Page 9 of 13

Re: "Demonomics" or, Democrat Economics...

Posted: 2013 Nov 19 17:38
by Crux
Oh we will see. If you don't think it plausible at the very least, you are not really trying very hard.

The Obama administration has cooked about every economic number to it's favor, only to have to correct them after a month. The very way they figure unemployment is a sham.


Posted: 2013 Nov 19 20:17
by Coondog
That fake Dow Jones average.......

The man is so incompetent he managed to double the value of the stock market while trying to destroy business in America.

Truly pathetic!



Re: "Demonomics" or, Democrat Economics...

Posted: 2013 Nov 20 08:28
by Crux
Of course I was speaking to jobs reports and unemployment numbers, as per the article I linked to.
________________________________________________________________________________________ ... t-n1749461

More on that beautiful little website boondoggle, You know the one. It has cost about a billion dollars so far and it's not even FINISHED BEING CONSTRUCTED. By this authoritative estimate it is 30 to 70% UNFINISHED, and will be tested in roll out like the other portion has so far.

Big Government Solutions. Democrats just LOVE 'em...

Re: "Demonomics" or, Democrat Economics...

Posted: 2013 Nov 20 15:42
by Coondog
Per your "article"..........

According to USA today, Buckman admitted to fudging data in 2010. He left the Census in August of 2011. How he would have had anything to do with the September 2012 report is not the question. He didn't. This is simply idle speculation latched onto by right wing bloggers, repeated in less than reliable right wing media and investigated by a republican house committee, who have nothing better to do.

The fact that every fantasy of the hate Obama conspiracy theory crowd is picked out of the internet garbage pile and posted here as truth assaults the senses of those of us who have brains larger than that of a parakeet.

But..................that's the whole idea, isn't it?

Coondog :curse:

Re: "Demonomics" or, Democrat Economics...

Posted: 2013 Nov 20 16:10
by Crux
We shall see there fella we shall see... How about Obamacare. :pompom:

Dr. Strangelove

Posted: 2013 Nov 21 15:44
by Coondog
Or.....How Harry Reid stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb.

Posted by
CNN Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash and Senior Congressional Producer Ted Barrett

Updated 2:24 p.m. ET
Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama said Thursday afternoon he supports the Senate Democrats' decision to change filibuster rules to make it easier to approve judicial appointments.

He cited what he said has been, over the past five years, "an unprecedented pattern of obstruction in Congress."

"A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to re-fight the results of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations, it cannot become normal," he said.

The Senate on Thursday voted to invoke the so-called nuclear option out of frustration over Republicans who have been blocking Obama's nominees.

The controversial move is a rules change that could make a partisan environment even more divisive because it takes away a sacrosanct right for any party in the Senate minority–the right to filibuster.

Re: Dr. Strangelove

Posted: 2013 Nov 21 16:36
by Cannoneer
Remember "ROBERT BORK." Among the most qualified person ever nominated for the Supreme court. The libs are guilty of this game far more than the conservitives.
The F---ing libs are trying to bypass existing rules because they don't like a taste of their own medicine.
While I'm in the mood mfor mentioning libs, i'd like to say,P--s on Harry Reed and the whole Democrat run Senate.
They are all more than willing to give away the national farm for the votes that keep them in power.
I'm only sorry that I can't cut loose and say what I really think about them.

Re: Dr. Strangelove

Posted: 2013 Nov 21 17:23
by fangz1956

You are so delusional it's funny. Robert Bork would have been a disaster for this country. I would like to see just one Teapublican write a thoughtful post without resorting to nothing but name calling and blame shifting......maybe Santa will leave that in my stocking this year.

Senator Mark Warner wrote:
The Senate confirmation process was broken - perfectly qualified nominees were constantly being filibustered at a rate we’ve never seen before. Enough is enough. The rule that was changed today only impacts executive branch appointees and judicial nominees other than the Supreme Court. It still requires a majority vote of the Senate for confirmation. This change does not impact other legislation at all. The minority party can continue to filibuster other legislation with a 60-vote requirement.


Re: Dr. Strangelove

Posted: 2013 Nov 21 17:28
by Wise One
Yes, Coondog, I appreciate the reluctance with which Senate Democrats have, over the years, been pushed slowly into this position.

In the end it comes down to this. If power and freedom are horribly and relentlessly abused, as the Republicans have, then they risk destroying that power and freedom. There is always an extreme point beyond which pushback must occur, because it has become intolerable.

Republicans have brought this on themselves.


The Face of The Left

Posted: 2013 Nov 21 18:33
by Crux
To cheer this, is a mistake. The hypocrisy is obvious. Since something like 1787, the 60-40 vote has helped to create a more representative outcome, that is both compromising, mainstream, and reflective of what might be called bi-partisan and tempered. This is a mistake.

Mark it down. Despite the overblown rhetoric, it is the Democrats that has made this rule change.

Play the victim card. Call it "unprecedented" (it is certainly not). The system was not "broken".
Cheer lead all you want. This is not a good day for representative democracy or minority rights.

The 60-40 vote kept Bork out, for better or worse.
:coffee: 40 seconds

I think this about sums it up. The Liar in Chief.

Oh, and The Vice Liar in Chief. 2.4 minutes


Chalk up another win for crux, sanity, and principle. You guys are really not that tough to beat.


Posted: 2013 Dec 09 16:01
by Crux
Our self styled "empty suit" rolled my entire thread called "Demonomics or Democrat Economics" into this other thread, "Hypocracy Liberal Style"...

This is a kind of bias that exists from the top down on this public forum in my estimation. Some curious manipulations happen here, on the Rockbridge Forum. I will point out that you could have deleted the R. Perry (R) thread if it was about SPACE.

Another one of your editorial gems was to delete my Middle East thread.

A cohesive Middle East Thread would have been nice.

If you wish to make room, or delete one of my threads I do not have a problem with that in principle if it is for good reason. I could suggest another. Crux's Corner.
Note from Stonewall, your humble administrator:
I never delete (unless true outrage has occurred) but I sometimes reorganize in the interest of cosmetics and clarity, condensing topics where possible. Adjacent postings by one individual may be consolidated into a single posting, again for cosmetic reasons.

Robert Bork

Posted: 2013 Dec 10 12:36
by Coondog
“Constitutional protection should be accorded only to speech that is explicitly political. There is no basis for judicial intervention to protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary, or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic. Moreover, within that category of speech we ordinarily call political, there should be no constitutional obstruction to laws making criminal any speech that advocates forcible overthrow of the government or the violation of any law.”
But, who cares bout all that constitutional mumbo Jumbo? This is Coondog's favorite Borkism of all time:
........One evening at a hotel in New York I flipped around the television channels. Suddenly there on the public access channel was a voluptuous young woman, naked, her body oiled, writhing on the floor while fondling herself intimately…. I watched for some time–riveted by the sociological significance of it all.
Coondog is surprised the Tea Party doesn't run away from this guy as if he were the Red Death.

there should be no constitutional obstruction to laws making criminal any speech that advocates forcible overthrow of the government

hits kind of close to home, don't it? And then, there's this:
Radical individualism is the handmaiden of collective tyranny.

Coondog doesn't think Mr. Bork would have cared very much for any of us. And he definitely wouldn't be very fond of John Boener
The fact that men, who did not cry ten years ago, now do so indicates that something has gone high and soft in the culture.

CD :coffee:


The very fact that we have gone from Elvis to Snoop Doggy Dogg is the heart of the case for censorship.
He may have had a point, there!


I will let the ACLU help me out here...

Posted: 2013 Dec 10 20:45
by Crux
crux wrote:Note from Stonewall, your humble administrator:
I never delete (unless true outrage has occurred) but I sometimes reorganize in the interest of cosmetics and clarity, condensing topics where possible. Adjacent postings by one individual may be consolidated into a single posting, again for cosmetic reasons.

Censorship (taken from )

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others.

Oh. OK. I'm clear... You do pretty good Stone. You would do better if you would just leave me alone in my postings. I think I self censor pretty good. (well). See?

3 things:

1. Can I have the Patriotic Smiley back? (get rid of the suicide smiley it's SO ICKY!)
2. Will you tell AO to stop calling people Aholes? (at least behind the scenes)
3. I am correct that it DOES VIOLATE the forums rules on decorum???

Gag me with a spoon.....

Posted: 2013 Dec 11 10:27
by Coondog
“Sooner or later censorship is going to have to be considered as popular culture continues to plunge to ever more sickening lows.”
-Robert Bork

When one's ideology comes crashing head first up against one's own ideology .......

Crying about it doesn't help. :cry2:


Personally, I think you ought to go [CENSORED]

Good Ole "Hanoi Jane"

Posted: 2013 Dec 12 15:27
by Kevsky

Look deep down into the mindset of the progressive liberal. You will see a hollow soul.

Michael Benge letter excerpt, 1999: At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.). We were Jane Fonda’s "war criminals." When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with Jane Fonda. I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs were receiving, which was far different from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as "humane and lenient."

Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a piece of steel rebar placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane every time my arms dipped. Jane Fonda had the audacity to say that the POWs were lying about our torture and treatment.

Re: Hypocrisy Liberal Style

Posted: 2013 Dec 12 16:42
by Coondog
The capacity to cherry pick the most egregious behavior by some individual and extrapolate your interpretation of that to include, in this case, everyone to the "left" of your extreme, radical point of view (which is just about everybody) is exactly why nobody but your fellow radical extremists give any credence to any of that hyperbolic gibberish.

The fact that all of the extremists on the radical right think exactly alike (because there is no latitude for independent diversity) there seems to be an impermeable misconception that everyone on the "left" is similarly afflicted.

It can be assured that left wing radical extremists, moderate leftists, somewhat liberal middle of the roaders, somewhat conservative middle of the roaders, right wing moderates and even some extremely conservative right wingers who don't pass the purity test do not all fall into the same category except within the capacity of Tea Party type zealots who harbor enough spite to project it upon all other persons..........."the Left"!

Those of us on your left (everybody else) do not have that problem with you, because you are homogeneous to the point of being interchangeable.

And equally annoying.



A bunch of clones talking about individuality. How quaint!

Re: Hypocrisy Liberal Style

Posted: 2013 Dec 12 17:56
by Crux
This is just grand. First you almost make a lucid point, though AO just violated this common sense idea with the hedge fund manager, and then you just violate all common sense by suggesting ALL "X" are THUSLY...

Can we ever slow down and talk about ideas and principles? I know many avoid this as they go wildly about spouting generalities and bias. coon, I really wish you would focus.

Stonewall, you are out of bounds.

Posted: 2013 Dec 12 18:14
by Crux
1. You rolled my thread Demonomics into the Hypocrisy Liberal Style thread. This was unjustified. You had options.

2. You GUTTED my post in the Crash Recession thread, and ADDED my signature to the post. YOU ADDED my signature to the post you heavily redacted. I want EVERYONE to note that. I DID NOT add my signature when I originally posted to this thread. You edited, redacted, re-posted, and added MY signature. I want EVERYONE to note this.

This is PETTY, unprofessional, and OFFENSIVE in every way.

3. You took the redacted part of my post and YOU placed it as a post on the American Healthcare thread. YOU STONE posted on that thread AS IF you were me. You took my words from one thread and put them on another.

This is OUTRAGEOUS behavior. I want everyone to wrap their minds around this.

You Sir, are DIGGING at me I think, Did I touch a nerve and put a finger on the BIAS of this site, and YOU, as Administrator? You have DEMONSTRATED the very truth of my observations. I ticked you off, fine. Toughen, if the truth hurts.

You have an option. Speak to what you did, and PLEDGE to leave my posts stand, unmolested, or my time here is done.
This is a manipulation that is beyond the pale. It fits NO honorable justification. UN-real...

crux will stay, or go, depending upon how you deal with this situation. I will leave you all well and say goodbye. I know this is no big deal to some here. You have found a way it seems to push me out. By UNFAIRLY treating THIS participant. It has been real. I have been tested and learned a lot. Speak to what you have done, indicate your willingness to play fair or I'm done.

Truly I have been tested, and this is another test. I will not participate if the Administrator of this site is willing to MANIPULATE, censor, and so censure my words. I am being SINGLED OUT. Funny how this has flowed. AO calls cannon and I bigoted racist assholes essentially and literally, he gets called on his JUNK, and Stonewall cracks down, on ME. I become the focus. HMMMM.... Stonewall... WiseOne.... Oh. Uji........ :tongue3:
Let's be honest for once. (Doubt it) Clean up your dirt Stone or don't. I am ready to retire with all the horsing around...

Kevsky, I would like to meet you. I appreciate your participation.
Cannoneer, Same to you, and thanks. To both of you men, I tried.

This is the deal.

Stone, you make this right. Don't hide behind empty words from an empty suit about how you are just trying to make the site appear more readable or some such nonsense. You SPEAK from the heart about what you did and why. Address my points 1-3 above, agree to let my posts stand, essentially, or contact me if you have an issue, or I am done. It has been real.

You can have your Forum. My time will have been many many hours from the heart, and I will simply thank you all...

You CAN NOT post my words as if you were me, add my signature, and gut my posts. If you wish to, or think you have the right ethically and morally as an administrator you SHOW YOUR TRUE COLORS and vindicate my observation. Make this right and make it from the heart. I have better things to do. It has been an education... I have learned a lot, and thank you all.

Let's clear this up. Our responses here, I am willing to delete. Let's air this out.
Admit what you did. Explain it. Agree to STOP molesting my posts, or I am done.


"He hung in there and his opposition can go on just fine without him". -crux

"Life is Full and my time here has been a GIFT." -crux



Posted: 2013 Dec 12 20:47
by Coondog
These rambling, disassociated discourses are hard enough to decipher without scrambling them up any further. would one decide what thread they belonged in, anyway?

Coondog votes to let them lie, like sleeping dawgs.

If he goes away, we'll have no baseline reference for lunacy and poor old crux will have nothing to do but stand in front of the mirror all day trying to figure out whether that's him or cannoneer or snake boy looking back at him.

Treasure the artistry and masterful insight of each post in it's time and place and in it's entirety......unsullied by editorial influence....untouched by human hands.

Coondog :encore:

Leave Cruxy Alone

Posted: 2013 Dec 12 21:42
by Kevsky
I actually agree with the Coondog. Let's agree to leave the posts alone. The posts on this forum constitute the very nature of the poster's ideas and mentality. Let the individual poster be judged by what they have written.... misspellings, syntax errors, content and all. Only vulgarity and obscenity should be removed from the postings as this is a public forum.

Besides, the loss of Crux would be a loss of any approximation of equality in the spirited political debates not to mention the loss in quality of the postings.

Crux, I certainly hope you are able to continue to participate in this forum. I have enjoyed reading your posts.