PDA

View Full Version : Why Should We Listen To You?


'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2008, 10:36 PM
If we're liberals? The old guard of the Democratic Party reminds me of the Washington Generals, which isn't a small amount of irony.

You dumbasses nominated Jimmy Carter twice, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry.

You helped make liberal a dirty word in this country because you were afraid to stand up for your own values.

You gleefully stood by as a sitting president waged a ridiculous war that you helped authorize.

You economically gutted your second largest base of support by pimping NAFTA.


I'm sorry, but I fail to see why anyone should listen to any prominent Democrat over the age of 40 years old. These people are the ones who drove the freight train of liberalism straight to hell.

So, I say this to the old guard Democrats: F*ck you. Give us the goddamned ball and let us go win the f*cking game, because we know that you sure as hell can't.

tiptap
03-11-2008, 10:53 PM
Fine by me. When we do remember that it is in reverence and remembrance that we were not allowed to in the 60's and 70's and we had to play the game to get to step aside now.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2008, 10:58 PM
Fine by me. When we do remember that it is in reverence and remembrance that we were not allowed to in the 60's and 70's and we had to play the game to get to step aside now.

I just can't imagine a generation that has been any more damaging for a party than the Baby Boomers have for the Democrats. Is it all-encompassing? No. But at the same time, if a particular regime shows an inability to formulate a winning plan and lacks fortitude, why would anyone listen to their plans about what to do for the future?

Guru
03-11-2008, 11:00 PM
Well, this should be a very interesting thread.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 11:01 PM
I have always found it funny that Republicans boast about their Conservatism while the Democrats have to downplay that they're Liberal. Republicans have completely punked and bullied them in that regard.

I think it's due to the fact that the Democrats embarrassed themselves badly in the 70s and 80s and now that generation is all grown up and really not sure how to address that kinda stuff.

Logical
03-11-2008, 11:30 PM
Way to be a uniter Hamas!ROFL

Jenson71
03-11-2008, 11:34 PM
It's definitely a well-oiled Republican machine that was a thorn in the Democrats side for a while. I think the Christian Coalition played a strong hand in that. And the tough on crime conservatism is still attractive to many. No one ever talks about letting the murderers of society get another chance, or getting rehabilitated. That's a waste of tax money. That's a bunch of crap. Clinton had to watch a mentally retarded person be executed during his first campaign so we knew he wasn't a pussy on crime.

The abortion issue brought out both of these things in a way. The religious factor was there, and liberal activist judges factor was there. Two powerful things to latch on.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2008, 11:37 PM
It's definitely a well-oiled Republican machine that was a thorn in the Democrats side for a while. I think the Christian Coalition played a strong hand in that. And the tough on crime conservatism is still attractive to many. No one ever talks about letting the murderers of society get another chance, or getting rehabilitated. That's a waste of tax money. That's a bunch of crap. Clinton had to watch a mentally retarded person be executed during his first campaign so we knew he wasn't a pussy on crime.

The abortion issue brought out both of these things in a way. The religious factor was there, and liberal activist judges factor was there. Two powerful things to latch on.

Letting opposition control the narrative was the entirety of the problem. The fact that "activist judges" is almost entirely prefaced with "liberal" is but one instance of said problem.

SBK
03-12-2008, 12:04 AM
I just can't imagine a generation that has been any more damaging for a party than the Baby Boomers have for the Democrats. Is it all-encompassing? No. But at the same time, if a particular regime shows an inability to formulate a winning plan and lacks fortitude, why would anyone listen to their plans about what to do for the future?

Dude, boomers weren't just bad for the democrats, they've been horrendous for the whole country. America will be a better place when that group has completely lost it's influence.

a1na2
03-12-2008, 01:30 AM
Dude, boomers weren't just bad for the democrats, they've been horrendous for the whole country. America will be a better place when that group has completely lost it's influence.

As a boomer I take offense to this blame conspiracy. The activities that have laid the liberal agenda to waste is a combination of pre-boomers, boomers, the X generation and the Y generation.

A large number of influential people that have been driving the democrat party are identifiable as people of the Teddy Kennedy era. You might say that the Kennedy influence has been one that has had an iron fist when it comes to liberals and that didn't start with Teddy, or even John. It started with the patriarch of the family.

The country has been on a road to hell and whenever that route was chosen is not really germain to the the end result. The country is on a collision course with it's destiny and there isn't anyone or any party that can stop that from happening.

I see quite a few members of the X generation bashing what is going on in forums like this but you don't see any of them stepping up and working to solve the problem. The train wreck is coming and it will not be stopped. We all have to live with the consequences of those that thought they knew better and those that think they now know better but are unwilling to take a stand.

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2008, 03:01 AM
I couldn't agree more. Give it to those pseudo-liberal boomers, Hamas.

Your manifesto is so much more encouraging.

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2008, 04:11 AM
BTW: To answer your question in the OP: Because you aren't intelligent enough to quit fighting against your own party.

I love dumbshit 20-somethings. Especially dumbshit 20-somethings who are are government employees acting as though they have anything to teach those of us who despise government employees.

(BTW: before you have the hubris to ask, I honor military enrollees, but I have no respect for union members who are employed by government, especially in the failed governmental teaching "profession.")

NewChief
03-12-2008, 05:48 AM
(BTW: before you have the hubris to ask, I honor military enrollees, but I have no respect for union members who are employed by government, especially in the failed governmental teaching "profession.")

Wow.

Well screw you, too. :p

Amnorix
03-12-2008, 06:25 AM
As a boomer I take offense to this blame conspiracy. The activities that have laid the liberal agenda to waste is a combination of pre-boomers, boomers, the X generation and the Y generation.

A large number of influential people that have been driving the democrat party are identifiable as people of the Teddy Kennedy era. You might say that the Kennedy influence has been one that has had an iron fist when it comes to liberals and that didn't start with Teddy, or even John. It started with the patriarch of the family.

errr....Joe didn't rule hte Democratic party then. He was at the height of his power during FDR/Truman, and it's fair to say that FDR ran the party at that point in time.

The country has been on a road to hell and whenever that route was chosen is not really germain to the the end result. The country is on a collision course with it's destiny and there isn't anyone or any party that can stop that from happening.

I love vague threats of dissolution and disaster. People ALWAYS say this about their country. I have no doubt that Jefferson and Madison were saying this when Washington/Adams was President, and then Adams/Hamilton and other prominent revolutionary era heroes were saying it when they had to endure Jefferson/Madison/Monroe.

memyselfI
03-12-2008, 06:37 AM
If we're liberals? The old guard of the Democratic Party reminds me of the Washington Generals, which isn't a small amount of irony.

You dumbasses nominated Jimmy Carter twice, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry.

You helped make liberal a dirty word in this country because you were afraid to stand up for your own values.

You gleefully stood by as a sitting president waged a ridiculous war that you helped authorize.

You economically gutted your second largest base of support by pimping NAFTA.


I'm sorry, but I fail to see why anyone should listen to any prominent Democrat over the age of 40 years old. These people are the ones who drove the freight train of liberalism straight to hell.

So, I say this to the old guard Democrats: F*ck you. Give us the goddamned ball and let us go win the f*cking game, because we know that you sure as hell can't.

Here here. Eighteen years ago Pat Buchanan was crusading about Culture Wars and was scaring the living daylight out of us by focusing on how polarized we are and how his party was going to be on the 'right' side of that war with their hardlined policies and all my party did in response was talk about unity and hope.


The nerve of the older generation baby boomers to only offer us feel good rhetoric and EMOTIONS and not solutions. :doh!::cuss::shake: :grr:

Otter
03-12-2008, 06:45 AM
As a boomer I take offense to this blame conspiracy.


Your profile says your only a couple years older than me. The baby boomer generation ended in the early 60's.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 07:28 AM
Here here. Eighteen years ago Pat Buchanan was crusading about Culture Wars and was scaring the living daylight out of us by focusing on how polarized we are and how his party was going to be on the 'right' side of that war with their hardlined policies and all my party did in response was talk about unity and hope.


The nerve of the older generation baby boomers to only offer us feel good rhetoric and EMOTIONS and not solutions. :doh!::cuss::shake: :grr:

:LOL:

banyon
03-12-2008, 07:39 AM
:LOL:

"Hear, Hear!"

tiptap
03-12-2008, 08:00 AM
I guess this is the Apology. Liberalisms greatest accomplishment in the last half of the 20th century was the enactment of Civil Rights. I have no trouble in acknowledging that the WW 2 generations push to move on this front. But the wide eyed young liberal of the 60's was front and center in the Civil Rights movement. And it is this insistence that cost the Democrats their lead in the political sphere. The Democratic party was willing to for go the south which had been its traditional base over this issue. One only has to look at the Nixon Strategy about the South to see this. The result today is that the Republican Party is now the Party of the South. The Republicans were little seen on this front and certainly didn't have any political constituency to lose in being principled. This left mainly the NorthEast as the base for the Democratic Party. Not the west coast at that time because liberalism was incorporated in the Republican Party as much as the Democratic Party. And in the Psyche of the American politic, Northeasterns are held in suspicion. There isn't the comfort level with the persona of those from the Northeast in the South and in the West. Occasionally MidWesterners are accepting. I think it is because the real thrusts of American political movement have started in the NorthEast. You know tea parties and abolitionists and Women's vote (though that had a good representation in territories out west) and of course Civil Rights.

As liberals when we look at other issues there is inherent within that thinking to revisit whether we can harness solutions by market solutions and or governmental intervention. We can't afford to be so uncompromising as say Conservative Christian positions based upon that groups insistence that they know, without error, what God is thinking.

So when you look at your candidate and want us to follow in that vote. It is probably from the push on the Civil Rights issue alone that gives us the choice so much in evidence. We do not apologize for that.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 08:10 AM
I guess this is the Apology. Liberalisms greatest accomplishment in the last half of the 20th century was the enactment of Civil Rights. I have no trouble in acknowledging that the WW 2 generations push to move on this front. But the wide eyed young liberal of the 60's was front and center in the Civil Rights movement. And it is this insistence that cost the Democrats their lead in the political sphere. The Democratic party was willing to for go the south which had been its traditional base over this issue. One only has to look at the Nixon Strategy about the South to see this. The result today is that the Republican Party is now the Party of the South. The Republicans were little seen on this front and certainly didn't have any political constituency to lose in being principled. This left mainly the NorthEast as the base for the Democratic Party. Not the west coast at that time because liberalism was incorporated in the Republican Party as much as the Democratic Party. And in the Psyche of the American politic, Northeasterns are held in suspicion. There isn't the comfort level with the persona of those from the Northeast in the South and in the West. Occasionally MidWesterners are accepting. I think it is because the real thrusts of American political movement have started in the NorthEast. You know tea parties and abolitionists and Women's vote (though that had a good representation in territories out west) and of course Civil Rights.

As liberals when we look at other issues there is inherent within that thinking to revisit whether we can harness solutions by market solutions and or governmental intervention. We can't afford to be so uncompromising as say Conservative Christian positions based upon that groups insistence that they know, without error, what God is thinking.

So when you look at your candidate and want us to follow in that vote. It is probably from the push on the Civil Rights issue alone that gives us the choice so much in evidence. We do not apologize for that.

Maybe you should apologize for, over the last 35 years, trying to neuter US military power and intelligence capabilities, destroy individual liberty in exchange for group rights, and hand over US sovereignty to globalists whenever and wherever possible. :shrug:

tiptap
03-12-2008, 08:15 AM
patteeu, are you a liberal or a Democrat? You are welcome to comment and listened in since it is an opened thread, but you are not part of the conversation. You are in evidence of the failings for those you represent.

Logical
03-12-2008, 08:25 AM
Maybe you should apologize for, over the last 35 years, trying to neuter US military power and intelligence capabilities, destroy individual liberty in exchange for group rights, and hand over US sovereignty to globalists whenever and wherever possible. :shrug:
You really want to go here, with Republicans being in the forfront of globalism and to a lesser extent cutbacks to military R&D? Look to your own Rumsfeld for the drawdown of Naval surface ships and total batallions. I believe if you check your history it was Nixon who gutted the CIA of much of is its on the ground personnel as being to expensive and out of control.

Baby Lee
03-12-2008, 08:44 AM
I guess this is the Apology. Liberalisms greatest accomplishment in the last half of the 20th century was the enactment of Civil Rights. I have no trouble in acknowledging that the WW 2 generations push to move on this front. But the wide eyed young liberal of the 60's was front and center in the Civil Rights movement. And it is this insistence that cost the Democrats their lead in the political sphere. The Democratic party was willing to for go the south which had been its traditional base over this issue. One only has to look at the Nixon Strategy about the South to see this. The result today is that the Republican Party is now the Party of the South. The Republicans were little seen on this front and certainly didn't have any political constituency to lose in being principled. This left mainly the NorthEast as the base for the Democratic Party. Not the west coast at that time because liberalism was incorporated in the Republican Party as much as the Democratic Party. And in the Psyche of the American politic, Northeasterns are held in suspicion. There isn't the comfort level with the persona of those from the Northeast in the South and in the West. Occasionally MidWesterners are accepting. I think it is because the real thrusts of American political movement have started in the NorthEast. You know tea parties and abolitionists and Women's vote (though that had a good representation in territories out west) and of course Civil Rights.

As liberals when we look at other issues there is inherent within that thinking to revisit whether we can harness solutions by market solutions and or governmental intervention. We can't afford to be so uncompromising as say Conservative Christian positions based upon that groups insistence that they know, without error, what God is thinking.

So when you look at your candidate and want us to follow in that vote. It is probably from the push on the Civil Rights issue alone that gives us the choice so much in evidence. We do not apologize for that.
While the grassroots of the Civil Rights movement had a sizeable contingent of liberal idealists. The battle to enact the Civil Rights Act was not cut and dried Dem/Rep or liberal/conservative. Kennedy and LBJ had to be dragged to the table, just a few years after Kennedy dispatched LBJ to campaign through the South in the '60 campaign, by labelling [accurately, but insidiously] Nixon as a 'card-carrying Member of the NAACP.'
And in an ironic revisiting of Hillary's 'Dr. King's a nice enough guy, but it took LBJ to get things done,' there's a compelling story to be told about the leviathan efforts undertaken by Everett Dirksen to achieve the consensus needed to get the Act passed.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 08:46 AM
You really want to go here, with Republicans being in the forfront of globalism and to a lesser extent cutbacks to military R&D? Look to your own Rumsfeld for the drawdown of Naval surface ships and total batallions. I believe if you check your history it was Nixon who gutted the CIA of much of is its on the ground personnel as being to expensive and out of control.

How can you be so wrong about so many things?

alanm
03-12-2008, 08:48 AM
Here here. Eighteen years ago Pat Buchanan was crusading about Culture Wars and was scaring the living daylight out of us by focusing on how polarized we are and how his party was going to be on the 'right' side of that war with their hardlined policies and all my party did in response was talk about unity and hope.


The nerve of the older generation baby boomers to only offer us feel good rhetoric and EMOTIONS and not solutions. :doh!::cuss::shake: :grr:
ROFL:LOL:ROFL

tiptap
03-12-2008, 08:49 AM
Did the Republicans take the hit politically, Baby? That is what this discussion with Jenkins was about. And I would not agree that Kennedy and LBJ were dragged, unless it was by Bobby Kennedy on John's part. Yes those two politicians were quite willing to play the game to get the reigns. But they also weren't hesitant in pulling the trigger to advance Civil Rights as far as the politics would go.

DaKCMan AP
03-12-2008, 08:50 AM
How can you be so wrong about so many things?

Looking into the mirror and posting at the same time? How often do you ask yourself this? I imagine it must be in the 20-30 times range, daily.

memyselfI
03-12-2008, 08:54 AM
:LOL:

I take it you are laughing at the irony of the latest crop of youngins falling into the same gdamn trap and thinking they are being revolutionary and unique. :D

It would be rather humorous if it wasn't so freakin sad. :doh!:

tiptap
03-12-2008, 08:59 AM
memyself, Every 20 years there is a revolution (jeffersonian). Churchill's quote about liberalism for the young. Well the reason it might fall away with age is because it is not encouraged and enjoined when it sprouts. That would have been the lesson I got growing up in the 60's and 70's.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 09:01 AM
Looking into the mirror and posting at the same time? How often do you ask yourself this? I imagine it must be in the 20-30 times range, daily.

You've got a lot to learn, grasshopper.

DaKCMan AP
03-12-2008, 09:03 AM
You've got a lot to learn, grasshopper.

At least I can learn. You're an old dog that can't learn new tricks and refuses to give up bad habits (ideologies).

patteeu
03-12-2008, 09:27 AM
At least I can learn. You're an old dog that can't learn new tricks and refuses to give up bad habits (ideologies).

Well, then there's still hope for you! Good news. :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2008, 09:45 AM
I just can't imagine a generation that has been any more damaging for a party than the Baby Boomers have for the Democrats. Is it all-encompassing? No. But at the same time, if a particular regime shows an inability to formulate a winning plan and lacks fortitude, why would anyone listen to their plans about what to do for the future?

100% Dead-mutha-fuggin' on with this....and the thread starter. :thumb:


Well....except for the NAFTA dig (though even I think environmental and labor standards should be raised)....so let's go with 98% dead-on.

:)

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2008, 09:54 AM
Maybe you should apologize for, over the last 35 years, trying to neuter US military power and intelligence capabilities, destroy individual liberty in exchange for group rights, and hand over US sovereignty to globalists whenever and wherever possible. :shrug:

This is the crux of the issue in my mind; the failure of liberals to realize how out-of-step they are with average Americans on these matters.

patteeu, are you a liberal or a Democrat? You are welcome to comment and listened in since it is an opened thread, but you are not part of the conversation. You are in evidence of the failings for those you represent.

And, thank you....tiptap, for so persuasively illustrating precisely that point. :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2008, 10:01 AM
You really want to go here, with Republicans being in the forfront of globalism and to a lesser extent cutbacks to military R&D? Look to your own Rumsfeld for the drawdown of Naval surface ships and total batallions. I believe if you check your history it was Nixon who gutted the CIA of much of is its on the ground personnel as being to expensive and out of control.

You are conflating playing the world's policeman with "globalism"--liberals favor a globalism of a different type....the Kyoto treaty, the World Bank, subservience to the United Nations, and other globally (read "anti-U.S.") motivated initiatives. Conservatives, generally, resist such a direction---or at least are very suspicious of it (rightfully so.) As for "cutbacks" in R&D....much of any perceived cutback there was do to the end of the Cold War; Republicans remain much more staunch supporters of defense developments and spending (though, in fairness, there are Dems who are also what I would call, generally, supportive.)

a1na2
03-12-2008, 10:01 AM
errr....Joe didn't rule hte Democratic party then. He was at the height of his power during FDR/Truman, and it's fair to say that FDR ran the party at that point in time.

We are talking about his offspring and the influence he had on them. Not the standard baby boomer wand that everyone is waving.


I love vague threats of dissolution and disaster. People ALWAYS say this about their country. I have no doubt that Jefferson and Madison were saying this when Washington/Adams was President, and then Adams/Hamilton and other prominent revolutionary era heroes were saying it when they had to endure Jefferson/Madison/Monroe.

Exactly where is the threat? I made a comment on the direction of the country, have you not been watching the news? Tell me which direction we are going. We certainly are not gaining in world popularity and have not been for some time. Remember the term "the ugly American"? That is not something that has come to light recently but it is still the trend.

By the way you worded your retort you are claiming that I am saying that about my country - you are correct there, I'm just wondering what your country is - "People ALWAYS say this about their country."

a1na2
03-12-2008, 10:03 AM
Your profile says your only a couple years older than me. The baby boomer generation ended in the early 60's.

The age on my profile is incorrect and always has been. I never register actual age on the internet. I was born at the height of the boomer years.

a1na2
03-12-2008, 10:04 AM
How can you be so wrong about so many things?

It happens. Most of us are wrong at times but there is a decided liberal lean to the thread.

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2008, 11:44 AM
Maybe you should apologize for, over the last 35 years, trying to neuter US military power and intelligence capabilities, destroy individual liberty in exchange for group rights, and hand over US sovereignty to globalists whenever and wherever possible. :shrug:

Group rights. Where the heck is penchief and his unique understanding of what our government is empowered to accomplish?

