Jerry Logan is a douchebag?
Poll
 | 35 votes (79.54%) | ||
| | 9 votes (20.45%) |
44 members have voted
I guess if someone liked the new health care bill, they'd like Romney, as well. Take a look at how well RomneyCare is doing in Massachusetts; in a few years it goes national.
Given the president's approval ratings, a large chunk of his policies are unpopular. Were all those who voted for him but now dislike his policies dupes, as well? Either many of those who voted for him were fools, or he wasn't what he advertised.
Quote: ruascottBoth Palin and Bachman are idiots. I've given them chances, listened to their ramblings on Fox, and they are completely incapable of debating issues. It's nothing but repetitive talking points, over and over; Bachman makes a complete embarrassment out of herself on the House floor on a monthly basis; Palin couldn't even finish one term as governor......this is coming from someone who voted for McCain and W both times. Sure they'd have strong support from about 20-25% of the population, but neither would ever have a chance to win on a national ticket.
I like Romney. Have no interest in Huckabee. He's a fiscal liberal, social conservative, absolute opposite of the type of politician I want.
If I remember correctly Logan, you said you voted for Obama in 2008. Why exactly have you had such a strong change of heart in 18 months? I question the intellectual capability of someone who talks about politics but doesn't seem to know anything about policy. What exactly has Obama done (or tried to do) that he more or less didn't promise for 2 years while running for POTUS? Health care, cap and trade, financial reform, etc... All were solidly right in his campaign platform, available for anyone with any intellecutal curiosity to view for months and months. How did you get duped if you are so brilliant?
Obama on the Issues
Either Palin or Bachman would absolutely destroy Obama or anyone he chooses from his corrupt administration, in every debate they'd have. Why do you think Obama is so afraid of being interviewed again by O'Reilly, and the gals don't flinch as they, as you claim, do their rambling talking points? You presented a totally pointless, lacking-in-factual information, perspective.
I did vote for Obama and I'm so sorry I did. His screwing up of this country is what turned me around, woke me up actually. His platform was a middle-of-the-road ruse for what was actually inside his crazed liberal head. I hated Hannity beofre the election. But now, I can't believe how spot-on he was about this guy and his far left, radical agenda. It was right there before our very eyes, only as Democrats we would not see it. This president's a pathological liar, he has no clue on how to handle even the slightest criticism, if he ran his campaign on how he's run this country he'd have received only the black vote, and he runs more corrupt back-room, non-partisan sleazy deals than any president in history. And I haven't even gotten into how badly he's destroyed the financial fabric of this country.
I'm living proof even the most intelligent of people can still learn something now and then.
Quote: CalderI'm no fan of John McCain, but I think if the president had run on passing a trillion dollar stimulus, taking over the health care system and General Motors, tripling the national debt, and if we'd had a preview of his America's Apology Tour, the election may have ended differently.
I guess if someone liked the new health care bill, they'd like Romney, as well. Take a look at how well RomneyCare is doing in Massachusetts; in a few years it goes national.
Given the president's approval ratings, a large chunk of his policies are unpopular. Were all those who voted for him but now dislike his policies dupes, as well? Either many of those who voted for him were fools, or he wasn't what he advertised.
Again, I don't understand how he ran things any differently than would have been expected based upon his campaign.
Health care: the basis of what was passed was practically the platform that every Dem ran on, from Obama to Hillary to Edwards. They had minor tweaks, but what passes has essentially been part of the Democratic platform for 40+ years. Its to the right of what Hillarycare was in 1993, and was essentially the same program Bob Dole proposed as an alternative to HillaryCare.
Stimulus: A third of the $900B was tax cuts. Another third was aid to the states to pay unemployment and Medicaid benefits. I highly doubt McCain or any of the other GOP candidates would have let the states go belly-up. Even the GOP congress members still mainly support extending unemployment money to the staes, and we are 18 months later.
So the real debate was about $300B give or take of "stimulus". There's plenty to argue about there, but it wasn't $1T.
GM: The bailout of GM started under Bush and continued under Obama. The way it was handled - undercutting the bondholders and propping up unions was pretty awful. I'll definately concede that. Again, I highly doubt there would have been a GOP administration that would have set on the sidelines while GM and Chrysler went down the toilet, but who knows.
Quote: JerryLogan
Either Palin or Bachman would absolutely destroy Obama or anyone he chooses from his corrupt administration, in every debate they'd have. Why do you think Obama is so afraid of being interviewed again by O'Reilly, and the gals don't flinch as they, as you claim, do their rambling talking points? You presented a totally pointless, lacking-in-factual information, perspective.
I did vote for Obama and I'm so sorry I did. His screwing up of this country is what turned me around, woke me up actually. His platform was a middle-of-the-road ruse for what was actually inside his crazed liberal head. I hated Hannity beofre the election. But now, I can't believe how spot-on he was about this guy and his far left, radical agenda. It was right there before our very eyes, only as Democrats we would not see it. This president's a pathological liar, he has no clue on how to handle even the slightest criticism, if he ran his campaign on how he's run this country he'd have received only the black vote, and he runs more corrupt back-room, non-partisan sleazy deals than any president in history. And I haven't even gotten into how badly he's destroyed the financial fabric of this country.
I'm living proof even the most intelligent of people can still learn something now and then.
What a great response...not one actual rebuttal to anything I said...Again, what SPECIFIC POLICIES has Obama pushed that weren't expected as part of his campaign platform?
Quote: JerryLogan
Either Palin or Bachman would absolutely destroy Obama or anyone he chooses from his corrupt administration, in every debate they'd have.
I'd actually pay money to see this as it would be hilarious. All these ladies have are one-liner's pulled from RWR blowhards (like Hannity). They appeal well to the anti-intellectual masses who think people who have the abilities to attend an Ivy-League institution are somehow the enemy of "real Americans".
Quote: ruascottI'd actually pay money to see this as it would be hilarious. All these ladies have are one-liner's pulled from RWR blowhards (like Hannity). They appeal well to the anti-intellectual masses who think people who have the abilities to attend an Ivy-League institution are somehow the enemy of "real Americans".
There's a line from the 4th(?) season of The West Wing. Bartlet is debating, and the whole staff is worried about how his opponent is super folksy and has a good "ten word answer" to some question. In the debate, the opponent gives the 10 word line, and Bartlet's rebuttal is "There it is. The 10 word answer. What are the next ten words. Tell me the next ten words, and the ten after that, and I'll quit and go home right now." I don't think that either Palin or Bachmann would be capable of expounding on an answer without stepping all over herself. And, as has become apparent, the Big O can't shut up. so I would take just about any bet that he would (on a consensus panel-back basis) win each and every debate with either of these ladies if one of them is the nominee.
I also have a problem with the notion that Palin has "executive experience" that qualifies her for the Presidency. Quite simply, she quit. She didn't make it through even one term as Governor before she walked away. And during that partial term, she racked up more ethics complaints than any other governor in the history of Alaska. I really hope the national party is smart enough to see that she just isn't viable as a candidate for national office.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
Quote: rdw4potusThere's a line from the 4th(?) season of The West Wing. Bartlet is debating, and the whole staff is worried about how his opponent is super folksy and has a good "ten word answer" to some question. In the debate, the opponent gives the 10 word line, and Bartlet's rebuttal is "There it is. The 10 word answer. What are the next ten words. Tell me the next ten words, and the ten after that, and I'll quit and go home right now." I don't think that either Palin or Bachmann would be capable of expounding on an answer without stepping all over herself. And, as has become apparent, the Big O can't shut up. so I would take just about any bet that he would (on a consensus panel-back basis) win each and every debate with either of these ladies if one of them is the nominee.
I also have a problem with the notion that Palin has "executive experience" that qualifies her for the Presidency. Quite simply, she quit. She didn't make it through even one term as Governor before she walked away. And during that partial term, she racked up more ethics complaints than any other governor in the history of Alaska. I really hope the national party is smart enough to see that she just isn't viable as a candidate for national office.
Palin is after one thing...money. She know's she's on a gravy train of paid speeches and book tours to the mindless followers. I don't have any problem with it, more power to her. I think she does have enough smarts to know that she's not qualified to actually run.
I nearly fell out of my chair watching that Katie Couric interview in the fall of 2008. I have never seen anyone on that high of stage so utterly unprepared for the job.
BTW, the West Wing was a pretty awesome show for political junkies...
