PDA

View Full Version : "democrat party"


jAZ
03-06-2008, 02:33 PM
What's the thinking by those that use this terminology?

pikesome
03-06-2008, 02:36 PM
What's the thinking by those that use this terminology?

To separate the party from the adjective?

# characterized by or advocating or based upon the principles of democracy or social equality; "democratic government"; "a democratic country"; "a ...

# belong to or relating to the Democratic Party; "Democratic senator"

Taco John
03-06-2008, 02:39 PM
What's the thinking?

Seems obvious to me.

Democrat party = A party for democrats.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 02:45 PM
It's sort of weasel wording to imply that people who are not aligned with the democrat party are not democratic.

But mostly... this thread is a good example.

NewChief
03-06-2008, 02:46 PM
To get under your skin. Ignore it, and it will go away.

jAZ
03-06-2008, 02:46 PM
Democrat party
lowercase "d".

jAZ
03-06-2008, 02:52 PM
To separate the party from the adjective?

# characterized by or advocating or based upon the principles of democracy or social equality; "democratic government"; "a democratic country"; "a ...

# belong to or relating to the Democratic Party; "Democratic senator"
What's a "democrat (adjective) party" then? I've not heard of such a thing.

NewChief
03-06-2008, 02:54 PM
lowercase "d".

Oh that. I blame our crappy public education system for not teaching them the difference between proper and common nouns.

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 02:54 PM
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii31/LakeAnna/liberals_20copyjpgrqikiq.jpg

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii31/LakeAnna/liberals.jpg

jAZ
03-06-2008, 02:54 PM
It's sort of weasel wording to imply that people who are not aligned with the democrat party are not democratic.
Am I supposed to be confused by this post? Is there one or more typos in there? Did you mean to say "not"?
But mostly... this thread is a good example.
Still lost with this part too.

jAZ
03-06-2008, 02:55 PM
Oh that. I blame our crappy public education system for not teaching them the difference between proper and common nouns.
I think it's deliberate. I'm just trying to understand the logic in the thought process of using the term.

a1na2
03-06-2008, 02:59 PM
They are insulting you just as you have them in the past.

How is it that you don't understand?

I might have posted it as "democrap party" (lower case)

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 03:00 PM
its the internet and people arent always too concerned with upper or lower case singular or plural but some still get their panties twisted always thinking there is some alternative motive... looks like someone got you hook line and sinker

jAZ
03-06-2008, 03:20 PM
Just to be clear, I'm asking for the thoughts of those that use this terminology.

I'm guessing Cochise does and I recall TJ has. Not sure I've seen anyone else on here. Not being rude, but everyone else is just guessing at the other's reasoning. I can guess on my own. Just trying to seperate reality from guessing.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 03:21 PM
Sounds to me like you've uncovered a major controversy here. Has Josh Marshall weighed in on the matter or are you rudderless?

NewChief
03-06-2008, 03:24 PM
Sounds to me like you've uncovered a major controversy here. Has Josh Marshall weighed in on the matter or are you rudderless?

Maybe he should start a poll asking whether people that do it are morons or assholes?

jAZ
03-06-2008, 03:28 PM
Sounds to me like you've uncovered a major controversy here. Has Josh Marshall weighed in on the matter or are you rudderless?
You are someone who I've seen do it... so your thoughts on this are relevant. Why do you use that spelling?

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 03:42 PM
Just to be clear, I'm asking for the thoughts of those that use this terminology.

I'm guessing Cochise does and I recall TJ has. Not sure I've seen anyone else on here. Not being rude, but everyone else is just guessing at the other's reasoning. I can guess on my own. Just trying to seperate reality from guessing.

Its to be insulting - doesnt take a rocket scientist - why do you drag this out? Its to be insulting to you and your fellow members of the party and liberal fringe...

a1na2
03-06-2008, 03:54 PM
Its to be insulting - doesnt take a rocket scientist - why do you drag this out? Its to be insulting to you and your fellow members of the party and liberal fringe...

I'm really hurt! I said basically the same thing and jaz didn't single me out like he did the rest! What will I do now?

Rep, BTW.

Adept Havelock
03-06-2008, 04:00 PM
What's the thinking by those that use this terminology?

I don't see why it's a problem for the Democrat or Publican parties.

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 04:02 PM
untwist the panties and lets talk about real issues like Obama's hollow promises

Adept Havelock
03-06-2008, 04:03 PM
Maybe he should start a poll asking whether people that do it are morons or assholes?

Heh. Nice.

a1na2
03-06-2008, 04:04 PM
I don't see why it's a problem for the Democrat or Publican parties.

GEEZ, if you are going to do it, do it right.

It's the democraps and repubicans

Adept Havelock
03-06-2008, 04:07 PM
GEEZ, if you are going to do it, do it right.

It's the democraps and repubicans

Thanks anyway Tom, but when it comes to doing something right you're about the worst candidate on the board to take advice from. ;)

jAZ
03-06-2008, 04:09 PM
Its to be insulting - doesnt take a rocket scientist - why do you drag this out? Its to be insulting to you and your fellow members of the party and liberal fringe...
Maybe you use it too, but I don't recall it. I'm not asking in order to get someone to say "because it's an insult". That's not my point here.

I'm talking about the logic the gets to why "democrat party"? It doesn't seem to make logical sense to me, but I could be missing the logic entirely.

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 04:10 PM
There seems to be a lot you are missing - the point of this thread even though it was yours

jAZ
03-06-2008, 04:10 PM
Maybe you use and too, but I don't recall it. But I'm not asking to say "because it's an insult". That's not my point here.

I'm talking about the logic the gets to why "democrat party"? It doesn't seem to make logical sense to me, but I could be missing the logic entirely.
Plus there are guys like TJ who doesn't seem to me to be the petty name-calling for spite type who uses it. So I assume there is thinking behind it that is deeper than just "it's an insult".

Cochise
03-06-2008, 04:11 PM
Am I supposed to be confused by this post? Is there one or more typos in there? Did you mean to say "not"?


I don't think there 'are' any typos. What I meant to say is that it seems to be some form of weasel wording, to call yourself the democratic party, implying that the other side opposes democracy.

jAZ
03-06-2008, 04:19 PM
I don't think there 'are' any typos. What I meant to say is that it seems to be some form of weasel wording, to call yourself the democratic party, implying that the other side opposes democracy.
Oh... ok. Gotcha.

That logic doesn't make sense because we don't presume that "the other side" opposes Republics, do we? And beyond that, isn't the relevant part of the word "Democrat" and not the "ic"? By TJ's reasoning and the defenition of "democrat", the phrase "Democrat Party" (with the proper capitalization) would *still* translate into "The Party that Advocates Democracy".

patteeu
03-06-2008, 04:34 PM
Maybe he should start a poll asking whether people that do it are morons or assholes?

He could although that would actually fit the "have you stopped beating your wife" analogy.

I can see that you've been deeply offended by my ridicule of Obama and his fanboys (in a way that you gave no indication of being when Ron Paul and his crew were the target, interestingly enough), but I think you've let your emotions get the best of you. I don't care what you think of the poll I posted, but there was nothing wrong with that topic nor with my presentation of it. Anyone who took it to mean that the party is filled with racists and sexists or anyone who took it as some suggestion that there are no racists or sexists in the Republican party has only themselves and their poor interpretive abilities to blame. In terms of how provocative it was, I think it ought to rate pretty low compared to a lot of what goes on in this forum unless it is viewed from the perspective of a humorless true believer.

