign trail. He had been reduced to a figurehead who was being forced to try to sell himself to the social conservative base.

He wasn't the McCain of 2000, and if he had been elected IMO going forward you would have seen that.

And he himself admitted to the fact that he was not well versed in economics....so why would I expect a better economic plan?
Edited by brumdog44, Jun 2 2009, 03:57 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 2 2009, 04:00 PM Post #22
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 2 2009, 03:55 PM
He wasn't the McCain of 2000, and if he had been elected IMO going forward you would have seen that.

And he himself admitted to the fact that he was not well versed in economics....so why would I expect a better economic plan?
I totally agree McCain went down hill a lot since 2000, and was surprised he won the nomination. He was maybe 5th on my list.

Obama's economic plan is horrible, and I don't see how McCain or any other republican/libertarian could do any worse.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
boilergrad01 Jun 2 2009, 04:02 PM Post #23
Working on the last 5
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#135
Joined:
February 9, 2008
Brum,

Will you admit Sen McCain is a good man. I disagree with he was a mouth piece. I do agree that he and the RNC did a horrible job working together after he received the nomination. That is a dead horse he lost. I just wonder do you respect Sen McCain?????
Nothing beats an Astronaut
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jun 2 2009, 04:44 PM Post #24
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Here is the problem I have with Lars assuming McCain would have been better. You are comparing an unknown with a known. You hear this same rationale with people who have ended up at a place in their life that they do not like, and they end up blaming it on one choice they have made. "If only I had not taken that job in Phoenix, my life would be so much better. If only I had not married an IU fan, my life would have been better." There is no way to know if the choice would have been better, only that it would have made life different. You can speculate all you want that McCain would have been a better President, but no one really knows. The typical response to this is, he could not have done worse. However, he could have died in office and Palin could be running the country, "don't cha know".

I tend to believe a fiscal conservative, social liberal would be the ultimate combination. By 'Social Liberal', I mean keep the federal government out of the discussion of social and morality issues. The 'Social Conservatives' have ruined the GOP. Social Conservatives will spend like drunken sailors if they believe they can mandate morality and that is why I believe they should not be courted by the GOP.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 2 2009, 04:54 PM Post #25
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Jun 2 2009, 04:44 PM
Here is the problem I have with Lars assuming McCain would have been better. You are comparing an unknown with a known. You hear this same rationale with people who have ended up at a place in their life that they do not like, and they end up blaming it on one choice they have made. "If only I had not taken that job in Phoenix, my life would be so much better. If only I had not married an IU fan, my life would have been better." There is no way to know if the choice would have been better, only that it would have made life different. You can speculate all you want that McCain would have been a better President, but no one really knows. The typical response to this is, he could not have done worse. However, he could have died in office and Palin could be running the country, "don't cha know".

I tend to believe a fiscal conservative, social liberal would be the ultimate combination. By 'Social Liberal', I mean keep the federal government out of the discussion of social and morality issues. The 'Social Conservatives' have ruined the GOP. Social Conservatives will spend like drunken sailors if they believe they can mandate morality and that is why I believe they should not be courted by the GOP.
So are you saying Purdue really was lucky to have Matt Ten Dam?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jun 2 2009, 04:55 PM Post #26
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 2 2009, 04:54 PM
eelbor
Jun 2 2009, 04:44 PM
Here is the problem I have with Lars assuming McCain would have been better. You are comparing an unknown with a known. You hear this same rationale with people who have ended up at a place in their life that they do not like, and they end up blaming it on one choice they have made. "If only I had not taken that job in Phoenix, my life would be so much better. If only I had not married an IU fan, my life would have been better." There is no way to know if the choice would have been better, only that it would have made life different. You can speculate all you want that McCain would have been a better President, but no one really knows. The typical response to this is, he could not have done worse. However, he could have died in office and Palin could be running the country, "don't cha know".

I tend to believe a fiscal conservative, social liberal would be the ultimate combination. By 'Social Liberal', I mean keep the federal government out of the discussion of social and morality issues. The 'Social Conservatives' have ruined the GOP. Social Conservatives will spend like drunken sailors if they believe they can mandate morality and that is why I believe they should not be courted by the GOP.
So are you saying Purdue really was lucky to have Matt Ten Dam?
Yes, we kept another undeserving team from basking in his awesomeness.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 2 2009, 05:50 PM Post #27
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Jun 2 2009, 04:44 PM
Here is the problem I have with Lars assuming McCain would have been better. You are comparing an unknown with a known. You hear this same rationale with people who have ended up at a place in their life that they do not like, and they end up blaming it on one choice they have made. "If only I had not taken that job in Phoenix, my life would be so much better. If only I had not married an IU fan, my life would have been better." There is no way to know if the choice would have been better, only that it would have made life different. You can speculate all you want that McCain would have been a better President, but no one really knows. The typical response to this is, he could not have done worse. However, he could have died in office and Palin could be running the country, "don't cha know".

