Liberals Respond To Bush Re-Election

[RINGLEADER]

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/

[Joe Seahawk]

:shake: I'll never be able to understand these losers..

[SBK]

Sad to think that our soldiers protect those kind of freedoms as well.

[Hel'n]

Sad to think that our soldiers protect those kind of freedoms as well.

Freedoms for the right kind of folks, eh?...

Unfortunately, the soldiers protect you too...

[BushGaveMeApplePie]

yes that's too bad these protestor's go to such extreme lengths.

even I'm looking forward to 4 more years of Bush's absurdity. It makes The Daily Show w/Jon Stewart that much funnier!

[SBK]

Freedoms for the right kind of folks, eh?...

Unfortunately, the soldiers protect you too...

No, but I don't think that a soldier wants to die so someone can hold up a poster of a woman aborting the president, or folks burning and effigy of the president and the American flag, on American soil.

These idiots have no idea how good they have it here. Good news is plenty of room elsewhere! ROFL

[Hel'n]

No, but I don't think that a soldier wants to die so someone can hold up a poster of a woman aborting the president, or folks burning and effigy of the president and the American flag, on American soil.

These idiots have no idea how good they have it here. Good news is plenty of room elsewhere! ROFL


Not your place to decide what freedoms are okay for some and what are not... I won't let you...

I will even defend your right to show aborted fetus's as a protest of abortions...

No, freedom for all or freedom for none... You can't have it both ways...

And I won't let you...

[Joe Seahawk]

Not your place to decide what freedoms are okay for some and what are not... I won't let you...

I will even defend your right to show aborted fetus's as a protest of abortions...

No, freedom for all or freedom for none... You can't have it both ways...

And I won't let you...


Wow.. that might be the 2nd most hypocricy riddled post I've ever seen on the planet.

[Hel'n]

Wow.. that might be the 2nd most hypocricy riddled post I've ever seen on the planet.


That's the way it goes... I will NOT let you VIOLATE others just so you can feel good about yourself...

[SBK]

That's the way it goes... I will NOT let you VIOLATE others just so you can feel good about yourself...

But you'll defend abortion to the death right?

[SBK]

Not your place to decide what freedoms are okay for some and what are not... I won't let you...

I will even defend your right to show aborted fetus's as a protest of abortions...

No, freedom for all or freedom for none... You can't have it both ways...

And I won't let you...

I wouldn't show aborted fetuses to protest. That's gross and uncalled for. You missed my point.

Easy to see why you take such a hard time around here. :thumb:

[Joe Seahawk]

That's the way it goes... I will NOT let you VIOLATE others just so you can feel good about yourself...

So because I disagree with the protesters, I've VIOLATED them??

WTF is wrong with you.. Think it through .. :shake:

[Kraut]

No surprise this was in San Fancisco. They wanna break off from the US be my guest.

[Ari Chi3fs]

some people dont like Bush? :shrug: I didnt know tha was possible... I guess not everyone has drank the 'I Love George Bush' Kool-aid.

[Kraut]

some people dont like Bush? :shrug: I didnt know tha was possible... I guess not everyone has drank the 'I Love George Bush' Kool-aid.
:shake:

[Saggysack]

:shake: I'll never be able to understand these losers..

I'll never understand these losers as well....

http://www.carolmoore.net/photos/balkans-photos.html

Quite a few goodies in there. Like, Rapist Resign or Diplomacy NOT Bombs or Resign Mad Rapist Bomber or Clinton War Criminal or my personal favorite... Humanity is Losing, Bombs are Winning, WHY?

There are wackos on all sides of the aisles. To even think the left has a monopoly on wackos is pretty ignorant thinking, wouldn't you say Joe?

It might be hard to for some to come grip with any amount of reality but Republicans, Libertarians or what not are just as much of political opportunists as Democrats are.

[MadProphetMargin]

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/

You wanted the divide, you got the divide.

I have a feeling that this is just the beginning.

[htismaqe]

I'll never understand these losers as well....

http://www.carolmoore.net/photos/balkans-photos.html

Quite a few goodies in there. Like, Rapist Resign or Diplomacy NOT Bombs or Resign Mad Rapist Bomber or Clinton War Criminal or my personal favorite... Humanity is Losing, Bombs are Winning, WHY?

There are wackos on all sides of the aisles. To even think the left has a monopoly on wackos is pretty ignorant thinking, wouldn't you say Joe?

It might be hard to for some to come grip with any amount of reality but Republicans, Libertarians or what not are just as much of political opportunists as Democrats are.

Yeah, it sure is a valid comparison when EACH ONE of those protestors you mentioned was holding up signs talking about ONE MAN -- Bill Clinton.

I don't see any signs that say anything even REMOTELY as bad as "**** Middle America" or "Immigrants against Democracy".

[Cochise]

ROFL

I love it. They lose the election and then go straight back to the behavior that has had them losing elections for 8 years now.

"Why can't we win in middle America again?"

[HC_Chief]

Typical San Fran leftist whackos... nothing new here.

[beavis]

Typical San Fran leftist whackos... nothing new here.
Yeah, but I think we should get rid of the electoral college. These people obviously aren't being heard.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yeah, but I think we should get rid of the electoral college. These people obviously aren't being heard.

They're being heard...they just have no say...because they're not a majority.

[HC_Chief]

They're being heard...they just have no say...because they're not a majority.

And they never will be (thank God)

[BIG_DADDY]

Which picture are Denise and Flunkie in?

[BIG_DADDY]

Wouldn't it be great if you could sign up for riot duty after the election was over? I would love to crack open a few skulls out there especially that guy acting all hard while he's holding the Fvck Middle America sign.

Another funny part is the guy holding the Bush=Satan sign. He totally looks like Satan.

[Baby Lee]

Another funny part is the guy holding the Bush=Satan sign. He totally looks like Satan.
If Satan and Conan O'Brien had a kid. ROFL

[MadProphetMargin]

Wouldn't it be great if you could sign up for riot duty after the election was over? I would love to crack open a few skulls out there especially that guy acting all hard while he's holding the Fvck Middle America sign.


:thumb:

Don't forget your brown shirt!

[HC_Chief]

How clever... a Nazi reference. According to Taco, you just lost all credibility.

[MadProphetMargin]

How clever... a Nazi reference. According to Taco, you just lost all credibility.

I'll try not to lose any sleep over that.

But, hey...he wanted to go crack heads on dissenters...he should at least do it in style.

[HC_Chief]

Brown is stylish? I gotta tell the UPS guy when he comes in today...

:D

[Saggysack]

Yeah, it sure is a valid comparison when EACH ONE of those protestors you mentioned was holding up signs talking about ONE MAN -- Bill Clinton.

I don't see any signs that say anything even REMOTELY as bad as "**** Middle America" or "Immigrants against Democracy".



So.... I guess those that stand up and purport Bush to be Hitler or as an aborted fetus aren't wackos? After all, he is ONE MAN. I'm using your logic. Or does war criminal only apply when Clintons named is used by the wackos?

[MadProphetMargin]

Brown is stylish? I gotta tell the UPS guy when he comes in today...

:D


It is when you're in the dissent-suppression biz.

Jackboots are very fetching, too.

[Lightning Rod]

some people dont like Bush? :shrug: I didnt know tha was possible... I guess not everyone has drank the 'I Love George Bush' Kool-aid.



There are many people that are not much of a fan of Bush. He was a very beatable incumbent. The Democrats ran a piss poor campaign with a piss poor candidate. A moderate democrat (if there still is one) with a little personality and charisma is what they needed. Kerry is what they brought to the table. The guy makes Al gore look a beer swilling, pot smoking, comedian. The Whitehouse was there for the taking but, the Democrats as usual lined up in their circular firing squad and when the smoke cleared Kerry was left standing. That is where the blame (or credit if you are a Republican) should be directed.

[BCD]

Good to see liberals around here, and elsewhere, aren't bitter...

[Chief Henry]

ROFL

I love it. They lose the election and then go straight back to the behavior that has had them losing elections for 8 years now.

"Why can't we win in middle America again?"




rep

[SECTION11]

"Liberals" respond to Bush Re-Election??
Geezus, the rhetoric around here.

Conservatives out to convert the animal world!!
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6396422/

[MadProphetMargin]

Good to see liberals around here, and elsewhere, aren't bitter...

Maybe little bit.

On the other hand, if neocons INSIST on calling us traitors, terrorist sympathizers, etc, what do you expect?

You wanted the divide, you got the divide.

Now, I'm gonna settle in and enjoy watching an unopposed ideology run this country. Historically speaking, that's usually good for some yuks.

[Chief Henry]

That's the way it goes... I will NOT let you VIOLATE others just so you can feel good about yourself...


Very classy group of people you choose to associate with.

[Donger]

On the other hand, if neocons INSIST on calling us traitors, terrorist sympathizers, etc, what do you expect?


I dunno. Maybe the same reaction that you got when Gore and others refered to conservatives as digital brownshirts. Not some blogger, mind you, but a former VPOTUS.

[htismaqe]

So.... I guess those that stand up and purport Bush to be Hitler or as an aborted fetus aren't wackos? After all, he is ONE MAN. I'm using your logic. Or does war criminal only apply when Clintons named is used by the wackos?

Joe Seahawk referred to the protestors as "losers".

You, in turn, posted pictures of anti-Clinton protestors and referred to them as the same.

You're trying to draw a correlation -- one that is both misguided and wrong.

Many of those protestors were holding up signs that said things like "**** MIDDLE AMERICA" and "Immigrants Against Democracy". Those people aren't bashing Bush, they're bashing everybody, including YOU.

You apparently don't understand my logic, so please refrain from trying to use it.

[MadProphetMargin]

I dunno. Maybe the same reaction that you got when Gore and others refered to conservatives as digital brownshirts. Not some blogger, mind you, but a former VPOTUS.

Naw, I still like the title of Hannity's book...that's the all time champeen.

[SECTION11]

Christians lead Muslims 151-2 in domestic terrorism blowout!!
Details at 11!!

[Donger]

Naw, I still like the title of Hannity's book...that's the all time champeen.

Sorry, I guess I don't equate a talking head on TV to a former VPOTUS.

[MadProphetMargin]

Sorry, I guess I don't equate a talking head on TV to a former VPOTUS.

Why not? Both job descriptions mostly involve running your mouth.

[ck_IN]

What do you expect from the nutjobs that live in Frisco?

I have to agree with the one sign though that asked about seceding. I'll personally help set charges along the Nevada/Cali border if someone thinks it'll help that sewer of a state float off into the Pacific.

[Donger]

Why not? Both job descriptions mostly involve running your mouth.

I suppose I expect a little more verbal restraint from a former VPOTUS than a talking head on TV.

[MadProphetMargin]

What do you expect from the nutjobs that live in Frisco?

I have to agree with the one sign though that asked about seceding. I'll personally help set charges along the Nevada/Cali border if someone thinks it'll help that sewer of a state float off into the Pacific.

It's funny to joke about, but the country does seem to be ripping in half, though not along the neat geographical boundary seen in 1860.

I don't foresee a civil war, but it doesn't bode well for the country.

[MadProphetMargin]

I suppose I expect a little more verbal restraint from a former VPOTUS than a talking head on TV.


"Go f*ck yourself."
- VP Dick Cheney, speaking to Senator Leahy, 2004.

You were saying?

[HC_Chief]

"Go f*ck yourself."
- VP Dick Cheney, speaking to Senator Leahy, 2004.

You were saying?

Heh, that was classic. Leahy is a lying rhetoric-spouting douche. Too bad he's from a state full of dumbasses willing to keep re-electing him.

[ck_IN]

<i>It's funny to joke about, but the country does seem to be ripping in half, though not along the neat geographical boundary seen in 1860.

I don't foresee a civil war, but it doesn't bode well for the country.</i>

Just wait and see what happens if the First B*tch, aka Hillary, is nominated in 2k8. You think things are polarized now.........

[KCTitus]

"Go f*ck yourself."
- VP Dick Cheney, speaking to Senator Leahy, 2004.

You were saying?

The context behind the quote made it appropriate...Im sure we can agree on that.

[MadProphetMargin]

Heh, that was classic. Leahy is a lying rhetoric-spouting douche. Too bad he's from a state full of dumbasses willing to keep re-electing him.


Okay...so if GORE does it, it's BAD. If CHENEY does it, it's GOOD.

I understand now.

[htismaqe]

"Go f*ck yourself."
- VP Dick Cheney, speaking to Senator Leahy, 2004.

You were saying?

Go **** yourself hardly equates to running around calling people Nazi's at the drop of a hat.

Does the party of tolerance and sensitivity understand how that affects the mindset (and votes) of Jewish Americans? Do they care?

[Donger]

"Go f*ck yourself."
- VP Dick Cheney, speaking to Senator Leahy, 2004.

You were saying?

I guess I missed the part where, 1) he said that on national media. 2) He was inaccurate.

[SECTION11]

Conservative terrorist bombs the Olympics!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1196-2003Jun1?language=printer

I'm just trying to catch up here. Don't mind me.

[MadProphetMargin]

The context behind the quote made it appropriate...Im sure we can agree on that.


Nope. Donger expects a ertain amount of verbal restraint.

But apparently, the right only expects that from the left.

[Bearcat2005]

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/
What sick basterds, I am sure our soilders would not like the fact that these socialist bitches are burning our flag. I KNOW my military family sure in hell dont care for that behavior much. These pics are the future of the Dem party so keep it up libs, keepup this ultra left ideology, b/c you will have no party in 10 years. Its a shame we dont have a dem party of old. Ohh and by the way where are all the libs who were going to move to canada if bush was elected? Go ahead and us "rich" republicans will take a collection to send your asses out of here. I am sooooo sick of your complaining about Bush and him winning, let it go....WE ARE THE SILENT MAJORITY, YOU ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH AMERICA DONT YOU SEE IT! AMERICA WAS NOT FOUNDED ON SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY (LIKE THE ASS CLOWNS IN THIS LINK) SO WHY DEFEND THEM YOU FOOLS! BUSH HAS REAL SOLUTIONS FOR REAL PROBLEMS, NOT THIS FAILED ECONOMIC AND FOREIGN POLICY IDEOLOGY (CARTER, CLINTON). PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO KILL US IN THIS WORLD AND YOU ARE NOT GETTING THAT! THIS IS NOT A MOVIE WHERE THE WORLD IS PREDICTABLE AND SAFE! MAYBE IF YOU STOPPED AND JUST THOUGHT MAYBE THE REASON FRANCE AND GERMANY HATES US IS BECAUSE OF THIER OWN CORRUPTION NOT BUSH'S! I AM A REALIST AND AS LONG AS YOU SOCIALIST BASTERDS TRY TO BLEED MY COUNTRY AND TEAR IT APART FROM EVERYTHING I GREW TO LOVE ABOUT IT, I WILL SPEND EVERY BREATH I HAVE FIGHTING YOU AND YOU ANTI-GOD, ANTI-CAPITALISM VIEWS! BECAUSE BELIEVE IT OR NOT YOUR PARTY STANDS FOR SOMETHING THAT IS MUCH MORE EXTREME THAT WHAT YOU THINK BUSH IS! I am done with this I am just tired of people still saying bush cheated, or how people who voted for him are dumb, and I'm tired of assclowns trying to defend those in the pics RL linked!

[KCN]

No surprise this was in San Fancisco. They wanna break off from the US be my guest.

No problem there!

[KCTitus]

Nope. Donger expects a (c)ertain amount of verbal restraint.

But apparently, the right only expects that from the left.

You think? Were you actually paying attention over the last 12-18 months? Verbal restraint by the left is a joke. Fortunately, the right still does believe in the first ammendment.

[MadProphetMargin]

I guess I missed the part where, 1) he said that on national media. 2) He was inaccurate.


1. He said it on the Senate floor. That's a public forum, by definition. The press could (and did) pick it up.

2. Verbal restraint only applies if you ARE (supposedly) accurate, not if you BELIEVE you are accurate?

Okay. I think I can see both sets of standards.

[HC_Chief]

Screw that... Sn Fran is beautiful! Let 'em f*ck off to Canada... keep SF AMERICAN! :D

[MadProphetMargin]

What sick basterds, I am sure our soilders would not like the fact that these socialist bitches are burning our flag. I KNOW my military family sure in hell dont care for that behavior much. These pics are the future of the Dem party so keep it up libs, keepup this ultra left ideology, b/c you will have no party in 10 years. Its a shame we dont have a dem party of old. Ohh and by the way where are all the libs who were going to move to canada if bush was elected? Go ahead and us "rich" republicans will take a collection to send your asses out of here. I am sooooo sick of your complaining about Bush and him winning, let it go....WE ARE THE SILENT MAJORITY, YOU ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH AMERICA DONT YOU SEE IT! AMERICA WAS NOT FOUNDED ON SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY (LIKE THE ASS CLOWNS IN THIS LINK) SO WHY DEFEND THEM YOU FOOLS! BUSH HAS REAL SOLUTIONS FOR REAL PROBLEMS, NOT THIS FAILED ECONOMIC AND FOREIGN POLICY IDEOLOGY (CARTER, CLINTON). PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO KILL US IN THIS WORLD AND YOU ARE NOT GETTING THAT! THIS IS NOT A MOVIE WHERE THE WORLD IS PREDICTABLE AND SAFE! MAYBE IF YOU STOPPED AND JUST THOUGHT MAYBE THE REASON FRANCE AND GERMANY HATES US IS BECAUSE OF THIER OWN CORRUPTION NOT BUSH'S! I AM A REALIST AND AS LONG AS YOU SOCIALIST BASTERDS TRY TO BLEED MY COUNTRY AND TEAR IT APART FROM EVERYTHING I GREW TO LOVE ABOUT IT, I WILL SPEND EVERY BREATH I HAVE FIGHTING YOU AND YOU ANTI-GOD, ANTI-CAPITALISM VIEWS! BECAUSE BELIEVE IT OR NOT YOUR PARTY STANDS FOR SOMETHING THAT IS MUCH MORE EXTREME THAT WHAT YOU THINK BUSH IS! I am done with this I am just tired of people still saying bush cheated, or how people who voted for him are dumb, and I'm tired of assclowns trying to defend those in the pics RL linked!


Well, the tards in question certainly got the desired response from you.

:Poke:

[MadProphetMargin]

You think? Were you actually paying attention over the last 12-18 months? Verbal restraint by the left is a joke. Fortunately, the right still does believe in the first ammendment.


ROFL



Is that why they proposed the Constitution Reformation Act?

The right only likes SOME of the 1st Amendment, and only when the right people are exercising it.

Oh, yeah...and the right were all angels during the campaign.

ROFL

[Bearcat2005]

Well, the tards in question certainly got the desired response from you.

:Poke:
This has been built up for a little while and those pics just pushed me to that point I guess.

[MadProphetMargin]

This has been built up for a little while and those pics just pushed me to that point I guess.


Welcome to the post-American century. Divided we stand.

[KCTitus]

Is that why they proposed the Constitution Reformation Act?

The right only likes SOME of the 1st Amendment, and only when the right people are exercising it.

Oh, yeah...and the right were all angels during the campaign.

It's a disgusting practice to put words in other peoples mouths, that and it doesnt taste good. Who said anything about the right being angels? Where the heck that came from is beyond me...

You have that backwards...the left only likes some of the 1st ammendment and only when they use it.

[Bearcat2005]

Welcome to the post-American century. Divided we stand.
Your right its sad I truly wish there was more commom ground in the U.S. I mean hell look how Rome fell, between internal divisions, and external threats, pretty much what we are facing now.

[KCTitus]

Welcome to the post-American century. Divided we stand.

Yeah, it's what the left hopes for, fortunately for us that's not really the case.

[HC_Chief]

Welcome to the post-American century. Divided we stand.

Bullshit.
The majority of the country is not dividied. A few bitter assholes feel 'disenfranchised' (the new favorite talking head blurb), but most people don't feel that the country is 'divided'... no mater what the media says.

[Donger]

1. He said it on the Senate floor. That's a public forum, by definition. The press could (and did) pick it up.

2. Verbal restraint only applies if you ARE (supposedly) accurate, not if you BELIEVE you are accurate?

Okay. I think I can see both sets of standards.

I didn't say it wasn't a public forum. However, it was a private conversation. Two guys having an argument.