I've put up with a lot more outrageous assaults on the people I've supported over the past few years as well as, to a lesser extent, on myself and I've dished out significantly more aggressive criticisms on other people and their favorite politicians than that which I've directed at Obama or his local zealots, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't feel too sorry for you and the rest of the Obama faithful. It helps if you try not to take it too seriously or personally.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 04:37 PM
You are someone who I've seen do it... so your thoughts on this are relevant. Why do you use that spelling?

The first time I did it (that I know of), I didn't realize it was incorrect. I think it was a reference I made to democratunderground.com or something (as opposed to democraticunderground). You made such a ridiculously big deal about it that I adopted it as a part of my style sheet.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 04:40 PM
Maybe you use it too, but I don't recall it. I'm not asking in order to get someone to say "because it's an insult". That's not my point here.

I'm talking about the logic the gets to why "democrat party"? It doesn't seem to make logical sense to me, but I could be missing the logic entirely.

The reason I didn't get it right that first time was because it makes all the sense in the world to me that "democrats" would be in the "democrat party". Just like republicans are in the republican party and socialists are in the socialist party and communists are in the communist party and libertarians are in the libertarian party.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 04:42 PM
Oh... ok. Gotcha.

That logic doesn't make sense because we don't presume that "the other side" opposes Republics, do we? And beyond that, isn't the relevant part of the word "Democrat" and not the "ic"? By TJ's reasoning and the defenition of "democrat", the phrase "Democrat Party" (with the proper capitalization) would *still* translate into "The Party that Advocates Democracy".

The "republican party" is the party composed of republicans. The "democrat party" is the party composed of democrats.

I don't think that being anti-republican governance would carry the same connotation among the public as being anti- any democratic governance would. Most people probably don't even know what republican government is, but they know in general what democracy means.

In another way, from my side of the fence you see the Democrat party as being steered by a relative few - the old-guard brass, professionial politicians; the Clintons and their minions; far left special interests groups, many of them one-issue groups. It doesn't seem very democratic in terms of voter inputs. Seems more like an oligarchy or an old timey political machine, in any case, not especially Democratic.

pikesome
03-06-2008, 04:46 PM
In another way, from my side of the fence you see the Democrat party as being steered by a relative few - the old-guard brass, professionial politicians; the Clintons and their minions; far left special interests groups, many of them one-issue groups. It doesn't seem very democratic in terms of voter inputs. Seems more like an oligarchy or an old timey political machine, in any case, not especially Democratic.

It's not. Which is why the mud thrown at the Republicans most of the time is stupid. Both parties are wallowing in similar stink piles, they just sell their souls to different masters.

Taco John
03-06-2008, 04:46 PM
Just to be clear, I'm asking for the thoughts of those that use this terminology.

I'm guessing Cochise does and I recall TJ has. Not sure I've seen anyone else on here. Not being rude, but everyone else is just guessing at the other's reasoning. I can guess on my own. Just trying to seperate reality from guessing.


I probably have. This is the most thought I've ever given it.

Sully
03-06-2008, 04:58 PM
I don't think there 'are' any typos. What I meant to say is that it seems to be some form of weasel wording, to call yourself the democratic party, implying that the other side opposes democracy.

And the National League hates Americans, and the American League hates nations...

Cochise
03-06-2008, 04:59 PM
And the National League hates Americans, and the American League hates nations...

It isn't that either of these names are very descriptive. But, when the bellyaching is "hey, we're not democrats, we're democratIC"... doesn't seem that way...

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 05:06 PM
Its actually just a huge waste of time and breathe GET OVER IT

a1na2
03-06-2008, 05:23 PM
Thanks anyway Tom, but when it comes to doing something right you're about the worst candidate on the board to take advice from. ;)

It would be good for to think less of your opinion and look for jokes from time to time.

On the other hand you are cordially invited to pound sand up your ass.

a1na2
03-06-2008, 05:25 PM
Maybe you use it too, but I don't recall it. I'm not asking in order to get someone to say "because it's an insult". That's not my point here.

I'm talking about the logic the gets to why "democrat party"? It doesn't seem to make logical sense to me, but I could be missing the logic entirely.

jaz, there are quite a few things you are missing here. There are also things that you put on the board that make much less sense in the whole scheme of things. You tend to post things to stir shit up, that seems to be about 90% of your direction.

I think I'll put up a poll to change your name to Stick

jAZ
03-06-2008, 05:40 PM
The first time I did it (that I know of), I didn't realize it was incorrect. I think it was a reference I made to democratunderground.com or something (as opposed to democraticunderground). You made such a ridiculously big deal about it that I adopted it as a part of my style sheet.
Ok, so now you do it to piss people off. Why did you do it then. (Other than presumably to piss people off too.

And not so much "why", but what's the reasoning that you hold that makes it logically correct?

Calcountry
03-06-2008, 05:50 PM
We definitely need to revamp the party animals.

I suggest a rat for the DemocRATS.

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 06:02 PM
Someones quite the drama queen, its quite comical actually

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2008, 06:22 PM
There seems to be a lot you are missing - the point of this thread even though it was yours

It's more than just a tad telling that your lampooning of Obama includes a belief that corporations are being unfairly treated by our government.

Good luck in your attempt to move up to a double-digit IQ.

penchief
03-06-2008, 06:24 PM
What's the thinking by those that use this terminology?

I think it's an intentional poke in the eye. It's just another example of the arrogant and belittling approach that the corporate right likes to employ. It's all about PR and they get away with it because they own the ****ing media.

Everytime I hear it I wonder why somebody doesn't say, "wait a minute, it's always been the democratic party. Why does the republican party get to rename the democratic party for democrats? Just because then can? Well, **** you!"

I generally recognize that it's useless to bitch about it because the media is corporately owned and that is the kind of ways that they subtly inject their agenda into the equation. Their job is to promote corporate interests over democratic principles. And since the WWF Media can influence people by playing word games and framing issues via Luntzonian double-speak, that is exactly what they do.

But still, It pisses me off because it is typical of the derision and disrespect that the right wing displays toward anything that doesn't conform to their narrow ideology.

JMO.

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 06:26 PM
Not a belief that they are unfairly treated but will be unfairly treated.

Besides I am I dont want to up my IQ - I am quite content being as smart as you and jAZ and others

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 06:28 PM
But still, It pisses me off because it is typical of the derision and disrespect that the right wing displays toward anything that doesn't conform to their narrow ideology.

JMO.

Oh yeah and you liberal democrats are just the most loving people toward republicans - you are just being a hypocrite

penchief
03-06-2008, 06:34 PM
I think it's deliberate. I'm just trying to understand the logic in the thought process of using the term.

It's a way to say that democrats are not democratic. It falls right in line with the new line of shit being promoted by people like Jonah Goldberg and Taco and BEP; that liberals are the real fascists instead of the traditionally fascist right wing reactionaries.

It's all part of the corporate media's attempt to rewrite history so that we succumb to mindless nationalism/consumerism instead of questioning the fascist tendencies of the corporate right.

It's all part of the right wing's attempt to salvage it's legacy by attempting to lay their undemocratic behavior onto the democratic party.

penchief
03-06-2008, 06:39 PM
Oh yeah and you liberal democrats are just the most loving people toward republicans - you are just being a hypocrite

Examples, please.

The right wing has no mercy. The left plays with much more decency. That is just a fact.

Just because John McCain and all the republicans are looking down the barrel of their own ****-ups, doesn't mean that their lip service to "a kinder gentler" approach is anything more than their typical smoke screen.

Lee Atwater and Karl Rove wrote the ****ing book. So before you call me a hypocrite you'd better be more honest in your evaluation. I lived the shit since day one with Reagan. Righties don't care about honor, they care about power. Lefties usually have their lunch handed to them because they take the high road in a game that is rigged.

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 06:39 PM
Your reading in to it too much - its simply a dig that gets under your skin and it works

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 06:42 PM
Examples, please.

The right wing has no mercy. The left plays with much more decency. That is just a fact.
Such BS ROFL Yeah Hillary is the most decent person right - you guys are just so full of compassion its sickening ROFL

Just because John McCain and all the republicans are looking down the barrel of their own ****-ups, doesn't mean that their lip service to "a kinder gentler" approach is anything more than their typical smoke screen.

More BS

Lee Atwater and Karl Rove wrote the ****ing book. So before you call me a hypocrite you'd better be more honest in your evaluation. I lived the shit since day one with Reagan. Righties don't care about honor, they care about power. Lefties usually have their lunch handed to them because they take the high road in a game that is rigged.

Lefties are limp wristed and should have their ass handed them because you live in la la land instead of reality

You all havent lived in reality in the last 20 years

NewChief
03-06-2008, 06:44 PM
Examples, please.

The right wing has no mercy. The left plays with much more decency. That is just a fact.
Such BS ROFL Yeah Hillary is the most decent person right - you guys are just so full of compassion its sickening ROFL

Just because John McCain and all the republicans are looking down the barrel of their own ****-ups, doesn't mean that their lip service to "a kinder gentler" approach is anything more than their typical smoke screen.

More BS

Lee Atwater and Karl Rove wrote the ****ing book. So before you call me a hypocrite you'd better be more honest in your evaluation. I lived the shit since day one with Reagan. Righties don't care about honor, they care about power. Lefties usually have their lunch handed to them because they take the high road in a game that is rigged.

Lefties are limp wristed and should have their ass handed them because you live in la la land instead of reality

You all havent lived in reality in the last 20 years

No offense, but you are the one that's always calling for specifics and insulting the liberals around here for having no substance. He asked for substance, now put up or shut up. Just saying Hillary is dirty isn't the same as providing specific examples of her dirtiness (I'm not saying she ain't, I'm just saying for someone who decries the lack of specificity in argumentation from his opponents, you ain't exactly raising the bar).

penchief
03-06-2008, 07:13 PM
Your reading in to it too much - its simply a dig that gets under your skin and it works

I agree with you. But why would anyone who claims to be for unifying this country and doing what is overall best for America (including the reactionary right and the greedy republican party) continue to resort to derision and contempt in personal ways that are intended to humiliate or demean their opposition like the republican party has done ever since Ronald Reagan?

It's hypocritical on the part of righties and republicans to all of a sudden behave like they didn't raise the stakes; like they are all of a sudden above such tactics when they not only mastered them, but continue to use them.

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 07:18 PM
Each party has its digs - republicans use the phrase "democrat party" and democrats use phrases like the party of fear mongers etc.

Both are done to dig at each other - both feel they have the best intentions for the country but both are guilty of the same childish behavior

Democrats arent immune from the mud slinging and that includes the two leaders of the party Pelosi and Reid

penchief
03-06-2008, 07:19 PM
Such BS ROFL Yeah Hillary is the most decent person right - you guys are just so full of compassion its sickening ROFL

I'm not supporting Hillary at this time. Even if I end up doing so, I have confidence that she will never surpass the sleaziness of people like Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Poindexter, Gonzalez, Meese, Watts, Reagan, and all those other obfuscating muther-fuchers.

More BS

Prove it.

Lefties are limp wristed and should have their ass handed them because you live in la la land instead of reality

You all havent lived in reality in the last 20 years.

Thanks for proving MY point, numb nuts.

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 07:27 PM
I'm not supporting Hillary at this time. Even if I end up doing so, I have confidence that she will never surpass the sleaziness of people like Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Poindexter, Gonzalez, Meese, Watts, Reagan, and all those other obfuscating muther-fuchers.

Hey numb nuts your in dream land if you think Hillary and Bill arent two of the sleaziest to hit the white house. You need a reality check.

penchief
03-06-2008, 07:36 PM
Hey numb nuts your in dream land if you think Hillary and Bill arent two of the sleaziest to hit the white house. You need a reality check.

As I already stated, I don't support Hillary at this time. But, since you brought it up, how could Hillary be any more sleazy than lying to the country about starting an endless Orwellian War? How could she be sleazier than Cheneyburton when taking away our civil liberties, our individual prosperity, and our avenues of redress?

The corruption, deception, and incompetence of the republican party has left this country in one hell of a mess. And I'm not sure that we (the people) have the wherewithall or the means to wrest America back from the greed mongers on the right. I pray I'm wrong but I'm not very optimistic about the future. I think it may already be too late.

Adept Havelock
03-06-2008, 07:45 PM
Hey numb nuts your in dream land if you think Hillary and Bill arent two of the sleaziest to hit the white house. You need a reality check.

In this case the proper usage is "you're", you ignorant cretin. :spock:

As misguided as penchief and jAZ may be (IMO), I'd certainly consider them superior posters to you as they occasionally offer reasons and arguments with their tirades. I've yet to see a post from you that isn't the internet equivalent of a First Grader on the playground screaming "you suck".

To save you embarrassing yourself with your usual infantile response, I'll just let you know right now I will not be voting for Hillary or Obama, whichever wins the Dem nomination. I am less than impressed with McCain, but will likely pull the lever for him while holding my nose. I'm a fiscal conservative, socially a hedonist, and couldn't care less if I live up to your definition of a "conservative" or not.

BTW- Is this you, or just a close relative?
.

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 07:46 PM
As I already stated, I don't support Hillary at this time. But, since you brought it up, how could Hillary be any more sleazy than lying to the country about starting an endless Orwellian War? How could she be sleazier than Cheneyburton when taking away our civil liberties, our individual prosperity, and our avenues of redress?

The corruption, deception, and incompetence of the republican party has left this country in one hell of a mess. And I'm not sure that we (the people) have the wherewithall or the means to wrest America back from the greed mongers on the right. I pray I'm wrong but I'm not very optimistic about the future. I think it may already be too late.

What could be sleazier than Bill chasing skirt while in office and banging out half the staff and lying about it under oath.

What could be sleazier than Hillary being involved with a $100,000 windfall from cattle futures after a $1,000 investment or The Castle Grande real estate scam, her role as attorney for the Rose law firm in what would become the endlessly controversial-cum-criminal Whitewater affair that would follow her to the White House or Travel Gate - give me a break you need to lay off the crack - those two are as guilty as anything else you could come up with.

As for the war in Iraq... Let me guess you were one of the 10 or so that was against the war from the very beginning?

MurphDog
03-06-2008, 07:47 PM
In this case the proper usage is "you're", you ignorant cretin. :spock:

As misguided as penchief and jAZ may be (IMO), I'd certainly consider them superior posters to you as they occasionally offer reasons and arguments with their tirades. I've yet to see a post from you that isn't the internet equivalent of a First Grader on the playground screaming "you suck".

BTW- Is this you, or just a close relative?
.

Yeah there's the love and compassion liberals are known for... Dumb asses

Adept Havelock
03-06-2008, 07:51 PM
Yeah there's the love and compassion liberals are known for... Dumb asses

Heh. Guess I didn't edit my post quick enough to save you from embarrassing yourself. LMAO

I see we have another ignoramus unable to see past his "Liberal/Conservative" "Red State/Blue State" "Black/White" absolutist mindset.

Stick around. You'll fit right in with recxjake, MarcBulger, and a few other fools like that.

There are quite a few posters other than them that believe in "Conservatism" as strongly as you do. Sadly for you, they are capable of expressing ideas at a level above third grade name calling, and it appears (so far at least) most of them have very little to say to you beyond "nice slam". If that's all you're looking for I suppose congratulations are in order. I'd figure someone of your towering intellect and vast political knowledge would aim higher than that, but I've been wrong before.