I tend to believe a fiscal conservative, social liberal would be the ultimate combination. By 'Social Liberal', I mean keep the federal government out of the discussion of social and morality issues. The 'Social Conservatives' have ruined the GOP. Social Conservatives will spend like drunken sailors if they believe they can mandate morality and that is why I believe they should not be courted by the GOP.
if you believe, as I do, that being fiscally responsible/irresponsible is #1 in terms of governmental impact on it's citizens, then I believe it is fair to say that McCain would have been some degree "better" as a President than Obama. He isn't exactly a fiscal conservative historically, but no educated assumption could lead you to believe that he would be spending more than the Obama admin is at this point.

In terms of the other social factors that could make him a worse President, you really have a tough battle there.


  • Mccain is pro-life, but so was Bush and that didn't get Roe vs. Wade any closer to being overturned.

  • McCain is in favor of "traditional" marriage, but sees that as a state's issue, so the same battles going on now would continue.

  • Souter probably wouldn't be retiring if we had a Republican Pres, so that really isn't a factor.

  • Both are basically for open borders (McCain to a lesser degree) and amnesty for illegals.

  • Both are against waterboarding.

  • McCain would keep Gitmo open, but so is Obama.....anything he says contrary to that is just a fart in the wind.

  • Obama isn't getting us out of war, just transitioning to a different area, while McCain probably would stay longer in Iraq.

  • McCain would spend more on defense, but that would probably be the only thing.

  • Both are "against earmarks" and we see how well that policy is holding up so far under Obama

  • It's unclear to me whether or not McCain would have bailed out GM, but I don't think he would have paid off the UAW first


Fairly safe to say that McCain would be a "better" President based on what we are seeing out of Obama, and what we know about McCain.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 2 2009, 09:52 PM Post #28
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
You have to remember that McCain let politics trump his quote-unquote 'country first' agenda in terms of the bailout. Is one to believe that we wouldn't be seeing more of the same? I don't.

I haven't had time to go through each issue you stated for McCain and Obama, aaron, but I did notice you said both wanted to keep Gitmo open. That was not try during the campaign....both pledged to close it.

bg, yes I did respect McCain. Thought his campaign was incredibly poorly run and that he really sold a piece of himself and went against what he stood for in his effort to win the presidency, though. Compare his campaign to Bob Dole's, both of which the result was the same: Dole pretty much stuck to what he always stood for. McCain didn't...he tried to play all too many 'angles' in my opinion, trying to play to specific crowds to gain votes. I'm not confident of what he would have shown based upon what his campaign was....by and large I think if he won, the GOP, not John McCain, would have been president.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 2 2009, 10:01 PM Post #29
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 2 2009, 09:52 PM
I haven't had time to go through each issue you stated for McCain and Obama, aaron, but I did notice you said both wanted to keep Gitmo open. That was not try during the campaign....both pledged to close it.
my bad....both pledged to close it, neither actually would do it.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jun 2 2009, 10:45 PM Post #30
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Jun 2 2009, 05:50 PM
eelbor
Jun 2 2009, 04:44 PM
Here is the problem I have with Lars assuming McCain would have been better. You are comparing an unknown with a known. You hear this same rationale with people who have ended up at a place in their life that they do not like, and they end up blaming it on one choice they have made. "If only I had not taken that job in Phoenix, my life would be so much better. If only I had not married an IU fan, my life would have been better." There is no way to know if the choice would have been better, only that it would have made life different. You can speculate all you want that McCain would have been a better President, but no one really knows. The typical response to this is, he could not have done worse. However, he could have died in office and Palin could be running the country, "don't cha know".

I tend to believe a fiscal conservative, social liberal would be the ultimate combination. By 'Social Liberal', I mean keep the federal government out of the discussion of social and morality issues. The 'Social Conservatives' have ruined the GOP. Social Conservatives will spend like drunken sailors if they believe they can mandate morality and that is why I believe they should not be courted by the GOP.
if you believe, as I do, that being fiscally responsible/irresponsible is #1 in terms of governmental impact on it's citizens, then I believe it is fair to say that McCain would have been some degree "better" as a President than Obama. He isn't exactly a fiscal conservative historically, but no educated assumption could lead you to believe that he would be spending more than the Obama admin is at this point.

In terms of the other social factors that could make him a worse President, you really have a tough battle there.


  • Mccain is pro-life, but so was Bush and that didn't get Roe vs. Wade any closer to being overturned.

  • McCain is in favor of "traditional" marriage, but sees that as a state's issue, so the same battles going on now would continue.

  • Souter probably wouldn't be retiring if we had a Republican Pres, so that really isn't a factor.

  • Both are basically for open borders (McCain to a lesser degree) and amnesty for illegals.

  • Both are against waterboarding.

  • McCain would keep Gitmo open, but so is Obama.....anything he says contrary to that is just a fart in the wind.

  • Obama isn't getting us out of war, just transitioning to a different area, while McCain probably would stay longer in Iraq.

  • McCain would spend more on defense, but that would probably be the only thing.

  • Both are "against earmarks" and we see how well that policy is holding up so far under Obama

  • It's unclear to me whether or not McCain would have bailed out GM, but I don't think he would have paid off the UAW first


Fairly safe to say that McCain would be a "better" President based on what we are seeing out of Obama, and what we know about McCain.
So, in a longer way around the horn, you chose "he could not have done worse".
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:45 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy