Democrats Getting Desperate- going Ad Hominem

[Dumb All Over]

Listen, Dumb All Over, that is not what the numbers say, but if you want to quibble about 1 times, 2 times, 3 times or 1/2 times, be my guest.

What I would like to quibble about is your assertion that the Dems have been outspent. They have not. Not 1 times, 2 times, 3 times, 1/2 times or zero times.

You made the assertion and later you clarified your position to mean all spending, that much is clear. Can you offer anything that might support your position other than your own personal observation, "and I am going by the frequency I see and hear this allegation in the press?"

In other words, evidence please.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Please pay attention. We're talking about overall spending.

I don't think the article you linked to says anything about overall spending, just about overall funds raised.

 

[Dumb All Over]

I don't think the article you linked to says anything about overall spending, just about overall funds raised.

How about the article I linked to on page one of this thread? Would that do?

 

[thaiboxerken]

How about the article I linked to on page one of this thread? Would that do?

"And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million. "

How does this address the spending from outside sources, like the Chamber of Commerce and other entities that hide the origin of their fundings?

 

[Dumb All Over]

Be my guest, thaiboxerken. Please make the case that overall spending by the Republicans exceeds that of the Democrats.

 

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/democrats-fear-they-cant_n_639202.html

 

[elbe]

Opensecrets.org shows the Democratic party has outspent the Republican party this cycle. For candidate spending, the Dems lead in the house but the Reps lead in the senate.* The amounts, though, aren't that far apart.


* Might make sense if the Dems are more worried about house seats than senate seats.

 

[Dumb All Over]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/democrats-fear-they-cant_n_639202.html

I rest my case.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I rest my case.

You go ahead and do that, it looked tired.

 

[leftysergeant]

* Might make sense if the Dems are more worried about house seats than senate seats.

It comes down to logistics and feasibility. Most people are satisfied with their representatives, because they are accesible, knowable and much more easily removed. This makes campaign fundraising much more productive whether to remove a dud or to keep a valued member in the House.

The Senate is an easier target for the deep-pockets donors and you only need to flip about six or seven to totally screw Obama and bring the congress to grid lock.

 

[Elind]

The Senate is an easier target for the deep-pockets donors and you only need to flip about six or seven to totally screw Obama and bring the congress to grid lock.

Those deep pocket donors; are they the back room cigar smoker types of old B movies still kicking?

 

[leftysergeant]

Those deep pocket donors; are they the back room cigar smoker types of old B movies still kicking?

Thery have been replaced by Gordon Gecko types drunk on supply-side Koolaid.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's interesting how most of those participating in this thread, and leaning to the left, are going to such much effort to completely miss the point of the OP. And it's a very significant point that is being intentionally missed.

At this point, candidates on the right have some very good ammunition with which to attack their rivals. The Democrats in power have engaged in outrageously wasteful, irresponsible, and destructive policy making, and Republican candidates are very rightfully taking their opponents to task over this. And the Demorats know they have no defense. They are being accused of horrific abuses of power, and horrific waste and abuse of taxpayer money; which they know fully well that they are guilty, and they know that the American people know that they are guilty.

And of course, the Republicans are taking them to task over these abuses. Republicans are running ads telling us about all of Obama's wasteful, irresponsible, unconstitutional scams, and the roles that their opponents played in foisting these scams off on the American people.

So, what do the Democrats have to do in response? We're hearing from them about the story of Meg Whitman and her illegal alien housekeeper (a story that has already been much more than adequately addressed). We're hearing about how many employees Hewlett Packard laid off under Carly Fiorna. The OP mentions a candidate being painted as a “convicted criminal” …complete with images yellow police tape and fuzzy video of crime scenes… without mention that the only “crime” of which he had ever faced charges was an incident almost two decades ago, when, as a college student, he was caught trying to use a fake ID to buy alcohol.

Like the thread subject says, the Democrats are getting desperate.

 

[leftysergeant]

At this point, candidates on the right have some very good ammunition with which to attack their rivals.

And a quick inventory of that ammo shows it to be lies, inuendo, fear-mongering, deciet and snivelling.

The Democrats in power have engaged in outrageously wasteful, irresponsible, and destructive policy making, and Republican candidates are very rightfully taking their opponents to task over this. And the Demorats know they have no defense.

Actually they have a defense. It's called truth.

They are being accused of horrific abuses of power, and horrific waste and abuse of taxpayer money; which they know fully well that they are guilty, and they know that the American people know that they are guilty.

Care to show us how Democrats have done anything more abusive than killing tens of thousands of people, both our own soldiers and innocent civilians by opening a secopnd front irrelevant to the mission of an on-going war, and then borrowiong the money and then giving the people who were making the most money providing the instruments of that war a humongous tax break?


{QUOTE]And of course, the Republicans are taking them to task over these abuses. [/QUOTE]

Actually, thjey are telling more lies and snivelling about nopt having their way in all matters any more.