Quote: ruascottWhat a great response...not one actual rebuttal to anything I said...Again, what SPECIFIC POLICIES has Obama pushed that weren't expected as part of his campaign platform?
1. Not ending the Iraq war.
2. Not closing Guantanamo within a year of being elected.
3. The elimination of lobbyists from his Government.
4. Screwing up the economy. He said that would not happen.
5. He will work "across the aisle" for non-partisan law-passing.
6. There will be no more sleazy, back room Congressional deals made in order to get laws passed.
7. Every minute of the healthcare debate will be televised by C-Span so the American public can follow in detail what's going down.
BTW--Know what you wrote before involving yourself in a factual debate. You talked extensively in your last post about Palin, Bachman, and my last presidential vote. Those were so successfully rebutted that you must have ended up beside yourself and forgot about it.
BTW #2: Isn't it GREAT watching this racist, clueless president not-so-slowly go down the tubes, as he gets paid back for duping all of us Democrats and Independents? Why just today, ANOTHER of his black deputies (Agriculture this time) had to resign for her own racist remarks a few decades ago. Van Jones all over again. And the Black Panthers intimidating voters, but NEGRO Eric Holder sets up a policy that says there will be no prosecution of blacks when whites voters are the victims. Just more verification that Obama hates whites, is minority-sympathetic, and will be lucky to last one term.
Quote: RonCI was thinking about adding my opinions to this thread, but I decided against it. I did want to get further information about campaign promises kept/broken. This site does a good job of presenting information on folks from both sides of the aisle:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
Yeah, that's a good site. I should of referenced that over the link that I put in.
Quote: JerryLogan1. Not ending the Iraq war.
2. Not closing Guantanamo within a year of being elected.
3. The elimination of lobbyists from his Government.
4. Screwing up the economy. He said that would not happen.
5. He will work "across the aisle" for non-partisan law-passing.
6. There will be no more sleazy, back room Congressional deals made in order to get laws passed.
7. Every minute of the healthcare debate will be televised by C-Span so the American public can follow in detail what's going down.
BTW--Know what you wrote before involving yourself in a factual debate. You talked extensively in your last post about Palin, Bachman, and my last presidential vote. Those were so successfully rebutted that you must have ended up beside yourself and forgot about it.
I can tell you listen to Hannity, because this sounds exactly like a radio talk show host. These are all political talking points, NOT actual public policy points. I have a really hard time believing that you are upset because he doesn't have Gitmo closed; or the health care debates were not entirely on C-Span (although the great majority were.) If you think the health care law sucks, say so and say what parts of the policy suck. And then explain to me in what areas Obama backtracked from his campaign platform on that policy.
Working across the aisle? Sleazy, back room deals? Screwing up the economy?? Are you really that naive to believe goverment can function in any other way that deal-making behind closed doors?
Screwing up the economy? What the hell is this, the central planning Soviet Union? News flash, the econonmy is impacted by only a very small degeree by what happens in Washington. Presidents get way too much credit when the economy goes well, and way too much blame when it stinks. Freaking Ben Bernanke has more control over the economy than Obama.
I can't believe I've gotten drawn into a political debate with someone who should obviously be posting in the kiddy-pool section of political blogs, known as FoxNation.com
But this
succinctly summarizes our political differences.Quote: ruascottthe econonmy is impacted by only a very small degeree by what happens in Washington.
Now back to craps....
Guantanamo is not a talking point, it was promised to be his policy. I'm for it for the most part, but my problem with Obama is he doesn't follow through on what he promised he'd do. The same with the healthcare debate. Obama went on record and said one thing, then he had the exact opposite done. And we all know why, he didn't want his sleazy back-room partisan deals WHICH HE PROMISED AS A MATTER OF POLICY WOULD NOT HAPPEN UNDER HIS WATCH to be witnessed by the American public.
All this is obviously painful for someone who's been blinded by the "My president, right or wrong" BS. The guy's a liar, he eloquently runs the mouth but only if the teleprompters are working properly, he's a racist when we thought he'd be anything but, and he and his clan of inexperienced & corrupt Chicago politicians have put this country so far into debt that our next 2 or 3 generations will suffer immensley because of it.
You're approaching Pol Pot and Milosevich territory.