Cochise
03-12-2008, 11:51 AM
duh we should listen to 20 year olds. They REALLY have the world figured out.

Brock
03-12-2008, 11:55 AM
duh we should listen to 20 year olds. They REALLY have the world figured out.

Yeah, like they did back in the 60s. Things are so much better for it. Thanks, greasy hippies.

Jenson71
03-12-2008, 12:07 PM
We should listen to the 28 year olds tell us not to listen to the 20 year olds.

DaKCMan AP
03-12-2008, 12:08 PM
duh we should listen to 20 year olds. They REALLY have the world figured out.

Look where the wisdom of conservative old farts who elected dubya got us - quagmire in Iraq, stumbling economy, record high gas prices, record deficits among many other problems. Definitely age is the prime factor in making a good Presidential and ideological decision. :rolleyes:

Cochise
03-12-2008, 12:11 PM
Look where the wisdom of conservative old farts who elected dubya got us - quagmire in Iraq, stumbling economy, record high gas prices, record deficits among many other problems. Definitely age is the prime factor in making a good Presidential and ideological decision. :rolleyes:

Quagmire, wishful thinking. Lack of understanding of economic forces, lay that on the public education system. Gas prices, just mentioned that. Record demand through limited supply = record prices. And yeah, we know the only people who don't vote the way you do are the old and infirm :rolleyes:

DaKCMan AP
03-12-2008, 12:13 PM
Quagmire, wishful thinking. Lack of understanding of economic forces, lay that on the public education system. Gas prices, just mentioned that. Record demand through limited supply = record prices. And yeah, we know the only people who don't vote the way you do are the old and infirm :rolleyes:

Or motivated through religious social issues and/or dumb rednecks. :D

StcChief
03-12-2008, 12:13 PM
Yeah, like they did back in the 60s. Things are so much better for it. Thanks, greasy hippies.

hey those greasy hippies couldn't afford showers, haircuts give 'em a break. But had money for Weed :eek:


'Get a job' were dirty words too.

Taco John
03-12-2008, 12:42 PM
Dude, boomers weren't just bad for the democrats, they've been horrendous for the whole country. America will be a better place when that group has completely lost it's influence.



Amen to that. Entitlement boomers have turned the Republican party into a bunch of democrats under cover.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 01:02 PM
Amen to that. Entitlement boomers have turned the Republican party into a bunch of democrats under cover.

Maybe so, but lets remember that it was the greatest generation and their parents who gave us the entitlement state to begin with. I think there's enough blame to go around from the wide-eyed dopey kids of generation Y who vote for Obama because he feels good to the generation X'ers who led the way in our charge down the charts of international educational achievement to the baby boomers who learned all the wrong lessons from Vietnam to the aforementioned greatest generation and their parents.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2008, 01:02 PM
BTW: To answer your question in the OP: Because you aren't intelligent enough to quit fighting against your own party.

I love dumbshit 20-somethings. Especially dumbshit 20-somethings who are are government employees acting as though they have anything to teach those of us who despise government employees.

(BTW: before you have the hubris to ask, I honor military enrollees, but I have no respect for union members who are employed by government, especially in the failed governmental teaching "profession.")

Hamas doesn't teach in a govt school. He teaches in a private institution.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2008, 01:05 PM
I added two tags

pikesome
03-12-2008, 01:08 PM
Maybe so, but lets remember that it was the greatest generation and their parents who gave us the entitlement state to begin with. I think there's enough blame to go around from the wide-eyed dopey kids of generation Y who vote for Obama because he feels good to the generation X'ers who led the way in our charge down the charts of international educational achievement to the baby boomers who learned all the wrong lessons from Vietnam to the aforementioned greatest generation and their parents.

My mother, the Boomer, says she thinks the problem started because the survivors of the Depression wanted to make sure their children never had to suffer like they did. That's the how and why they f'd up their children.

penchief
03-12-2008, 01:26 PM
I think it has to do with the Golden Rule. Democrats have traditionally sought to make public service a virtue. In that effort, sincerity has led dems to nominate people that were more socially empathetic, whereas, modern-day republicans have sought to make business interests its virtue.

Because of that, I believe both democrats and republicans consistently nominate people who play the game the way their constituency would play it. Unfortunately for democrats, greed and dishonesty trumps empathy and honesty when it comes to politics. That is why dishonest people like Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, and George Bush are successful while honest people like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore get punked by the power-quo.

JMO.

pikesome
03-12-2008, 01:33 PM
I think it has to do with the Golden Rule. Democrats have traditionally sought to make public service a virtue. In that effort, sincerity has led dems to nominate people that were more socially empathetic, whereas, modern-day republicans have recently sought to make business interests its virtue.

Because of that, I believe both democrats and republicans consistently nominate people who play the game the way their constituency would play it. Unfortunately for democrats, greed and dishonesty trumps empathy and honesty when it comes to politics. That is why dishonest people like Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, and George Bush are successful while honest people like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore get punked by the powerful establishment.

JMO.

Democrats aren't the "Good Guys". Republicans aren't the "Bad Guys". Don't be a idiot. A person's political party is meaningless as a measure of their worth.

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 01:35 PM
This thread is awesome. So many ad hominems floating around, so many inaccuracies, outright conjecture, hyperboles, and all kinds of weird shit. Hell, there might be fodder for coming up with brand new words for the stuff that's in here.

Let's see what we have:

1. Blame game
2. We cannot listen to 20 year olds.
3. We cannot listen to 28 year olds about 20 year olds.
4. We can't rely on the old folks.
5. We can rely on the old folks.
6. All old folks voted for Bush.
7. Not all old folks voted for Bush.
8. Folks is stupid word.
9. There's a certain age where you have the world figured out.
10. There's no age where you have the world figured out.
11. ClevelandBronco says F You government workers.
12. Baby boomers suck.
13. Baby boomers don't suck if you are one.
14. You aren't a baby boomer, I looked at your profile.
15. Generation X is to blame.
16. Generation Y is to blame.
17. Generation X and Y are to blame.
18. Generation X and Y are stupid names with no real significance. (Author's note: I have no idea which I'm in. I don't care, either. Is that bad, sad or indifferent?)
19. Hippies are greasy.
20. Republicans are democrats.
21. Democrats are republicans.
22. The golden rule.
23. Honesty loses to dishonesty every time.
24. Hear, Hear!
25. Amen!

Can anyone add to that?

pikesome
03-12-2008, 01:41 PM
This thread is awesome. So many ad hominems floating around, so many inaccuracies, outright conjecture, hyperboles, and all kinds of weird shit. Hell, there might be fodder for coming up with brand new words for the stuff that's in here.

Let's see what we have:

1. Blame game
2. We cannot listen to 20 year olds.
3. We cannot listen to 28 year olds about 20 year olds.
4. We can't rely on the old folks.
5. We can rely on the old folks.
6. All old folks voted for Bush.
7. Not all old folks voted for Bush.
8. Folks is stupid word.
9. There's a certain age where you have the world figured out.
10. There's no age where you have the world figured out.
11. ClevelandBronco says F You government workers.
12. Baby boomers suck.
13. Baby boomers don't suck if you are one.
14. You aren't a baby boomer, I looked at your profile.
15. Generation X is to blame.
16. Generation Y is to blame.
17. Generation X and Y are to blame.
18. Generation X and Y are stupid names with no real significance. (Author's note: I have no idea which I'm in. I don't care, either. Is that bad, sad or indifferent?)
19. Hippies are greasy.
20. Republicans are democrats.
21. Democrats are republicans.
22. The golden rule.
23. Honesty loses to dishonesty every time.
24. Hear, Hear!
25. Amen!

Can anyone add to that?

Logan's Run baby! That would solve this crap.

Although being north of 21, I'm in favor of adjusting the Lastday.

Iowanian
03-12-2008, 01:42 PM
Hamas...you need to give them more credit than that.

They also ruined Child discipline, work ethic, personal responsibility and portions of capitolism.

penchief
03-12-2008, 02:00 PM
Democrats aren't the "Good Guys". Republicans aren't the "Bad Guys". Don't be a idiot. A person's political party is meaningless as a measure of their worth.

Not so. If one represents greedy interests and employs greedy tactics, they are doing a disservice to representative government. If one represents public service and employs transparency, they are doing a service to representative government.

Republicans have clearly represented greedy interests while democrats have clearly represented public service. Democrats are getting clobbered because they're being outmanned via the avenues of influence that republicans have at their disposal (i.e. the corporate media, media consolidation, and business's manipulation of the economy AND media for the purpose of influencing political outcomes).

It's time for government to do the job that our founding fathers intended for it to do; represent the will of the people and not the powerful private interests that the republican party represents.

JMO.

pikesome
03-12-2008, 02:01 PM
Not so. If one represents greedy interests and employs greedy tactics, they are doing a disservice to representative government. If one represent public service and employs transparency, they are doing a service to representative government.

Republicans have clearly represented greedy interests while democrats have clearly represented public service. Democrats are getting clobbered because they're being outmanned via the avenues of influence that republicans have at their disposal (i.e. the corporate media, media consolidation, and business's manipulation of the economy AND media for the purpose of influencing political outcomes).

It's time for government to do the job that our founding fathers intended for it to do; represent the will of the people and not the powerful private interests that the republican party represents.

JMO.

You're jerking my chain right?

Brock
03-12-2008, 02:09 PM
You're jerking my chain right?

No, he really does believe that there are fundamental differences between republicans and democrats.

penchief
03-12-2008, 02:10 PM
You're jerking my chain right?

Nope. Look at what has gone down over the past quarter-century, then get back to me. It's pretty obvious if you ask me.

Right now, our society is deteriorating because business has way too much influence. And it hasn't been democrats who have advocated doing away with laws and regulations that protect the citizenry from predatory practices or influences that are harmful to society. It has been republicans who have done the bidding for greedy interests (i.e. oil companies, etc.).

It hasn't been democrats that have advocated secrecy, invasion of privacy, military aggression, domestic spying, torture, doing away with habeus corpus, etc. It has, however, been republicans that have done so.

There has been a clear difference between the republican and democratic parties. The fact that you can't see that with clarity is indicative of the problem that exists in this country today. The corporate media uses its influence to fabricate issues designed to obfuscate the real issues.

That's why republicans keep getting elected even though things keep getting worse for America.

Cochise
03-12-2008, 02:11 PM
You're jerking my chain right?

The world is very white hat/black hat to penchief I think.

Brock
03-12-2008, 02:13 PM
It hasn't been democrats that have advocated secrecy, invasion of privacy, military aggression, domestic spying, torture, doing away with habeus corpus, etc. It has, however, been republicans that have done so.

This shows a complete ignorance of history.

penchief
03-12-2008, 02:26 PM
The world is very white hat/black hat to penchief I think.

Not really. I try to look at the bigger picture. I'm an observer. Yes, I do get very adamant about things I believe I have observed over a period of time.

For instance, how anyone can look at the conduct of this administration and say that they are no different than other administrations or that they are conducting "business as usual" has to be an apologist, IMO. Because that is clearly not true. The changes that have taken place in regard to our freedoms and privacy, our democratic values, and our standing in the world have been so profoundly negative under this administration that it is undeniable.

And this administration has been an extension of the Reagan Administration (i.e. same agenda, same tact, and same benefactors).

pikesome
03-12-2008, 02:32 PM
Nope. Look at what has gone down over the past quarter-century, then get back to me. It's pretty obvious if you ask me.

Right now, our society is deteriorating because business has way too much influence. And it hasn't been democrats who have advocated doing away with laws and regulations that protect the citizenry from predatory practices or influences that are harmful to society. It has been republicans who have done the bidding for greedy interests (i.e. oil companies, etc.).

It hasn't been democrats that have advocated secrecy, invasion of privacy, military aggression, domestic spying, torture, doing away with habeus corpus, etc. It has, however, been republicans that have done so.

There has been a clear difference between the republican and democratic parties. The fact that you can't see that with clarity is indicative of the problem that exists in this country today. The corporate media uses its influence to fabricate issues designed to obfuscate the real issues.

That's why republicans keep getting elected even though things keep getting worse for America.

You're a F'n idiot.

I just can't think of any other way to say it.

The idea that political party somehow separates the good from the bad is ludicrous.

I'm not even sure how to argue with you, it's like arguing with a lobotomy patient over the smell of blue.

penchief
03-12-2008, 02:35 PM
This shows a complete ignorance of history.

How far back are we going? I will say this, though; the authoritarian measures and fascist approach of this administration are out of step with history. There is no need for the steps that the Bush Administration has taken. Everything they have done has benefitted the same narrow interests while negatively affecting the livelihood of the Americans. Fear and prejudice (tools of the right) have been Cheneyburton's justifacation for doing what all authoritarian governments have done throughout history; consolidate power and strip the people of their power to resist it.

When was the last time you feared that from a Dukakis or a Kerry or a Gore or a Carter or a Mondale? (As far as the right goes, they're pussies who are too weak to impose their will on others). Yet that very same consolidation of power and stripping of citizen's rights have been active phenomenons under Reagan and Bush.

Go figure...

Adept Havelock
03-12-2008, 02:35 PM
Logan's Run baby! That would solve this crap.

Although being north of 21, I'm in favor of adjusting the Lastday.

Sure, it's all fun and games until some 8 year olds pull a "Wild in the Streets", and shut down everyone over the age of 10. :eek:

Brock
03-12-2008, 02:41 PM
How far back are we going? I will say this, though; the authoritarian measures and fascist approach of this administration are out of step with history. There is no need for the steps that the Bush Administration has taken. Everything they have done has benefitted the same narrow interests while negatively affecting the livelihood of the Americans. Fear and prejudice (tools of the right) have been Cheneyburton's justifacation for doing what all authoritarian governments have done throughout history; consolidate power and strip the people of their power to resist it.

When was the last time you feared that from a Dukakis or a Kerry or a Gore or a Carter or a Mondale? (As far as the right goes, they're pussies who are too weak to impose their will on others). Yet that very same consolidation of power and stripping of citizen's rights have been active phenomenons under Reagan and Bush.

Go figure...

LOL, you left out Clinton. But of course, he was different somehow right>?

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 02:50 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone - no offense intended to either one - see similarities between penchief and patteeu?

penchief
03-12-2008, 02:52 PM
You're a F'n idiot.

I just can't think of any other way to say it.

The idea that political party somehow separates the good from the bad is ludicrous.

I'm not even sure how to argue with you, it's like arguing with a lobotomy patient over the smell of blue.

I agree with your general premise but the last 25 years in America has proven that such an improbable state has occurred in this country. Republicans have supported the corruption of the government via every avenue imaginable, including the justice department.

Why don't you do this for me? Let's take each issue separately and break it down. We can argue for or against the legality or correctness of such measures taken by the Bush Administration. Let's also take the virtues of our founding fathers and the founding principles of our country's government and compare them to the conduct of this administration. If the two don't jibe let's figure out why.

And lastly, lets determine whether it was the will of the republican party or the will of the democratic party (or both) that led to the regression of liberty, civil rights, and civility in this country.

If democrats haven't been resisting the path this administration has been dragging us down for the last eight years, why have republicans spent the last eight years calling democrats unpatriotic for resisting that path?

Brock
03-12-2008, 02:54 PM
If democrats haven't been resisting the path this administration has dragged this country down, why have republicans spent the last eight years calling democrats unpatriotic for resisting that path?

Ha haaaaa. Are you really going to pretend that the democrats have treated Iraq as anything other than a political issue to exploit one way or the other? "Well, I better not vote against Iraq because it might be successful, but if it isn't successful we can hang it on the republicans". Yeah, they're real gutsy. :rolleyes:

penchief
03-12-2008, 03:00 PM
LOL, you left out Clinton. But of course, he was different somehow right>?

He contributed in a big way (NAFTA) but he also acted as a buffer to a large extent. By the way, I'm not a Clinton apologist. But one thing he didn't do was attack Iraq. And that is symbolic of just how far he wouldn't go when ****ing over the people of this country to satisfy powerful interests who don't give a shit about this country or its people. IMO, that is a big difference.

penchief
03-12-2008, 03:04 PM
Ha haaaaa. Are you really going to pretend that the democrats have treated Iraq as anything other than a political issue to exploit one way or the other? "Well, I better not vote against Iraq because it might be successful, but if it isn't successful we can hang it on the republicans". Yeah, they're real gutsy. :rolleyes:

I'll agree that their options have been severely limited and that they are playing politics to a certain extent. However, the initial rush to war was resisted by most democrats. And the overall conduct of this administration in relationship to the war, domestic spying, torture, etc. has been in direct opposition to the ideals espoused by democrats. Republicans haven't denounced any of that conduct. Why is that?

Is it because they agree with it and promote it? That would be my guess. None of this mess would have happened if a republican executive had not intentionally mislead the nation and a republican congress had not rammed those policies down our throats.

HonestChieffan
03-12-2008, 03:09 PM
People like you are what makes the republican party such a success. Keep up the good work.

penchief
03-12-2008, 03:15 PM
People like you are what makes the republican party such a success. Keep up the good work.

No, it's people like you that make the republican party such a success. Keep up the good work. Keep those blinders on and I'm sure you'll remain feeling comfy and safe while everything around you erodes away.

Taco John
03-12-2008, 03:48 PM
For instance, how anyone can look at the conduct of this administration and say that they are no different than other administrations or that they are conducting "business as usual" has to be an apologist, IMO.


And this administration has been an extension of the Reagan Administration...



Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

Cochise
03-12-2008, 03:52 PM
Ha haaaaa. Are you really going to pretend that the democrats have treated Iraq as anything other than a political issue to exploit one way or the other? "Well, I better not vote against Iraq because it might be successful, but if it isn't successful we can hang it on the republicans". Yeah, they're real gutsy. :rolleyes:

2004: Vote for us, we'll end the war!
2006: Vote for us, we'll end the war!
2008: Vote for us, we'll end the war!

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-12-2008, 04:12 PM
It's always nice to see where these threads go versus where you would imagine them to go. Ultimately, my own opinion is simply that Boomer Dems have not stood up for their beliefs since roughly 1968, and they have no one but themselves to blame for the situation of the country.

Whatever happened to punching a cocksucker in the mouth if he took a swing at you?

If someone in the H.W. Bush camp runs a Willie Horton ad, you hit the sumbitch back with his ties to Noriega and his dirty deeds with the CIA.

If someone swiftboats you, you call the cocksuckers out, you tell everyone they are full of shit, and you challenge them to a debate on the issues.

If Reagan makes a big deal about you raising taxes, you let the American public know that he did it himself (raising payroll taxes).

If someone accuses you of "fuzzy math", you crunch the numbers and offer him a direct analysis of the math, you don't make a funny face.

Democrats have just allowed themselves to be bullied, and they pick people who may be well-meaning, but ultimately are meek.

The concept of retaliating when you are attacked in not a crazy one, but it seems to be one that my previous generation never learned.

penchief
03-12-2008, 04:15 PM
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

Absolutely. Same ideology, same agenda, same method. No question about it.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2008, 04:16 PM
Nope. Look at what has gone down over the past quarter-century, then get back to me. It's pretty obvious if you ask me.

Right now, our society is deteriorating because business has way too much influence. And it hasn't been democrats who have advocated doing away with laws and regulations that protect the citizenry from predatory practices or influences that are harmful to society. It has been republicans who have done the bidding for greedy interests (i.e. oil companies, etc.).
Care to back these un-facts up?
You do know it was Jimmy Carter who deregulated right?
Because there was actually little deregulation under RR.
Now I'd like to know what other regulation or laws have been done away with under the GOP.

penchief
03-12-2008, 04:16 PM
It's always nice to see where these threads go versus where you would imagine them to go. Ultimately, my own opinion is simply that Boomer Dems have not stood up for their beliefs since roughly 1968, and they have no one but themselves to blame for the situation of the country.

Whatever happened to punching a cocksucker in the mouth if he took a swing at you?

If someone in the H.W. Bush camp runs a Willie Horton ad, you hit the sumbitch back with his ties to Noriega and his dirty deeds with the CIA.

If someone swiftboats you, you call the cocksuckers out, you tell everyone they are full of shit, and you challenge them to a debate on the issues.

If Reagan makes a big deal about you raising taxes, you let the American public know that he did it himself (raising payroll taxes).

If someone accuses you of "fuzzy math", you crunch the numbers and offer him a direct analysis of the math, you don't make a funny face.

Democrats have just allowed themselves to be bullied, and they pick people who may be well-meaning, but ultimately are meek.

The concept of retaliating when you are attacked in not a crazy one, but it seems to be one that my previous generation never learned.

I agree.

penchief
03-12-2008, 04:35 PM
Care to back these un-facts up?
You do know it was Jimmy Carter who deregulated right?
Because there was actually little deregulation under RR.
Now I'd like to know what other regulation or laws have been done away with under the GOP.

I know that some deregulation took place under Carter but to say "it was Carter who deregulated" is a semantical attempt to deceive and divert. Deregulation has been the republican mantra, the mantra of the right, and the mantra of people like you ever since Reagan.

The S&L industry, the airline industry, the broadcasting industry (Clinton deserves some blame here, too), and the energy industry are four areas in which deregulation by Reagan yielded disasterous results for the American people, IMO. There are more but those are four major ones.

Also, the environment, in general, took a huge hit under Reagan as it has under Bush (sometimes deregulation can be nothing more than non-enforcement).

HonestChieffan
03-12-2008, 04:46 PM
Damn deregulation got us lowest interest rates in history, highest employment rates in history, created the highest federal income while lowering income tax rates, airline safety and lowest fares for consumers...and the list could go on. But these are facts and do not support the "Sky is falling lets Nationalize everything" theme.

stevieray
03-12-2008, 04:50 PM
without even clicking on the thread, you just knew that penchief would show up to talk about the exact opposite party, playing his twenty year old one hit wonder...

kudos to hamas for seeing the light about his party, though like someone else said, it has stretched way beyond party into culture...

the list of damages is huge..their breaking down of the american family is probably the single most detrimental of all..especially to AA's.

SBK
03-12-2008, 04:52 PM
When penchief talks about how dems are good and republicans are evil all I can think of is banging hookers.

penchief
03-12-2008, 04:55 PM
without even clicking on the thread, you just knew that penchief would show up to talk about the exact opposite party, playing his twenty year old one hit wonder...

kudos to hamas for seeing the light about his party, though like someone else said, it has stretched way beyond party into culture...

the list of damages is huge..their breaking down of the american family is probably the single most detrimental of all..especially to AA's.

I agree with Hamas. Democrat's shortcomings (and liberals, in general) is that they don't fight back when someone fights dirty. That doesn't mean that what I've been saying about the republican party since Reagan isn't true, because it is.

penchief
03-12-2008, 04:59 PM
When penchief talks about how dems are good and republicans are evil all I can think of is banging hookers.

Hey, I'm not saying dems are good and republicans are evil. I'm simply pointing out that there has been a huge difference in the way each party has conducted themselves ever since I've been politically active. And that difference has been exhibited by how much lower the republican party has been willing to stoop when seeking power or when imposing its agenda.

Also, I do see a huge difference between personal misconduct and corruption designed to deprive the people of their representative government on a systemic level. If you don't see that difference, then that would explain why you don't understand where I'm coming from.

stevieray
03-12-2008, 05:00 PM
I agree with Hamas. Democrat's shortcomings (and liberals, in general) is that they don't fight back when someone fights dirty. That doesn't mean that what I've been saying about the republican party since Reagan isn't true because it is.

"billy, don't be a heeero, don't be a fooool with your liiiiiiiiiiiife."

SBK
03-12-2008, 05:01 PM
Hey, I'm not saying dems are good and republicans are evil. I'm simply pointing out that there has been a huge difference in the way each party has conducted themselves ever since I've been politically active. And that difference has been exhibited by how much lower the republican party has been willing to stoop when seeking power or when imposing its agenda.

Also, I do see a huge difference between personal misconduct and corruption designed to deprive the people of their representative government on a systemic level. If you don't see any difference, then that would explain why you don't understand where I'm coming from.

I love this guy.....

memyselfI
03-12-2008, 05:29 PM
It's always nice to see where these threads go versus where you would imagine them to go. Ultimately, my own opinion is simply that Boomer Dems have not stood up for their beliefs since roughly 1968, and they have no one but themselves to blame for the situation of the country.

SNIP

Democrats have just allowed themselves to be bullied, and they pick people who may be well-meaning, but ultimately are meek. *****

The concept of retaliating when you are attacked in not a crazy one, but it seems to be one that my previous generation never learned.

And yet you are supporting Baaarack? The kumbaya candidate?

Good luck with that. ROFL

***** A more timely prophecy might not ever have been uttered.

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 05:36 PM
the list of damages is huge..their breaking down of the american family is probably the single most detrimental of all..especially to AA's.

Yes, because you're not doing exactly what you're accusing penchief of doing.

banyon
03-12-2008, 05:41 PM
without even clicking on the thread, you just knew that penchief would show up to talk about the exact opposite party, playing his twenty year old one hit wonder...

kudos to hamas for seeing the light about his party, though like someone else said, it has stretched way beyond party into culture...

the list of damages is huge..their breaking down of the american family is probably the single most detrimental of all..especially to AA's.

Sorry, dumb question. AA'S?

Alchohol Anon?

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 05:42 PM
Sorry, dumb question. AA'S?

Alchohol Anon?

African Americans, one would assume.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-12-2008, 05:46 PM
And yet you are supporting Baaarack? The kumbaya candidate?

Good luck with that. ROFL

***** A more timely prophecy might not ever have been uttered.

I think Obama has done a pretty good job taking all of this shit to task thus far. You can't honestly say that he's rolled over and taken the shit that Hillary has flung at him, because that's simply not the case.

He did a good job of it when he dissected her logic about his apparent unreadiness to be prez, but seeming ability to be the veep. That's shit that John Kerry would have just let slide.

You can't let the other side control the dialogue, or you risk getting typecast.

banyon
03-12-2008, 05:46 PM
African Americans, one would assume.

Oh yeah. It's been a long time since i used that phrase I guess.:)

Adept Havelock
03-12-2008, 06:31 PM
Sorry, dumb question. AA'S?

Alchohol Anon?

Aloof Athenians.

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 06:35 PM
Aloof Athenians.

Love Emerald Nuts.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2008, 06:42 PM
I know that some deregulation took place under Carter but to say "it was Carter who deregulated" is a semantical attempt to deceive and divert. Deregulation has been the republican mantra, the mantra of the right, and the mantra of people like you ever since Reagan.

The S&L industry, the airline industry, the broadcasting industry (Clinton deserves some blame here, too), and the energy industry are four areas in which deregulation by Reagan yielded disasterous results for the American people, IMO. There are more but those are four major ones.

Also, the environment, in general, took a huge hit under Reagan as it has

This will be my third attempt to respond but I keep losing the post due to the software for almost 2 hours now.