Gore stood up in front of the national media and equated certain conservatives to the NAZIs.

If you can equate the two, okay.

[MadProphetMargin]

It's a disgusting practice to put words in other peoples mouths, that and it doesnt taste good. Who said anything about the right being angels? Where the heck that came from is beyond me...

You have that backwards...the left only likes some of the 1st ammendment and only when they use it.

The left drafted the Constitution Reformation Act? ROFL

[MadProphetMargin]

I didn't say it wasn't a public forum. However, it was a private conversation. Two guys having an argument.

Gore stood up in front of the national media and equated certain conservatives to the NAZIs.

If you can equate the two, okay.

Two public servants having an argument in a public forum.

This is not a public issue?

[Bearcat2005]

Bullshit.
The majority of the country is not dividied. A few bitter assholes feel 'disenfranchised' (the new favorite talking head blurb), but most people don't feel that the country is 'divided'... no mater what the media says.
I dont think we are as divided as the media says we are but I do believe there is a problem. The different parties beliefs have vastly seperated over the past 35 years.

[KCTitus]

The left drafted the Constitution Reformation Act? ROFL

What? Again, if you want me to continue to discuss/respond, you've got to stop putting words in my mouth. Frankly, Ive never heard of this...obviously it's dead or will die and you're using this as some sort of scare tactic...oh look the mean right strikes again!

[MadProphetMargin]

Your right its sad I truly wish there was more commom ground in the U.S. I mean hell look how Rome fell, between internal divisions, and external threats, pretty much what we are facing now.


Actually, that's true, but you also have to account for the "outsourcing" of farming to Egypt that went on, thus rendering a large part of their citizenry unemployed/underemployed, and the end of the republic due to the size of the empire exceeding the scope of that republic.

[Bearcat2005]

I dont think we are as divided as the media says we are but I do believe there is a problem. The different parties beliefs have vastly seperated over the past 35 years.
It can seem at times that their is no clear common goal or purpose for america between the american people.

[MadProphetMargin]

What? Again, if you want me to continue to discuss/respond, you've got to stop putting words in my mouth. Frankly, Ive never heard of this...obviously it's dead or will die and you're using this as some sort of scare tactic...oh look the mean right strikes again!


Nope. Not dead. Brand, spanking new.

Google it. Basically, it includes a clause that nullifies the exclusionary clause in amendment I. If you like, I'll get a link to the actual text of the act.

[Saggysack]

Joe Seahawk referred to the protestors as "losers".

You, in turn, posted pictures of anti-Clinton protestors and referred to them as the same.

You're trying to draw a correlation -- one that is both misguided and wrong.

Many of those protestors were holding up signs that said things like "**** MIDDLE AMERICA" and "Immigrants Against Democracy". Those people aren't bashing Bush, they're bashing everybody, including YOU.

You apparently don't understand my logic, so please refrain from trying to use it.


I posted a link FTR. There is a correlation, both are misguided and wrong. They are the same just on different sides of the aisle. Clinton wasn't a rapist or a war criminal. Bush isn't Hitler or a aborted fetus.

FWIW not all of those signs were about Clinton. And does it really matter what is on a sign coming from any wackos? Who cares if it says rapist, war criminal or **** middle america. Both sides of wacks are wrong and a threat to democracy because they are partisan politcal opportunists at their worst.

As far as your logic is concerned. Answer me one question. Are those that hold up signs that say Clinton is a rapist not wackos while those that dress as Hitler wearing a GWB mask are? Or does it not matter to wackos?

[Donger]

Two public servants having an argument in a public forum.

This is not a public issue?

Again, the issue about Cheney using a swear word or whether or not it was said in a public forum.

The issue is about AL Gore publically equating certain conservatives to the NAZIs.

[Bearcat2005]

Actually, that's true, but you also have to account for the "outsourcing" of farming to Egypt that went on, thus rendering a large part of their citizenry unemployed/underemployed, and the end of the republic due to the size of the empire exceeding the scope of that republic.
Yeah, in order to attempt a "change" their must be economic hardships. Marx explained this in the communist manifesto, then a strong leader will arise with the "working" class behind him.

[MadProphetMargin]

FWIW not all of those signs were about Clinton. And does it really matter what is on a sign coming from any wackos? Who cares if it says rapist, war criminal or **** middle america. Both sides of wacks are wrong and a threat to democracy because they are partisan politcal opportunists at their worst.




Problem is, this kind of shit isn't as fringe as it used to be.

Thanks to asswipes like Michael Moore, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, there isn't a lot of middle ground left.

[BIG_DADDY]

It can seem at times that their is no clear common goal or purpose for america between the american people.

Democrats could run the country if they would just cut spending, stay away from our guns and toss affirmative action. Sometimes I think they want to lose.

[MadProphetMargin]

Yeah, in order to attempt a "change" their must be economic hardships. Marx explained this in the communist manifesto, then a strong leader will arise with the "working" class behind him.


...and 100,000,000 people died.

This is, of course, the logical extension of any form of extremism. The left and right just have different NAMES for the resulting power structure...and different definitions of what is or is not extreme.

[MadProphetMargin]

Democrats could run the country if they would just cut spending, stay away from our guns and toss affirmative action. Sometimes I think they want to lose.

I agree with the last two points, but when has Bush cut spending?

Last I checked, he's never vetoed a SINGLE spending bill.

[KCTitus]

Nope. Not dead. Brand, spanking new.

Google it. Basically, it includes a clause that nullifies the exclusionary clause in amendment I. If you like, I'll get a link to the actual text of the act.

I dont find the constitution reformation act...I did find a constitution restoration act. Is this what we're talking about?

[KCTitus]

I agree with the last two points, but when has Bush cut spending?

Last I checked, he's never vetoed a SINGLE spending bill.

Bush? When has ANY president cut spending? Not in my lifetime.

[MadProphetMargin]

I dont find the constitution reformation act...I did find a constitution restoration act. Is this what we're talking about?

Yes. My bad.

[MadProphetMargin]

Bush? When has ANY president cut spending? Not in my lifetime.

So, why are the Dems being singled out, here?

[KCTitus]

So, why are the Dems being singled out, here?

My stance on spending is it's the Congress that has the control here, and therefore is at fault. The President can merely propose a budget, but the law is written in the house/senate.

In the 80's the tax rate cuts caused a near doubling of revenues to the treasury, yet spending outpaced even that.

In the 90's after reps took over, there was spending restraint. I am disappointed that over the last 4 years they didnt do more to prevent deficits...I would have prefered major cuts in the 'entitlement' programs and not passing that silly drug plan.

[BIG_DADDY]

I agree with the last two points, but when has Bush cut spending?

Last I checked, he's never vetoed a SINGLE spending bill.

I didn't vote for Bush. Spending along with the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs are my main complaints about this administration.

[KCTitus]

Yes. My bad.

I see it as a reaction to judicial activism...it's unfortunate that this is necessary to protect from judicial fiat. Frankly, I dont like it, but what is the alternative. Let judges legislate from the bench?

[MadProphetMargin]

My stance on spending is it's the Congress that has the control here, and therefore is at fault. The President can merely propose a budget, but the law is written in the house/senate.



The president has a veto. If that is overridden, he is off the hook.

But there haven't been ANY vetoes, on the budget or otherwise, in the last 4 years, correct?

[BIG_DADDY]

I didn't vote for Bush. Spending along with the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs are my main complaints about this administration.

I wasn't singling out the Dem's just stating how they could take back the country. Fiscal responsibility through cuts in spending, backing off the gun issue big time and tossing Affirmative Actions would do it.

[KCTitus]

The president has a veto. If that is overridden, he is off the hook.

But there haven't been ANY vetoes, on the budget or otherwise, in the last 4 years, correct?

No, he's not off the hook...he would get blamed for 'shutting down the govt' and the MSM would have a field day.

[MadProphetMargin]

I see it as a reaction to judicial activism...it's unfortunate that this is necessary to protect from judicial fiat. Frankly, I dont like it, but what is the alternative. Let judges legislate from the bench?


I can see that part. However, just like in most legislation, the devil is in the details.

For example:

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

Looks harmless, doesn't it?

Look a little closer...according to this, if your state government wrote a law requiring you to attend the church of your choice once a week, there could be no challenge.

This is, of course, taking the situation to an extreme...but extremism isn't exactly rare, these days.

[MadProphetMargin]

No, he's not off the hook...he would get blamed for 'shutting down the govt' and the MSM would have a field day.


Clinton had the balls to do it.

Twice.

Bush doesn't?

[Baby Lee]

Re: the Gore remarks v. The Cheney remarks.

I don't condone Cheney losing his cool with Leahy. But I do see a difference between flying off the handle in a argument with another individual and flying off a handle towards an entire demographic.

It's the difference between calling jettio an asshole and saying all Democrats are assholes. I've interacted with jettio, and were that my choice of words, it'd be based on those interactions. I don't know EVERY democrat in the US and it'd be unair to lump them together in such an amorphous, but clearly demeaning, manner.

Likewise, for better or worse, Cheney has a firmer foundation to lay into Leahy than Gore has to lay into his perceived opposition.

Further, GFY carries a connotation of "I'm tired of butting heads with you and would like you to go elsewhere and abuse yourself." That remark reflects YOUR state of mind. Saying your opposition are 'brownshirts' reflects your assessment of your opponent's state of mind, something a non-clairvoyent is ill equipped to do.

[MadProphetMargin]

Re: the Gore remarks v. The Cheney remarks.

I don't condone Cheney losing his cool with Leahy. But I do see a difference between flying off the handle in a argument with another individual and flying off a handle towards an entire demographic.

It's the difference between calling jettio an asshole and saying all Democrats are assholes.

How do you feel about Hannity's book title?

[Baby Lee]

How do you feel about Hannity's book title?
I don't know what it is. But regarding Hannity himself, I find him painfully self-satisfied. He has limited intellect and his arguments generally consist of repeating a sound byte at the top of his lungs ad infinitum.
Tucker Carlson is more my style.
That said, he's just a talking head. Comparing him to Cheney/Gore in the field of national leadership is like comparing Jim Brown or Priest Holmes to Randy 'Macho Man' Savage in the field of legitimate sport.