Personally I believe it means that the survey sample is too small, and/or that the survey question is flawed.Quote: nyuhoosierJerry Logan, what does it say about you that your approval rating is lower than that of any elected official on the planet, including Obama?
For one thing, there's no way to indicate an abstention - an important choice!
For another, there's a grammar error in the thread title which could lead to an incorrect vote.
Quote: nyuhoosierJerry Logan, what does it say about you that your approval rating is lower than that of any elected official on the planet, including Obama?
You're approaching Pol Pot and Milosevich territory.
If I were like Obama, I'd twitch and get all flustered and call Republicans names and blame it all on Fox News. But I'm like GWB, I just read it and smile....
Pol Pot & Milosevich just eliminated their opponents, IF they were brave enough to identify themselves in their presence!
Quote: nyuhoosierJerry Logan, what does it say about you that your approval rating is lower than that of any elected official on the planet, including Obama?
I saw 16 to 8, which would be a 50% rating, which is higher than Obama's.
There's a spin doctor for ya.Quote: NareedI saw 16 to 8, which would be a 50% rating, which is higher than Obama's.
50% what? Approval?
A different spin doctor would say it's a 2 to 1 disaproval.
Most would say it's a 33% approval.
But without the ability to include the abstentions, the margin of error is huge.
I'm no statistician, but I would say that lacking knowledge of abstentions would mean the margin of error is unknown, not that it is huge. OK, I guess it could be considered huge just because of the very small sample size, but not because of an unknown number of abstentions.Quote: DJTeddyBearBut without the ability to include the abstentions, the margin of error is huge.
Quote: DocI'm no statistician, but I would say that lacking knowledge of abstentions would mean the margin of error is unknown, not that it is huge. OK, I guess it could be considered huge just because of the very small sample size, but not because of an unknown number of abstentions.
We could do what some pollsters do and ask follow-up after follow-up after follow-up until the abstainers could be construed as "leaning" in one direction or the other. Then, even though our methodology would be super-crappy, we could claim to have a small MOE based on our larger number of respondents.
Or, we could do what Research 2000 apparently has done and just blatantly adjust weightings to create a desired result. Or, we could follow the Strategic Vision model and simply make things up completely.
Quote: rdw4potusWe could do what some pollsters do and ask follow-up after follow-up after follow-up until the abstainers could be construed as "leaning" in one direction or the other. Then, even though our methodology would be super-crappy, we could claim to have a small MOE based on our larger number of respondents.
Or, we could do what Research 2000 apparently has done and just blatantly adjust weightings to create a desired result. Or, we could follow the Strategic Vision model and simply make things up completely.
The Party ID question is completely valid. There are two questions:
Are you a republican, democrat, or independent?
If republican/democrat, are you a strong or weak democrat? If independent, do you lean one direction?
The answer to that question predicts votes >=90% of the time (depending on whether they are a leaner, weak, or strong). All the academic research on it shows it's by far the largest predictor of voting behavior.
Quote: touristlocalI didn't read the entire thread because it's pretty obvious most of it is just JerryLogan trolling but every one of JerryLogan's posts is inflammatory in some way and I find it hard to believe that he/she is posting in good faith. I think the racism and excessive flaming in JerryLogan posts is a very good reason to consider a ban. I've never seen JerryLogan contribute something meaningfully to these forums, and in fact she/he is the only member that stands out to me after several months of lurking this board as being disruptive. The community here is better than that.
Yes, posting THE FACTS sure does seem to rile the weaker ones up alright! For instance, we have this gem right here; "it's pretty obvious most of it is just JerryLogan trolling." There's 85 posts, 18 of them by me. Steeerike ONE! "I think the racism". Please produce a quote from this thread that says anything beyond my belief that Obama is a racist! Steeerike TWO! "The community here is better than that". Please produce evidence supporting that assertion. And while you're at it, try to explain what that means, that is, once you settle down!
The following is my latest post in the Tipping thread:
Quote: DJTeddyBearQuote: JerryLoganWhere do you play in Nevada that does not comp drinks while playing at the bar?
Quote: JerryLoganHuh? I play at bars all over Nevada and the only one I've ever heard of that doesn't comp drinks is Wynn/Encore. Paytables has nothing to do with anything and how serious a player is doesn't either.