To be honest I found your posts so pathetic my first suspicion was that you were either one of the resident Leftists posting under a "false flag", or an alt for one of the resident mouth-breathers mentioned above.

Now I've decided you don't matter enough to wonder about such things. Win-Win for me. PBJ PBJ PBJ

go bowe
03-06-2008, 08:04 PM
just curious here, but how much does a reality check cost these days?

penchief
03-06-2008, 08:13 PM
What could be sleazier than Bill chasing skirt while in office and banging out half the staff and lying about it under oath.

I agree his conduct was sleazy and not worthy of someone entrusted with the office of the U.S. presidency. However, the impact on the lives and/or deaths of others was pretty much irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things when considering the value of representative government. I also agree that he should have told the truth under oath. And I believe that he got what he deserved.

However, the real sleaziness that emerged from that affair was not Clinton's personal sleaziness but the sleaziness of the republican party that imposed a six year witch hunt onto an unwilling nation. The lie never would have happened had Kenneth Starr not overreached his purpose.

The entire pursuit of Clinton was political gamesmanship to the max. It was something that went way beyond typical partisan politics. The entire attack-dog mentality of the Reagan/Gingrich legions stifled progress in this country and inflicted a partisan resentment on the country that is still out of hand. Gingrich and Reagan started an era of regression in this country that has been exemplified by the hubris of the Bush/Cheney Administration.

What could be sleazier than Hillary being involved with a $100,000 windfall from cattle futures after a $1,000 investment or The Castle Grande real estate scam, her role as attorney for the Rose law firm in what would become the endlessly controversial-cum-criminal Whitewater affair that would follow her to the White House or Travel Gate - give me a break you need to lay off the crack - those two are as guilty as anything else you could come up with.

The Bush family being involved in the S&L scandal? The Enron/Cheneyburton rolling blackouts designed to gouge Californians and simultaneously undermine a democratically elected governor? The Energy Task Force Meetings done in the name of the public but secret to the public (the same meetings that probably laid out the case for war (i.e. Haliburton's/Exxon-Mobile's interests))?

And that doesn't include the personal shortcomings that republicans are so fond of when hypocritically attacking their opponents (i.e. the DUIs, the cocaine addiction, the lack of a legitimate service record, the behavior of family members, etc.).

That's just a few. As you know, there is a lot more where those came from. The difference lies in the level of betrayal. I can live with someone's personal shortcomings as long as their intent is not to dishonestly screw over the citizenry or our democracy for the sake of consolidating wealth and power. That, IMO, is far more immoral because it has a real impact on humanity as opposed to the gotcha politics that republicans have perfected ever since Reagan.

As for the war in Iraq... Let me guess you were one of the 10 or so that was against the war from the very beginning?

There were a lot more than ten of us.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 08:38 PM
Well this spun out of control. Most of us were just trying to annoy jAZ :Poke:

patteeu
03-06-2008, 09:45 PM
Ok, so now you do it to piss people off. Why did you do it then. (Other than presumably to piss people off too.

And not so much "why", but what's the reasoning that you hold that makes it logically correct?

Not "people", just you. And you only because it's such a pathetically trivial thing to have ever complained about. I can't imagine that anyone else really cares about this. It's still hard for me to believe that you do.

And I think I've completely explained the situation from my pov, including the logic behind why I "did it then".

patteeu
03-06-2008, 09:51 PM
It's a way to say that democrats are not democratic.

Oh, for heaven's sake. That's in *your* head.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 09:53 PM
Examples, please.

Bushitler.

Logical
03-06-2008, 09:56 PM
Let me just say this thread is silly and pointless. If you are worried about a small d versus a capital D you are obseesed with trivial matters.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2008, 10:38 PM
Not a belief that they are unfairly treated but will be unfairly treated.

Besides I am I dont want to up my IQ - I am quite content being as smart as you and jAZ and others

You talk shit about as well as Wilford Brimley would run the 400 meter hurdles.