[MadProphetMargin]

I don't know what it is. But regarding Hannity himself, I find him painfully self-satisfied. He has limited intellect and his arguments generally consist of repeating a sound byte at the top of his lungs ad infinitum.
Tucker Carlson is more my style.
That said, he's just a talking head. Comparing him to Cheney/Gore in the field of national leadership is like comparing Jim Brown or Priest Holmes to Randy 'Macho Man' Savage in the field of legitimate sport.

I disagree. Talking heads like Hannity, Moore, and Limbaugh have an enormous influence on the political mood of the nation. In fact, I would say they are FAR more influential than a VP.

Hannity's book, Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism, Moore's F911, etc, have caused far more problems than actual, official policy.

[KCTitus]

I can see that part. However, just like in most legislation, the devil is in the details.

For example:

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

Looks harmless, doesn't it?

Look a little closer...according to this, if a state government wrote a law requiring you to attend the church of your choice once a week, there could be no challenge.

This is, of course, taking the situation to an extreme...but extremism isn't exactly rare, these days.

I see what you're saying, but that would never happen.

You're using the mindset that the electorate would tolerate that. Not every Christian is a Jerry Falwell and I dont think the republican majority would ever tolerate such legislation.

This again is a reaction to what has happened lately and what has become quite extreme. We have gone from a nation that lived under the notion of separation of church and state to the state not just seperating itself form the church but removing the church. Extreme examples--federal agents monitoring Church services to see if they violate the law that doesnt allow them to talk about the election.

I guess I can see the possibility for the pendulum to swing that far, but honestly if it did, even I would be considered liberal then.

[KCTitus]

Clinton had the balls to do it.

Twice.

Bush doesn't?

Clinton also had the line item veto and a sympathetic press...the newly elected republican majority got hit hard over that shut down. Same would happen if it happened again.

[MadProphetMargin]

I see what you're saying, but that would never happen.

You're using the mindset that the electorate would tolerate that. Not every Christian is a Jerry Falwell and I dont think the republican majority would ever tolerate such legislation.

This again is a reaction to what has happened lately and what has become quite extreme. We have gone from a nation that lived under the notion of separation of church and state to the state not just seperating itself form the church but removing the church. Extreme examples--federal agents monitoring Church services to see if they violate the law that doesnt allow them to talk about the election.

I guess I can see the possibility for the pendulum to swing that far, but honestly if it did, even I would be considered liberal then.

Thin edge of the wedge, bro.

And as far as the electorate tolerating it, I disagree. We've tolerated all kinds of bizarre bullshit over the last few decades.

Janet Reno's little holocaust in Waco.

Ruby Ridge.

Patriot & ESA2003.

Hamde & Padilla.

All very small things, in the context of a nation, but all erosions of civil liberties. This new law is just another bit of the same. Thing is, if a government CAN abuse a law, they WILL. Probably sooner, rather than later.

[MadProphetMargin]

Clinton also had the line item veto and a sympathetic press...the newly elected republican majority got hit hard over that shut down. Same would happen if it happened again.

Not when he vetoed the budgets, he didn't.

[KCTitus]

This new law is just another bit of the same. Thing is, if a government CAN abuse a law, they WILL. Probably sooner, rather than later.

While I agree that if the government can abuse the law they will, and as such, this is one branch trying to stem the abuse of the other. The judicial system is screwed up when it tries to thwart the will of the people.

As long as the people have the ability to vote and power transfers peacefully, this country will be fine. Have faith in your fellow American.

[KCTitus]

Not when he vetoed the budgets, he didn't.

Whatever, you're not hearing me...Im just going to drop it.

[MadProphetMargin]

Whatever, you're not hearing me...Im just going to drop it.


Hang on...what am I not hearing?

If Clinton had the line item veto, he could have just vetoed the parts of the budget he didn't like (the best argument against the LIV that I can see).


Fact is, Clinton vetod the budget twice, shutting down the government, in the interest of fiscal responsibility. Why can't Bush do this?

[MadProphetMargin]

While I agree that if the government can abuse the law they will, and as such, this is one branch trying to stem the abuse of the other.

But in the very act of doing so, they wrote a clause in which allows GREATER abuse, with no redress allowable.

Stopping abuses is a good thing...using this as a means to abuse the system in the opposite direction is not.

[Duck Dog]

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/


That kicked ass. There’s nothing better than seeing those pics to reaffirm my beliefs.

It's like watching Springer. You alway's come away feeling so much better about yourself.

[MadProphetMargin]

That kicked ass. There’s nothing better than seeing those pics to reaffirm my beliefs.


Yep. All of libbies are like that. Some of us just try to look respectable, until it's time to beat up more WWII veterans for their SS check, to finance forced partial-birth abortions of the White women we sold into slavery to the NAACP.

You were right all along.

[Baby Lee]

I disagree. Talking heads like Hannity, Moore, and Limbaugh have an enormous influence on the political mood of the nation. In fact, I would say they are FAR more influential than a VP.

Hannity's book, Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism, Moore's F911, etc, have caused far more problems than actual, official policy.
Hannity and Moore's ONLY responsibility is to the bottom line. They're entertainers unelected by anyone and subject to becoming yesterday's news at the whim of the viewing public.
Cheny and Gore have a greater responsibility to carry out the office to which they were elected.