I try to stay open minded, so I hadn't voted in the Douchebag thread yet.
But your selective memory here has given me inspiration to vote.
Can you guess which way I voted?
Quote: JerryLoganYes, posting THE FACTS sure does seem to rile the weaker ones up alright! For instance, we have this gem right here; "it's pretty obvious most of it is just JerryLogan trolling." There's 85 posts, 18 of them by me. Steeerike ONE! "I think the racism". Please produce a quote from this thread that says anything beyond my belief that Obama is a racist! Steeerike TWO! "The community here is better than that". Please produce evidence supporting that assertion. And while you're at it, try to explain what that means, that is, once you settle down!
Hmmm...smart move limiting the racism proof to this thread. Otherwise someone could bury you with all the anti native American lines from your other posts...
Quote: rdw4potusHmmm...smart move limiting the racism proof to this thread. Otherwise someone could bury you with all the anti native American lines from your other posts...
You mean where it's clear as day that they're at their best cheating the white man at all their casinos? That sounds like schrewd business to me!
BTW--the confused critic was only referring to this thread. Steeerike FOUR!
Quote: touristlocalI was actually referring to all your posts you exhibit some pretty blatant and disgusting racism and rather it's trolling and you're just trying to get a rise out of people or whether you actually believe that i don't think it has a place in this forum or public discourse.
Could you please try that again in a non-rambling, punctuation-inspired rant?
Quote: EvenBobWell, it didn't take me long to see how true this thread was.
When I came here last July, this was the very first thread I saw. Now its the end of December and its still just as relevant now as it was in July.
Quote: EvenBobWhen I came here last July, this was the very first thread I saw. Now its the end of December and its still just as relevant now as it was in July.
We need to be tolerant of Jerry, just like he is tolerant of everyone else.
Quote: DJTeddyBearPersonally I believe it means that the survey sample is too small, and/or that the survey question is flawed.
For one thing, there's no way to indicate an abstention - an important choice!
For another, there's a grammar error in the thread title which could lead to an incorrect vote.
The true result of the poll thread has been in JerryLogan's posts that constitute his participation on it so far; those posts answer the question much more definitively and unequivocally than the poll itself did (about 2 out of 9 DON'T think Jerry's a douchebag; his posts provide 100% evidence that he IS).
Quote: rxwineWe need to be tolerant of Jerry, just like he is tolerant of everyone else.
Yes. Exactly.
Quote: JerryLoganWaaa....waaa....waaa.... Come one, come all, if you like to see grown men cry. One would think the intellectuals would have a better use of their time planned for the holidays. Oh I get it: it's the babyboomer phenomenon again. Anyone who doesn't think like they do or doesn't buy into all the crap about how great "the 60's" was and who can see right through all of them as they caused their own financial problems for retirement, must be a naughty boy!
Spoken like a douchebag :)
Quote: RussHaleyNine pages in this thread and none of you geniuses have figured out "Jerry Logan" is notorious internet nutjob Rob Argentino. Well played.
Rob Argentino is "Rob Singer." Maybe you're missing the link that when we all say "Jerry Logan is Rob Singer," it logically follows that Jerry Logan is also Rob Argentino, since Rob Argentino is Rob Singer.
Quote: rdw4potusQuote: RussHaleyNine pages in this thread and none of you geniuses have figured out "Jerry Logan" is notorious internet nutjob Rob Argentino. Well played.
Rob Argentino is "Rob Singer." Maybe you're missing the link that when we all say "Jerry Logan is Rob Singer," it logically follows that Jerry Logan is also Rob Argentino, since Rob Argentino is Rob Singer.
Maybe you would be so kind to point out to me where in this thread that link is made. I admit I don't come to this site very often so perhaps I've missed this connection in the countless other threads regarding this psychopath. In another thread I read, someone calling himself "Dorothy Gale" accused "Logan" of being someone else.
Quote: RussHaley
Maybe you would be so kind to point out to me where in this thread that link is made. I admit I don't come to this site very often so perhaps I've missed this connection in the countless other threads regarding this psychopath. In another thread I read, someone calling himself "Dorothy Gale" accused "Logan" of being someone else.
try here. That should keep you going.