Republicans are running ads telling us about all of Obama's wasteful, irresponsible, unconstitutional scams, and the roles that their opponents played in foisting these scams off on the American people.

Unconstitutional scams? You mean like his building secret prisons to torture people into confessing things they didn't do and...Oops! Wrong party.

So, what do the Democrats have to do in response? We're hearing from them about the story of Meg Whitman and her illegal alien housekeeper (a story that has already been much more than adequately addressed). We're hearing about how many employees Hewlett Packard laid off under Carly Fiorna.

A-HA! Now I see what the problem is here. You have a cognitive disorder interfering with ytour ability to understand our arrguements.

The rightwingnuts want to turn America into a Third World ecconomy where everyone is so financially insecure that they will work for less than prevailing, then less than living wages. This is why they hire immigrants whoi are willing to work for less than they are worth and why they are shipping our jobs off-shore to create a surplus of workers here, thus, supposedly, lowering the actual value of labor to a point below what it should by law be.

And then the whiney little babies try to claim that any tax increases that the Democrats allow have to come out of the pockets of the workiong clas, and then they invent a tap-dance to show that working people and the investor class are the same.

Republicans are, by and large, rather pathetic little liars compared to what their predecessors were back during the Eisenhower years, when they were merely an annoyance.

The OP mentions a candidate being painted as a “convicted criminal”

He was practicing for bigger scams.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And a quick inventory of that ammo shows it to be lies, inuendo [sic], fear-mongering, deciet [sic] and snivelling [sic].

Actually they have a defense. It's called truth.

Are you claiming that the vast majority of Democratic incumbents who are accused, for example, of supporting the “Cash for Clunkers scam, or the “Obamacare” health care scam, or the massive handouts of taxpayer money to various financial institutions, and the buyout of General Motors, did not, in fact, support these scams, and that the claims that they did are “lies, inuendo [sic], fear-mongering, deciet [sic] and snivelling [sic]”?

The truth is, most of the Democrats in Congress and the Senate went completely along with these scams, and are fully as guilty of them as Obama himself.

The rightwingnuts want to turn America into a Third World ecconomy [sic] where everyone is so financially insecure that they will work for less than prevailing, then less than living wages.

Wow. Just, wow. After what Obama and his accomplices have done to the U.S. economy, it's rather hypocritical, even for you, to attempt to level such an accusation against the Republicans. It will probably take decades, at least, to undo the damage that has been done in the last two years. Some of the damage may never be repaired.

And then the whiney little babies try to claim that any tax increases that the Democrats allow have to come out of the pockets of the workiong [sic] clas [sic], and then they invent a tap-dance to show that working people and the investor class are the same.

Where do you think these tax increases come from? Who do you think really pays them?

Republicans are, by and large, rather pathetic little liars compared to what their predecessors were back during the Eisenhower years, when they were merely an annoyance. He was practicing for bigger scams.

Again, wow. Even for you, this shows really an incredible degree of hubris, hypocrisy, and arrogance. I suppose, in a way, you're helping to prove exactly the point that I was making. Your side has been caught with its hands in the till, blatantly lying to and stealing from the American taxpayers; to a degree that this nation has never before seen. You (by “you” I don't just mean you as an individual, but the entire foul, stinking, lying, cheating thieving mess of Democrat scum that you're defending) are either so arrogant that you think you will or should be allowed to get away with it, or so desperate that you'll say anything to try to minimize and dismiss it.

It isn't going to work. Indications are that most Americans know what has been done to us, and who is responsible for it. In a few days, this will surely be reflected in the results of the upcoming elections.

 

[SezMe]

It's interesting how most of those participating in this thread, and leaning to the left, are going to such much effort to completely miss the point of the OP. And it's a very significant point that is being intentionally missed.

My bold. That's quite a claim. "Most" of the left-leaners have deliberately, knowingly missed the point of the OP and are putting a lot of effort into it. You can, of course, justify this claim.

At this point, <simplistic stuff deleted>

It must be nice to live in such a simple world where nuance is quite unnecessary.

 

[leftysergeant]

UOT

Are you claiming that the vast majority of Democratic incumbents who are accused, for example, of supporting the “Cash for Clunkers scam, or the “Obamacare” health care scam, or the massive handouts of taxpayer money to various financial institutions...

Stop it right there. Giving our money to the banksters was the Shrub's idea. Cash for clunkers was a claw-back that put some money into the hands of the middle class where we need it to be iof the ecconomy is ever to get any better.

Health care reform is only a sham because it does not destroy the for-profit insurance scam, which is another non-productive segment of the ecconomy that makes a lot of money for the useless class. Oh, well, just the fact that the blood suckers ion for-profit insurance can't take your money for decades and then tell you that they have to drop you because you are likely to get too sick to be profitabl;e is a step toward civilized health care.

It will probably take decades, at least, to undo the damage that has been done in the last two years. Some of the damage may never be repaired.

Well, it damned sure won't get fixed if you return the idiots who did the damage to power. The Republicans broke it in 2001, and then kept the damage hidden until 2008. (I think they were hoping that it wouldn't be noticed until 2010, but then they aren't exactly rocket scientists over on that side of the aisle.)

Where do you think these tax increases come from? Who do you think really pays them?

What was supposed to happen, had the grown-ups had there way, was that, when the Shrub's give-aways to the uselss class sunsetted, the rates for the upper middle class would have stayed the same and the burden would have been shifted back onto the capital gains and bloated salaries of the worhtlkess class sucking the blood out of the nation from the top of the food chain.

But because 46 retards in the senate dug in their heels and threw a tantrum when their masters didn't get what they wanted, we all get screwed for a little while. Oh, well. Maybe we can pay down some of the debt while we figure out a way that the rest of the ill-gotten gains can be clawed back from the war pigs and the snake-oill salesmen in the finacial sector. Maybe there will be some left over to do some re-inductrialization and infrastructure projects to get America working like a modern nation again.

Indications are that most Americans know what has been done to us, and who is responsible for it. In a few days, this will surely be reflected in the results of the upcoming elections.

Not most of them, some are stupid and some get their news from Faux News. The bright ones who rely on other sources are, however, quite aware that what happened was that the Shrub and his merry morons deliberately broke government and tried to sell us the brain-addled idea that it was a design flaw.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Cash for clunkers was a claw-back that put some money into the hands of the middle class where we need it to be iof [sic] the ecconomy is ever to get any better.

It put money in the hands of a few middle class people. That money came out of the hands of many, many more middle-class people, many of them in more need of the money that was taken from them than those to whom it was given. And in the process, a considerable amount of wealth was gratuitously destroyed; with the result that on the whole, more money was taken from middle class taxpayers, making them poorer, than was given to other middle class taxpayers, making them wealthier. The net result was that—even ignoring the inefficiency that is inherent in such a massive government program—the economy was left poorer by at least the value of the automobiles that were destroyed.

We had this massive scam forced on us by a President, and his accomplices in Congress, who claimed that it would improve the economy. This was a flat-out bald-faced lie, and those who told it knew damn well that it was a lie, that this scam would, by destroying wealth, only further damage the economy. Such an act of massive fraud carried out anywhere in the private sector would be a criminal offense, for which people would be put in jail.

Those who were responsible for this scam deserve to be in jail, and not in positions of power and authority.

Same with ObamaCare, the bank bailouts, and the GM buyout.

Alas, I don't hold out any hope that even one of them will ever be properly held accountable for his role in these outrageous abuses of his position, but at the very least, come November, a whole bunch of them will hopefully get to experience firsthand what it is like to be unemployed in the economic mess that they helped create.

The bright ones who rely on other sources are, however, quite aware that what happened was that the Shrub and his merry morons deliberately broke government and tried to sell us the brain-addled idea that it was a design flaw.

…well, except that “the Shrub” was out of power well before any of these scams came forth. It was not on his watch that any of these scams took place. These were all put forth under the current President, and the current Congress. Bush had nothing to do with it. Your statement here makes as much sense as trying to blame Lyndon Johnson for Watergate, or Nixon for the fall of Iran to Islamsists.

 

[SezMe]

We had this massive scam forced on us by a President, and his accomplices in Congress, who claimed that it would improve the economy. This was a flat-out bald-faced lie, and those who told it knew damn well that it was a lie, that this scam would, by destroying wealth, only further damage the economy.

That's another incredible claim. Your position is that the President and relevant members of his administration KNEW the program would hurt the economy. And thereby even further ruin their chances in the next election. Yet, for some reason they decided they wanted to damage the American economy and hurt themselves so they went ahead.

What is that reason?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That's another incredible claim. Your position is that the President and relevant members of his administration KNEW the program would hurt the economy. And thereby even further ruin their chances in the next election. Yet, for some reason they decided they wanted to damage the American economy and hurt themselves so they went ahead.

What is that reason?

Democrats are like drug dealers. Seriously.

A drug dealer depends on getting people who are addicted his product. A drug addict provides the dealer with a reliable source of further business.

A Democrat depends on people who are addicted to government handouts. Those who receive these handouts are much more directly aware of what they are getting, and from whom, than the non-addicted taxpayer is of how much is being taken from him to pay for these handouts.

Each person who got a new car, subsidized by the “Cash for Clunkers” scam, is someone who is more likely to vote for these scammers.

What the scammers were counting on was that those of us who were not receiving these handouts would not take notice of what it was costing us. But they became arrogant, to the degree that they thought they could engage in a vast, obscene orgy of outrageous wasteful spending of taxpayer money, and not piss off the non-addicts among us who, in the shrinking economy, are finding it increasingly difficult to support ourselves on our rightfully-earned wages, without having to descend into the parasite class that depends on government handouts.