[MadProphetMargin]

Hannity and Moore's ONLY responsibility is to the bottom line. They're entertainers unelected by anyone and subject to becoming yesterday's news at the whim of the viewing public.
Cheny and Gore have a greater responsibility to carry out the office to which they were elected.

They also have enormous influence. The original argument was that various factions have been working towards creating/enlarging the cultural divide, for whatever motives.

In this, Hannity, Moore, and Limbaugh have much more influence (and thus culpability) than does Gore or Cheney.

[Cochise]

Not every Christian is a Jerry Falwell and I dont think the republican majority would ever tolerate such legislation.

If you as me Falwell is someone the media loves to demonize but it not that over the top if you actually listen to him for an extended peroid. Pat Robertson is much worse, IMO.

And I have never heard anyone, Falwell or otherwise say that they think anyone should be required to attend some religious observance. In face I think most would tell you that they don't want people around who don't want to be there.


We have gone from a nation that lived under the notion of separation of church and state to the state not just seperating itself form the church but removing the church.


:clap: that is an important distinction that I don't think people make.

[KCTitus]

But in the very act of doing so, they wrote a clause in which allows GREATER abuse, with no redress allowable.

Stopping abuses is a good thing...using this as a means to abuse the system in the opposite direction is not.

No redress? Sure there is, it's called elections of the legislators.

The people have the power, when you look at it from that perspective, you'll understand. The govt is not the end all be all.

[KCTitus]

If you as me Falwell is someone the media loves to demonize but it not that over the top if you actually listen to him for an extended peroid. Pat Robertson is much worse, IMO.

And I have never heard anyone, Falwell or otherwise say that they think anyone should be required to attend some religious observance. In face I think most would tell you that they don't want people around who don't want to be there.

I gave MPM an example...I used Falwell, because the MSM typically uses him as the whipping boy.

[Baby Lee]

They also have enormous influence. The original argument was that various factions have been working towards creating/enlarging the cultural divide, for whatever motives.

In this, Hannity, Moore, and Limbaugh have much more influence (and thus culpability) than does Gore or Cheney.
And their position is much more precarious. We don't need to wait four years to replace Hannity or Moore. Just stop buying. Complaining about Hannity is IMO, no different than complaining about WWE, Will and Grace, or gangsta rap.

[MadProphetMargin]

I gave MPM an example...I used Falwell, because the MSM typically uses him as the whipping boy.

He's a good example. He is actually sane, whereas Robertson is a loon of the first water.

[Baby Lee]

BTW - in the issue of the line item veto, I remain virulently opposed. Legislation is passed on the understanding that what is passed is what will or will not become law. It involves innumerable compromises. You can't have a line item veto, IMO, unless there is a mechanism for a legislator to retract his vote in favor if a line critical to his vote is excised.

[MadProphetMargin]

BTW - in the issue of the line item veto, I remain virulently opposed. Legislation is passed on the understanding that what is passed is what will or will not become law. It involves innumerable compromises. You can't have a line item veto, IMO, unless there is a mechanism for a legislator to retract his vote in favor if a line critical to his vote is excised.

Exactly. It also buggers up the veto over-ride process that is laid down in the constitution.

[htismaqe]

I posted a link FTR. There is a correlation, both are misguided and wrong. They are the same just on different sides of the aisle. Clinton wasn't a rapist or a war criminal. Bush isn't Hitler or a aborted fetus.

FWIW not all of those signs were about Clinton. And does it really matter what is on a sign coming from any wackos? Who cares if it says rapist, war criminal or **** middle america. Both sides of wacks are wrong and a threat to democracy because they are partisan politcal opportunists at their worst.

As far as your logic is concerned. Answer me one question. Are those that hold up signs that say Clinton is a rapist not wackos while those that dress as Hitler wearing a GWB mask are? Or does it not matter to wackos?

I didn't say ANYTHING about wackos wearing masks or dressing as Nazis.

I SPECIFICALLY mentioned the anarchists brandishing signs with sweeping statements such as "**** Middle America".

[Saggysack]

I didn't say ANYTHING about wackos wearing masks or dressing as Nazis.

I SPECIFICALLY mentioned the anarchists brandishing signs with sweeping statements such as "**** Middle America".

I'm just lumping them all together. They all are wackos IMO.

It doesn't matter to me if someone holds a sign up calling a President a rapist, war criminal. It doesn't matter to me if the depict GWB as Hitler or hold up a sign with **** middle america on it. They all are equally retarded in my eyes.

[Joe Seahawk]

I'm just lumping them all together. They all are wackos IMO.

It doesn't matter to me if someone holds a sign up calling a President a rapist, war criminal. It doesn't matter to me if the depict GWB as Hitler or hold up a sign with **** middle america on it. They all are equally retarded in my eyes.


Same here..Did I say otherwise?

[Duck Dog]

Yep. All of libbies are like that. Some of us just try to look respectable, until it's time to beat up more WWII veterans for their SS check, to finance forced partial-birth abortions of the White women we sold into slavery to the NAACP.

You were right all along.


Not what I said. But OK.

[Saggysack]

Same here..Did I say otherwise?


Nope, and neither did I.