Democrats Go 0 For 40 On Iraq

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well that was a stupid comment. I hate indulging you as I know you're just trolling, but "support the troops" has just become a way to stifle legitimate debate. You know better then that... you must know better then that... right?

I'm not stifling any debate. It's not a gray area. Support the troops, whether you agree with their mission or not. It really isn't that hard.

How do we "support" them by having them occupy a foreign country filled with terrorists for absolutely no reason? There is no "mission", only manipulation and power hungry leaders....

Of course, you already know this. You say "it is not stifling debate" and then go on to say that people must agree with you. That is exactly why people "shy away" from the nonsensical "support the troops" mantra.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yep, the moonbats keep deluding themselves with that "we're the middle" BS. :laugh:

I'm not in the middle, I'm on the left. The Democrats are in the middle. They are for more military spending... that's not leftist. They are for a continued occupation of Iraq, that's not very leftist. They have helped pass all sorts of pro big business free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, etc. That's not very leftist. The only area they seem to be getting better on is a national healthcare plan, but most of theirs are still private sector based, that's not very leftist.

Need me to go on? You only think the Democrats are on the left because the Republicans take positions that are so incredibly ultraconservative.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
FDR, compared to modern Democrats, was off the scale to the left. In fact, many people you would currently characterise as "far left" wouldn't match up to his socialist credentials. Very interesting that you would revere FDR in the same post as you decry 'far left nutjobs' who likely aren't as far to the left as he was.

Where did I ever "revere" FDR? I was simply stating that the party is far different today than it was then. As for your insinuation that FDR was "far left", I'd disagree. The MoveOn folks and Hillary make FDR look Republican. He certainly had a fetish for social programs but that's nothing compared to what we see today.

The far-left nutjobs in this country today are far more dangerous than FDR could have ever hoped to be.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Oh, and if you think the Democrats are in any way acting leftist... then you don't know what liberalism is. The Democrats are pretty much a center-right party, it's just in contrast to the Republicans who are pinned so far to the ultra right that sometimes it can skew people's perceptions.

I saw your response below to CADsortaGUY, and I agree somewhat in some part with you...except with groups like MoveOn, the absolute fakeness of Gore, Kerry, and Hillary, and the less than stellar (I'd basically say craptacular) performance of Congress, there is about -infinity chance I'd ever vote Democrat right now. I'm thinking I could really get behind a Huckabee/Paul ticket, unfortunately that will a.) never happen, and b.) never happen. Plus I'm pro womens right to choose (with restrictions/conditions), so Huckabee is out him being so religious...don't know where Paul stands on that.

I will say that you're right that whichever Democrat replaces Bush will enjoy a honeymoon period. People will be so happy to see the second most unpopular president (and soon to be the most enduringly unpopular president) in American history gone that unless the Democrats come out in support of eating babies or something they will get a break. I think it's good that the next president might pay a bit more attention to the will of the people then 'ol Bush has, so if that's panicking then I'm all for it.

Sure, whoever gets elected is going to enjoy a honeymoon period....then they're going to figure out if they've got any stomach for winning the WoFanatics that it's a lot harder than running a poll and calling it a day. People love to rail on Bush because it's fun and they get an ego trip out of it, but the man didn't F around and run opinion polls figuring out what he should and shouldn't do. Yes there've been some big screwups, but at least he made an effort. Again, this is why there's no rational way someone can vote Dem...you cannot trust people who have to run a poll before they take a stance. Look at Hillary now with the driver licence thing...just rediculous.... That[/] is supposed to be the leader of the US?!?!? No F'ing way....

Chuck

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

Yeah, it's like the Write two letters analogy...it'll last for a couple of years as the American public gives the new Admin a chance, then once they see just how F'd up the new Admin is, down go the approval ratings in the polls. Once the polling takes a dive, then you'll see some Dem. panic...heck, we might even see them come back towards the center. Not likely, but, anythings possible...

Chuck

Oh, and if you think the Democrats are in any way acting leftist... then you don't know what liberalism is. The Democrats are pretty much a center-right party, it's just in contrast to the Republicans who are pinned so far to the ultra right that sometimes it can skew people's perceptions.

I will say that you're right that whichever Democrat replaces Bush will enjoy a honeymoon period. People will be so happy to see the second most unpopular president (and soon to be the most enduringly unpopular president) in American history gone that unless the Democrats come out in support of eating babies or something they will get a break. I think it's good that the next president might pay a bit more attention to the will of the people then 'ol Bush has, so if that's panicking then I'm all for it.

Holy shit
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yep, the moonbats keep deluding themselves with that "we're the middle" BS. :laugh:

To be perfectly fair, the right-wing moonbats have been deluding themselves far worse for far longer. I seem to remember endless threads between the 2004 and 2006 elections where every right-winger who knew how to work a keyboard was convinced that his wacko views were shared by the "average American" and how anyone the least bit liberal was "out of step with America". You guys repeated that so often I think you started to believe it. Funny how that stopped after the Republicans got beat in the 2006 election...

Point is, I hardly think you guys (and you two, specifically) are in a position to talk about delusions of being moderate.

 

[palehorse]

I'll take "Striking a Nerve" for 1000 Alex!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Where did I ever "revere" FDR? I was simply stating that the party is far different today than it was then. As for your insinuation that FDR was "far left", I'd disagree. The MoveOn folks and Hillary make FDR look Republican. He certainly had a fetish for social programs but that's nothing compared to what we see today.

The far-left nutjobs in this country today are far more dangerous than FDR could have ever hoped to be.

This post only shows that you are seriously ignorant of history.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I see the Pabster strategy as a variant of the big lie. Repeat it often enough and people will take it for granted that its true.

...

I don't think I'd call it "the Pabster strategy", it's clearly the approach the Republicans are going to take in the 2008 election. Word has spread, and Pabster is just playing the good little Republican foot-soldier...him and a lot of other righties on P&N. What, you think they all came up with EXACTLY the same ideas independently?

But it's not the "big lie" technique, really. That works better in countries like China, where the folks perpetrating the big lie control all or most of the information you see. This doesn't work here, as the Republicans don't control all the news. So instead what we've got is what I'd call the big spin. The news allows everyone to see WHAT'S happening, but what's open for interpretation is WHY. That's what Pabster et all are supplying, "analysis" of WHY things are happening the way they are. You can't hide the facts, so you try to make them seem better by suggesting all sorts of stories that get to the factual endpoint. People see the last part (where we are) and think that people must ALSO be right about WHY we got here.

In this particular case, the fact is that we haven't completely defunded the war and pulled all our troops out of Iraq. You can't really argue with that, but that fact alone isn't really a good debate point, especially if you're someone who SUPPORTS staying in Iraq for a while. So what you do is build a little alternate reality, where the Democrats (every single one of them) said if they got into power, they would pulls us out of Iraq tomorrow and where they GOT absolute and unlimited power to reach that goal. Since they HAVE an absolute, unbending goal, and since they have the power to reach that goal, the current state of affairs MUST be a result of some astounding failure on their part. Except while the current state of affairs isn't up for debate, there is a LOT that goes unproven in Pabster's story. His characterization of the Democratic position is a ridiculous strawman, as is their current position within the government. But through all the hand-waving, he's hoping you'll ignore that because he IS right that we're still in Iraq.

Don't get me wrong, Pabster isn't the only person to do this, and the Republicans aren't the only part to employ spin...but this is slightly different. This isn't spinning facts to sound better than they are, this is constructing a completely new and unsupported reality that helps to reinterpret those facts. Without that, spin wouldn't work here, especially since most of the complaints about Democrats are coming from folks like Pabster who rage against the very things they are castigating the Democrats for not doing. They would sound ridiculous without their fantasy motivations. But WITH them, they can even sound like they are offended on behalf of another group that they disagree with. Although I think it takes a special kind of rhetorical skill to complain about the Democrats not doing something you didn't want them to do in the first place when they never said they were going to do it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'll take "Striking a Nerve" for 1000 Alex!

Hey, I'd agree with that...there is only so much arguing with complete morons I can take in a day. Like the saying goes, the best defense against logic is stupidity. We're not having the same debate, which tends to be frustrating. Debating issues with someone who's only interested in being an unpaid (as far as I know) political bag-man is a little tough.

And anyways, you're someone I've always thought of as one of the more intelligent examples of "the other guys"...doesn't partisan bullshit like this bother you even when it's coming from your own team? Guys like Pabster and ProfJohn are making you look dumber by comparison...I know there are times when I wish Dave would shut the hell up even when I agree with his general political point.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'll take "Striking a Nerve" for 1000 Alex!

Hey, I'd agree with that...there is only so much arguing with complete morons I can take in a day. Like the saying goes, the best defense against logic is stupidity. We're not having the same debate, which tends to be frustrating. Debating issues with someone who's only interested in being an unpaid (as far as I know) political bag-man is a little tough.

And anyways, you're someone I've always thought of as one of the more intelligent examples of "the other guys"...doesn't partisan bullshit like this bother you even when it's coming from your own team? Guys like Pabster and ProfJohn are making you look dumber by comparison...I know there are times when I wish Dave would shut the hell up even when I agree with his general political point.

I agree with you that many a decent point gets lost around here in the ad hominem soup sandwich we are forced to sift through every day. There are some posters from both sides who make that the reality... and everyone here has been sucked into their wake on occasion - including me.

sad that...

As for the OP, I think "sad" is the best way to describe the entire political spectrum at this point... I too had fantasies of a "new era in politics" when the Dems took over in '06, even if I wasn't a big fan of most of the winning candidates. Instead, we're all forced to lick the same shit-flavored lollipop we've been served for nearly 20 years... or more!

The scary thought is that we may never see proper political leadership again in our lifetimes... without term limits for the house and senate, or a revolution, total change will be essentially impossible.

So, here ya go... more soup sandwiches coming up!!! 🙁

PS: I'm not "intelligent," I'm just as lost and FOS as the next guy! but thank you anyways! 😉

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

Yeah, it's like the Write two letters analogy...it'll last for a couple of years as the American public gives the new Admin a chance, then once they see just how F'd up the new Admin is, down go the approval ratings in the polls. Once the polling takes a dive, then you'll see some Dem. panic...heck, we might even see them come back towards the center. Not likely, but, anythings possible...

Chuck

Oh, and if you think the Democrats are in any way acting leftist... then you don't know what liberalism is. The Democrats are pretty much a center-right party, it's just in contrast to the Republicans who are pinned so far to the ultra right that sometimes it can skew people's perceptions.

I will say that you're right that whichever Democrat replaces Bush will enjoy a honeymoon period. People will be so happy to see the second most unpopular president (and soon to be the most enduringly unpopular president) in American history gone that unless the Democrats come out in support of eating babies or something they will get a break. I think it's good that the next president might pay a bit more attention to the will of the people then 'ol Bush has, so if that's panicking then I'm all for it.

Holy shit
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yep, the moonbats keep deluding themselves with that "we're the middle" BS. :laugh:

To be perfectly fair, the right-wing moonbats have been deluding themselves far worse for far longer. I seem to remember endless threads between the 2004 and 2006 elections where every right-winger who knew how to work a keyboard was convinced that his wacko views were shared by the "average American" and how anyone the least bit liberal was "out of step with America". You guys repeated that so often I think you started to believe it. Funny how that stopped after the Republicans got beat in the 2006 election...

Point is, I hardly think you guys (and you two, specifically) are in a position to talk about delusions of being moderate.

Please quote me where I indicated I have far right nutjob ideas...I'd love to see them. Just for reference...I believe whats good for the country isnt always good for the people. For example. Im against gay marriage...do I think gay marriage should be constitutionally banned? No. Im against abortion. Do I think it would be a good idea to overturn Roe vs Wade? No. I personally dont use drugs or drink. Would I ban alcohol? No. Although all Muslims I know (including a friend of 8 years) are loving, peaceful, family oriented people, but think their religion is steeped in hatred, bigotry, chauvenism, and lacks forgiveness, would I ban mosques? Or places of worship? Or entry into a public place? Never.

In fact I would defend these rights with all that I have because I believe in our constitution. I really dont know how thats ultra conservative. Or biased. Or "neo-con" like. Do I argue on this board when I think something is wrong? Sure. We ALL do. But half the reason I do is, you can see how much integrity and conviction a man or woman has when put on the spot. I have more respect for someone who believes 180 degrees from me but has TRUE conviction based on FACT and not emotion, then someone who feels the same as I do because "it's the right thing to do"...or "it feeeeeels good". Unfortunately, the majority of discussions on this board end in EMOTIONAL name calling, finger pointing, and "well you did it first" shit. Of course, I participate as well. Like I said we all do. But there are some here who show such disregard and disrespect for others who oppose their own view it's sickening. THAT quality I dont exhibit.

Now quote me where I am soooooo right wing lunatic.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Pabster

Where did I ever "revere" FDR? I was simply stating that the party is far different today than it was then. As for your insinuation that FDR was "far left", I'd disagree. The MoveOn folks and Hillary make FDR look Republican. He certainly had a fetish for social programs but that's nothing compared to what we see today.

The far-left nutjobs in this country today are far more dangerous than FDR could have ever hoped to be.

This post only shows that you are seriously ignorant of history.

You're a moron of the utmost ignorance.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Pabster

Where did I ever "revere" FDR? I was simply stating that the party is far different today than it was then. As for your insinuation that FDR was "far left", I'd disagree. The MoveOn folks and Hillary make FDR look Republican. He certainly had a fetish for social programs but that's nothing compared to what we see today.

The far-left nutjobs in this country today are far more dangerous than FDR could have ever hoped to be.

This post only shows that you are seriously ignorant of history.

