Burn-E Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 Every time you respond in such a fashion Gary, I win. We're going to win and win and just keep on winning if this continues. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin. Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 8 minutes ago, Burn-E said: Every time you respond in such a fashion Gary, I win. We're going to win and win and just keep on winning if this continues. wait a second, you're sounding like Trump now Alain! I knew it! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honeyman Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 We all lose when there are no decent bastards to vote for... oh sorry, "candidates." 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 8 minutes ago, Kevin. said: wait a second, you're sounding like Trump now Alain! I knew it! A troll on a roll. What do you call a guy who stumbles at the finish line? Trump! It will bring new meaning to the phrase, "I got Trumped!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin. Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 Alain, think the democratic superdelegates will change their stance to reflect how their state voted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 I don't think any super delegates are going to change their stance unless Bernie actually comes within spitting distance of Hillary in the pledged delegate count. He's still off by 230 and there are only two State caucuses left which is where he seems to excel but mostly it's just States with low African American voter populations. Everything else is Primaries and he hasn't fared well there. A miracle could happen but unless Bernie wins BIG in places like NY he's like a running back 30 yards out from the end zone surrounded by 9 opposing players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsk8 Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 On 3/24/2016 at 10:50 AM, Burn-E said: I no longer identify with the Republican party because it has shifted so extremely away from the core principles that it once stood for. I'm curious which principles you're referring to that have shifted so extremely to cause you to withdraw from the Republican party...? How did it "used to be" vs where it is now? And... how are those differences any different than what the democratic party is doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow95 Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 2 hours ago, Burn-E said: Every time you respond in such a fashion Gary, I win. We're going to win and win and just keep on winning if this continues. Yeah to a guy that has never been on a team I guess that is winning to you. lol How sad your existence must be. Glad I could give you your one moment. Way to go sport! I am going to have a participation trophy made up just for you. Your wife will have to bring the orange slices and the capri suns though. ;) 2 hours ago, Kevin. said: Alain, think the democratic superdelegates will change their stance to reflect how their state voted? Hold on Kevin, he is checking google. ;) 3 hours ago, Timbo Slice said: That's Twitter you peach. Work with me here Timo. 2 hours ago, Burn-E said: A troll on a roll. What do you call a guy who stumbles at the finish line? Trump! It will bring new meaning to the phrase, "I got Trumped!" Google google google. Alaina is the google winner. Yeah alaina. you go little guy. 1 hour ago, mattsk8 said: I'm curious which principles you're referring to that have shifted so extremely to cause you to withdraw from the Republican party...? How did it "used to be" vs where it is now? And... how are those differences any different than what the democratic party is doing? Cmon Matt really? We all know that it was something he read on google. Google train woooooot woooooot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 2 hours ago, mattsk8 said: I'm curious which principles you're referring to that have shifted so extremely to cause you to withdraw from the Republican party...? How did it "used to be" vs where it is now? And... how are those differences any different than what the democratic party is doing? How familiar are you with Ronald Reagan and what he actually did as a President? I wasn't old enough to vote for him but I followed his campaigns and presidency with extreme interest. Republicans today, especially the right wing conservatives, hold him up as the standard bearer of excellence for the GOP. Do you know what his stand on immigration was? Do you know where he stood on trade agreements? Do you know where he stood on gun control? What about how he approached welfare? What were his thoughts on taxation for corporations? Go look and see what he did in 1986 if you think it was all trickle down. Let's consider how he approached science, evolution and questions like climate change? How often did he actually compromise with Tip O'Neill, Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy? Go do some research on any and all of those issues. You'll quickly find Reagan was a very moderate conservative. I agree he is the standard bearer for true conservative principles but he couldn't get elected dog catcher with the current mood of the Republican party and leadership. The Right has pushed WAY right in the process of pursuing purity of thought according to specific principles that they believe establish the conservative agenda. 30 minutes ago, Yellow95 said: insult, insult, insult... And thank you Gary for continuing to prove my point. It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you. Who needs a fishing line or even bait when the fish jumps right into the boat when you call its name. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsk8 Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 7 minutes ago, Burn-E said: How familiar are you with Ronald Reagan and what he actually did as a President? I wasn't old enough to vote for him but I followed his campaigns and presidency with extreme interest. Republicans today, especially the right wing conservatives, hold him up as the standard bearer of excellence for the GOP. Do you know what his stand on immigration was? Do you know where he stood on trade agreements? Do you know where he stood on gun control? What about how he approached welfare? What were his thoughts on taxation for corporations? Go look and see what he did in 1986 if you think it was all trickle down. Let's consider how he approached science, evolution and questions like climate change? How often did he actually compromise with Tip O'Neill, Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy? Go do some research on any and all of those issues. You'll quickly find Reagan was a very moderate conservative. He couldn't get elected dog catcher with the current mood of the Republican party and leadership. The Right has pushed WAY right in the process of pursuing purity of thought according to specific principles that they believe establish the conservative agenda. I don't have time to answer all those questions, but he was a little wishy-washy on some of those subjects (which is a fantastic opportunity for some liberal, historical revisionism), he was actually a democrat until the 60s. But I'm honestly not sure if he was a democrat like you're a republican, or what changed that made him change parties (if anything?). And give me a break... climate change wasn't an issue when he was president because it wasn't dreamed up yet, but I'm sure the liberalized version of history probably has a reason for why Reagan would be all for spending billions of tax payer dollars to keep FL from vanishing into the ocean... right? Was Reagan for socialism too? A Prius for every citizen of America!! Think of the fracking you'd prevent. And his views on immigration... things were different then. But I do know he was willing to sacrifice American lives in order to prove a point to the scumbags that hijacked that airline. And technically, I think Trump would be considered a moderate conservative as well. And also, since when is Reagan the absolute example for all republicans? Either way, kudos for the ultimate politically crap smeared answer to the question I asked. Please, enlighten as to Reagan's approach to science, evolution and how he addressed climate change back in the 80s... this should be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 I don't have time to answer questions you should be able to answer for yourself. Go back and read the memos, do the research on what Presidential historians - very unbiased historians - have written, look into his biographies. Read GHW Bush's biographies. It's all out there without some liberal or ultra-conservative interpretation. There's a reason why Presidents establish libraries when they retire. It's so that very kind of historical research can be done. There's also a reason why Independents out number both Republicans and Democrats today. I'm not here to convince you. If you think the Republican party is just fine the way it is feel free to keep following but realize you're buying what they're selling without really understanding what the GOP used to be. The goal posts have shifted. It might be a good idea to understand why. For the record, climate change very much was an issue in the public dialogue back in the 80's. Go look up the Montreal Protocol and how Reagan responded to both sides of the issue at the time when discussion of ozone layer depletion was hitting headlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsk8 Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 4 minutes ago, Burn-E said: I don't have time to answer questions you should be able to answer for yourself. Go back and read the memos, do the research on what Presidential historians - very unbiased historians - have written, look into his biographies. Read GHW Bush's biographies. It's all out there without some liberal or ultra-conservative interpretation. There's a reason why Presidents establish libraries when they retire. It's so that very kind of historical research can be done. There's also a reason why Independents out number both Republicans and Democrats today. I'm not here to convince you. If you think the Republican party is just fine the way it is feel free to keep following but realize you're buying what they're selling without really understanding what the GOP used to be. The goal posts have shifted. It might be a good idea to understand why. Another back-out to the question I asked you. I never said I think the Republican party is fine, I've actually posted the exact opposite here in response to you, so I'm unsure why you'd say that. But I also don't share your assumption about Reagan's stance on "science, evolution, and climate change", that's actually laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 Laughable for you but incontrovertible for anyone who makes even a simple Google search as Gary would claim. Here, LMGTFY: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=reagan+montreal+protocol Reading does the mind good and it actually rids you of unfounded biases. I'll help you out. Let's start with something George P Schultz, Reagan's Secretary of State said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-reagan-model-on-climate-change/2015/03/13/4f4182e2-c6a8-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html Then let's go with Lee Thomas, head of the EPA and chief negotiator for the Montreal Protocol: http://www.wsj.com/articles/clearing-the-air-about-reagan-and-ozone-1444338641 And then let's look at what James Baker, Secretary of State to Bush stated: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/03/reagan-bush-41-memos-reveal-how-republicans-used-to-think-about-climate-change-and-the-environment/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsk8 Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 4 minutes ago, Burn-E said: Laughable for you but incontrovertible for anyone who makes even a simple Google search as Gary would claim. Here, LMGTFY: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=reagan+montreal+protocol El... oh... el... thanks for that "incontrovertible" proof that Reagan was all for "science, evolution, and a stout believer in climate change". Unfortunately for us lowly, uneducated conservatives, you libs have put such a broad definition on the term "climate change" that anyone that isn't willing to throw their fast food trash out the window of their car must be 100% on board with all the lunatic theories you come up with for how you'll control the climate and keep the world from ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 You and Gary have a funny way of throwing around insults at people you disagree with or who present evidence that disagrees with your personal worldviews. I'm not a climate change activist but I see reason in doing what Reagan did, examining the cost benefit analysis of impact for action and inaction. Just don't claim to say you know what it means to be a true Conservative if you're going to completely ignore history. With that said, unless you have something substantive to add to the conversation this is boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts