Knowing she has been here longer than most, my comment was purely sarcasm on my part for my interpretation (with a humorous intent) of the post....more so actually for the replies.


troll
1    /troʊl/ Show Spelled[trohl] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)

3.
to fish for or in with a moving line, working the line up or down with a rod, as in fishing for pike, or trailing the line behind a slow-moving boat.

btk

I happened to watch an old episode of West Wing yesterday and it could of been written today. Basically it covered a debate between Jimmy Smits (Dem) and Alan Alda (Repub) during a Presidential campaign. It was spot on.

Jimmy Smits, the lefty or moobat, as you would call him says something like "The conservatives have turned the word "liberal" into a bad word and thrown it to the ground. But, if wanting jobs, fair wages, health care, higher education, peace, true equality and a better life for ALL people is liberal, I will pick that label up and wear it with honor and dignity."

That was paraphrased, but I think you get my drift...

Originally Posted by Barefoot

Epithet .. An abusive or contemptuous word or phrase. IMHO, name calling is just downright hurtful and unproductive.

Ok. Maybe drive-by was wrong but I have checked the archives and found that Chelsea was not immune from throwing epithets around.

(which is to be expected in a political forum)

That is the problem with moonbats. They never get the whole story because they only get their info 3rd and 4th hand. Even Glenn Beck tells his audience to verify what he says on their own. They do that.

Yoda

Originally Posted by chelsea24

I happened to watch an old episode of West Wing yesterday and it could of been written today. Basically it covered a debate between Jimmy Smits (Dem) and Alan Alda (Repub) during a Presidential campaign. It was spot on.

Jimmy Smits, the lefty or moobat, as you would call him says something like "The conservatives have turned the word "liberal" into a bad word and thrown it to the ground. But, if wanting jobs, fair wages, health care, higher education, peace, true equality and a better life for ALL people is liberal, I will pick that label up and wear it with honor and dignity."

That was paraphrased, but I think you get my drift...

Got it,but as always I ask the question....where do you get the...well, let me rephrase...how can you say what you say...ie., your implication is that someone who is not liberal is AGAINST "jobs, fair wages, health care, higher education, peace, true equality and a better life for ALL people"...and that is where we separate because I KNOW what you say or imply is simply not true..and in fact is simply a bunch of political verbage.

If you honestly think that only liberals are for those things, you have truely gone over the edge much much too far !!

Originally Posted by Bucco

Got it,but as always I ask the question....where do you get the...well, let me rephrase...how can you say what you say...ie., your implication is that someone who is not liberal is AGAINST "jobs, fair wages, health care, higher education, peace, true equality and a better life for ALL people"...and that is where we separate because I KNOW what you say or imply is simply not true..and in fact is simply a bunch of political verbage.

If you honestly think that only liberals are for those things, you have truely gone over the edge much much too far !!

Thanks, you saved me some typing.

Originally Posted by Barefoot

Epithet .. An abusive or contemptuous word or phrase. IMHO, name calling is just downright hurtful and unproductive.

I could not agree more with you, and that is why I said what I said in my post about the word EPTITHET !

Now, if you review posts made during the campaign, you will find that Chels had no problem with judgement, condemnation or lets say...the use of names to describe folks, thus while I agree with you, I am not sure she does !

Originally Posted by Bucco

Got it,but as always I ask the question....where do you get the...well, let me rephrase...how can you say what you say...ie., your implication is that someone who is not liberal is AGAINST "jobs, fair wages, health care, higher education, peace, true equality and a better life for ALL people"...and that is where we separate because I KNOW what you say or imply is simply not true..and in fact is simply a bunch of political verbage.

If you honestly think that only liberals are for those things, you have truely gone over the edge much much too far !!

I think you have that backwards Bucco. The word "liberal" was turned into a bad thing, because conservatives believe or believed that only "THEY" are for all of those things and only "THEY" are patriot. (Remember when the conservatives were in a tizzy over Obama not wearing a flag pin???) Conservatives love to talk about what shouldn't be done as a solution to a problem, as opposed to what should be done as a solution.

I watched David Gregory on Meet the Press ask John Boehner 4 times, 4 times how the Republicans would pay for tax cuts. No answer. It was interesting that in this particular episode of West Wing, written years ago, the same question came up in the debate. Again, no answer from the Republican candidate. Some things never change.

No problem, we have "Hope and Change." Can you believe that voters fell for that revival-tent drivel?

Originally Posted by chelsea24

I think you have that backwards Bucco. The word "liberal" was turned into a bad thing, because conservatives believe or believed that only "THEY" are for all of those things and only "THEY" are patriot. (Remember when the conservatives were in a tizzy over Obama not wearing a flag pin???) Conservatives love to talk about what shouldn't be done as a solution to a problem, as opposed to what should be done as a solution.

I watched David Gregory on Meet the Press ask John Boehner 4 times, 4 times how the Republicans would pay for tax cuts. No answer. It was interesting that in this particular episode of West Wing, written years ago, the same question came up in the debate. Again, no answer from the Republican candidate. Some things never change.

Chelsea, The question of how you pay for tax cuts assumes an unchanging economy. The same factories will produce the same good at the same price. There will be no increase or decrease in economic activity. I think we can all agree that the idea of an unchanging economy makes no sense. To understand the impact of tax cuts, you have to realize that we have a dynamic and changing economy.

During our lifetime we have seen three major Federal tax cuts. The first and most radical was done during the JFK administration. It did result in economic and tax collection growth. That income growth was lost when LBJ pursued a policy of 'guns and butter'. We could fund the Vietnam war AND the Great Society programs without any corresponding sacrifice on the part of the American people - we needed to stop entitlement growth and did not.

The second tax cut came during the Reagan administration. It brought us out of the highest interest rates and highest unemployment since the great depression. Revenues skyrocketed and the nation was prosperous until late in the Clinton administration. Unfortunate, we once again made the mistake of thinking we could fight a war/wars while increasing entitlements.

The third taz cut under the Bush administration. At the time, the economy was contracting and the situation was seriously exacerbated by the events of 9/11. Despite this, Federal government income again grew. Once again the opportunity to put our country on a sound fiscal footing was thrown away by spending on a war and concurrently increasing entitlements. We spent like drunken sailors and grew the Federal Government at a time we needed to shrink it.

This has been a bipartisan exercise in stupidity. Both parties competed in seeing how much they could promise the voters so they could come to power in the next election. They did this knowing that the entitlements promised (including bloated government pensions) could never be met.

Right now we are looking at a significant tax increase - the end of the Bush tax cuts. The easily foreseen result of this action will be the opposite of the results of the previous tax cuts - our Federal Government income will fall and our deficits will continue to explode.

Putting our economy right will require both maintaining the Bush tax cuts and serious reduction in government expenditures at all levels. I hope we can find leaders with the courage to do what needs to be done.

Originally Posted by villa2

No problem, we have "Hope and Change." Can you believe that voters fell for that revival-tent drivel?

It was many years ago, but I do believe the phrase "Hope & Change" was the campaign slogan for one of my former elementary students running for class president!!!

Cute for a 6th grader.....but a Harvard graduate???