You rely on too many generalities which disguise the facts. It was really Jimmy Carter who launched the major deregulations that bore fruit just in time for RR to take credit for them. Granted RR ran on this rhetoric but he actually halted the momentum created by Carter. RR's efforts were actually slim and he even added to some due to the gasp! Wall Street mergers. Some of the deregulation reforms RR promised never materialized at all.

Today most leading GOP candidates are promising more central planning in energy with lavish subsidies for favored fuels ( not favored by consumers but political activists) and industries, mandatory renewable-energy consumption orders, and government dictates to manufacturers as a cure for our energy crisis.

I'm not saying there wasn't other economic stupidity under Carter but he did take the middle-road on this despite getting flak from the left. Such as Kennedy calling for all out oil nationalization.


Let's look at these major de-regulatory efforts launched by Carter:

The Airline Deregulation Act (or ADA) was a United States federal law signed into law on October 24, 1978.

Break up of AT&T
This was the result of an anti-trust lawsuit brought by Ford's AG but the Ford administration had no real interest in pursuing it. It was under Carter that it was pushed toward a settlement in 1979.

Deregulation of Energy sector
Price controls on oil and gas (communism... think Soviet Union lines) were ended which cured the energy crisis then. Also deregulation of trucks. De-regulation promised by RR was aboliton of natural gas controls and the Dept of Energy both of which never occurred.

RR just did a little more on energy, innercity buses, ocean shipping and some on banks. The Federal Register did not slim down just because you believe in Fairy Tales.

Now as liberal, you're for the common folks right? You're for progress and improvement right? Yet you are actually complaining about policies that were enacted that did just that?

For instance you prefer half-full planes of richer people paying higher fares than full planes carrying more people who can afford to fly? You prefer a monopoly such as AT&T, plus it's older technology of copper wires and less choices? You prefer people waiting in line for gas with rationing?

Cochise
03-12-2008, 06:43 PM
Not really. I try to look at the bigger picture. I'm an observer. Yes, I do get very adamant about things I believe I have observed over a period of time.

For instance, how anyone can look at the conduct of this administration and say that they are no different than other administrations or that they are conducting "business as usual" has to be an apologist, IMO. Because that is clearly not true. The changes that have taken place in regard to our freedoms and privacy, our democratic values, and our standing in the world have been so profoundly negative under this administration that it is undeniable.

And this administration has been an extension of the Reagan Administration (i.e. same agenda, same tact, and same benefactors).

So just for grins, am I a devil-horned willing oppressor of all the victim classes or just a blind sheep?

patteeu
03-13-2008, 08:29 AM
It hasn't been democrats that have advocated secrecy, invasion of privacy, military aggression, domestic spying, torture, doing away with habeus corpus, etc. It has, however, been republicans that have done so.t

Here is a list of some things that took place under the Clinton administration (a democrat btw):

Secrecy - Hillary Clinton's Health Care Task Force illegally tried to keep it's deliberations secret.

Invasion of Privacy - No Knock Warrants were used throughout the Clinton era.

Military Aggression - Bill Clinton bombed Serbia, Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan and he invaded and occupied Haiti.

Domestic Spying - The Clinton administration illegally collected over 900 FBI files of US citizens including dossiers on political enemies and prominent Republicans. This was one of the scandals that Hillary was implicated in.

Torture - Extraordinary Rendition, i.e. kidnapping people and sending them to be interrogated in states with a reputation for torture was invented by the Clinton administration.

Habeas Corpus - The Clinton administration supported and passed a crime reform law that weakened the ability of prisoners to file appeals under the concept of habeas corpus.

So it looks like you were wrong on every single point you listed, penchief. :shrug:

patteeu
03-13-2008, 08:31 AM
This shows a complete ignorance of history.

Yes it does.

100!

patteeu
03-13-2008, 08:33 AM
Out of curiosity, does anyone - no offense intended to either one - see similarities between penchief and patteeu?

Both of our names start with a lowercase "p". :shrug:

Maybe one of us is an alt of the other?

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 08:34 AM
Here is a list of some things that took place under the Clinton administration (a democrat btw):

[list] Secrecy - Hillary Clinton's Health Care Task Force illegally tried to keep it's deliberations secret.
Then later covertly rewrote the Medicaid rules and regs so she could slowly slip in her socialized medicine without anyone knowing. Imagine that? A president's wife, a non elected person, having this power that no other hired bureaucrat ever had!

patteeu
03-13-2008, 08:45 AM
And yet you are supporting Baaarack? The kumbaya candidate?

Good luck with that. ROFL

***** A more timely prophecy might not ever have been uttered.

Excellent observation. Hillary is the candidate who isn't afraid to "[punch] a cocksucker in the mouth if he took a swing at you". Obama's been trying to tell us that he's going to somehow talk the cocksucker into going out for ice cream together.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 08:47 AM
Excellent observation. Hillary is the candidate who isn't afraid to "[punch] a cocksucker in the mouth if he took a swing at you". Obama's been trying to tell us that he's going to somehow talk the cocksucker into going out for ice cream together.

Your cocksucker that sucks memi's cock. Figuratively, of course.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 08:51 AM
Hillary is the candidate who isn't afraid to ... Obama's ... into going out for ice cream together.

Not just opposing candidates, remember, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadwhatever are going to come over to sit in rocking chairs on the front porch with a pitcher of lemonade and everything's going to be better instantly too.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 08:52 AM
Your cocksucker that sucks memi's cock. Figuratively, of course.

Is this necessary?
Are you the Iowanian of the left?

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 08:54 AM
Not just opposing candidates, remember, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadwhatever are going to come over to sit in rocking chairs on the front porch with a pitcher of lemonade and everything's going to be better instantly too.

I am glad this country finally realizes that engaging in diplomacy means the terrists win! The only time you stop showing your enemy your ass is when you finish loading your shotgun.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 08:56 AM
Is this necessary?

Is this?

Excellent observation. Hillary is the candidate who isn't afraid to "[punch] a cocksucker in the mouth if he took a swing at you". Obama's been trying to tell us that he's going to somehow talk the cocksucker into going out for ice cream together.

Cave Johnson
03-13-2008, 12:57 PM
Whisky Tango Foxtrot is the Democratic leadership in all of this? Why is Al Gore still on the sidelines

"And where is the party's leadership? Cowering in the shadows. Unlike the Republicans, who are at least attempting to unite around their candidate and present a grown-up face--and whose candidates were Emily Posts compared to the Clintons in their effort to maintain some of the party's dignity during the primaries--too many Dem leaders are standing around watching this ridiculous spectacle hands in pockets.

Gore? Edwards? Biden? Richardson? If they really backed the Clintons they'd have said so by now, but rather than come out and stand up for the future, they're hedging their bets. Hoping for Cabinet posts? The Republican drop outs, meanwhile, immediately moved to unity, endorsing McCain quickly."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-embarrassin.html#more

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 02:39 PM
Is this?

I think there's a difference between telling a poster personally, who disagrees with you that they do that ( using those words) with another poster, than talking about a public figure which is fair game.