You're a moron of the utmost ignorance.

Hey look who showed up. What subject do you want me to abuse you on today?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
To be perfectly fair, the right-wing moonbats have been deluding themselves far worse for far longer. I seem to remember endless threads between the 2004 and 2006 elections where every right-winger who knew how to work a keyboard was convinced that his wacko views were shared by the "average American" and how anyone the least bit liberal was "out of step with America". You guys repeated that so often I think you started to believe it. Funny how that stopped after the Republicans got beat in the 2006 election...

Point is, I hardly think you guys (and you two, specifically) are in a position to talk about delusions of being moderate.

Please quote me where I indicated I have far right nutjob ideas...I'd love to see them. Just for reference...I believe whats good for the country isnt always good for the people. For example. Im against gay marriage...do I think gay marriage should be constitutionally banned? No. Im against abortion. Do I think it would be a good idea to overturn Roe vs Wade? No. I personally dont use drugs or drink. Would I ban alcohol? No. Although all Muslims I know (including a friend of 8 years) are loving, peaceful, family oriented people, but think their religion is steeped in hatred, bigotry, chauvenism, and lacks forgiveness, would I ban mosques? Or places of worship? Or entry into a public place? Never.

In fact I would defend these rights with all that I have because I believe in our constitution. I really dont know how thats ultra conservative. Or biased. Or "neo-con" like. Do I argue on this board when I think something is wrong? Sure. We ALL do. But half the reason I do is, you can see how much integrity and conviction a man or woman has when put on the spot. I have more respect for someone who believes 180 degrees from me but has TRUE conviction based on FACT and not emotion, then someone who feels the same as I do because "it's the right thing to do"...or "it feeeeeels good". Unfortunately, the majority of discussions on this board end in EMOTIONAL name calling, finger pointing, and "well you did it first" shit. Of course, I participate as well. Like I said we all do. But there are some here who show such disregard and disrespect for others who oppose their own view it's sickening. THAT quality I dont exhibit.

Now quote me where I am soooooo right wing lunatic.

Sorry, a little overenthusiastic use of the phrase "you guys". On the other hand, no fair evading my question...you acted like this was some phenomenon of the left alone, don't you think the far right (whether that group includes you or not) is just as implicated in this particular self-delusion?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
...
I agree with you that many a decent point gets lost around here in the ad hominem soup sandwich we are forced to sift through every day. There are some posters from both sides who make that the reality... and everyone here has been sucked into their wake on occasion - including me.

sad that...

As for the OP, I think "sad" is the best way to describe the entire political spectrum at this point... I too had fantasies of a "new era in politics" when the Dems took over in '06, even if I wasn't a big fan of most of the winning candidates. Instead, we're all forced to lick the same shit-flavored lollipop we've been served for nearly 20 years... or more!

The scary thought is that we may never see proper political leadership again in our lifetimes... without term limits for the house and senate, or a revolution, total change will be essentially impossible.

So, here ya go... more soup sandwiches coming up!!! 🙁

PS: I'm not "intelligent," I'm just as lost and FOS as the next guy! but thank you anyways! 😉

Well, I did only say MORE intelligent 😉

Seriously though, I tend to agree with you. I don't think the Democrats are doing as bad a job as folks like Pabster would like us to believe, but I too am a little disappointed how things really don't seem to have changed too much. I don't know what the problem with the system is, but there certainly is one...when the majority of people don't like the government that they get to change every few years, something isn't working as it's supposed to. A lot of that is probably just the general complaining that everyone does, but a lot of it isn't.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
To be perfectly fair, the right-wing moonbats have been deluding themselves far worse for far longer. I seem to remember endless threads between the 2004 and 2006 elections where every right-winger who knew how to work a keyboard was convinced that his wacko views were shared by the "average American" and how anyone the least bit liberal was "out of step with America". You guys repeated that so often I think you started to believe it. Funny how that stopped after the Republicans got beat in the 2006 election...

Point is, I hardly think you guys (and you two, specifically) are in a position to talk about delusions of being moderate.

Please quote me where I indicated I have far right nutjob ideas...I'd love to see them. Just for reference...I believe whats good for the country isnt always good for the people. For example. Im against gay marriage...do I think gay marriage should be constitutionally banned? No. Im against abortion. Do I think it would be a good idea to overturn Roe vs Wade? No. I personally dont use drugs or drink. Would I ban alcohol? No. Although all Muslims I know (including a friend of 8 years) are loving, peaceful, family oriented people, but think their religion is steeped in hatred, bigotry, chauvenism, and lacks forgiveness, would I ban mosques? Or places of worship? Or entry into a public place? Never.

In fact I would defend these rights with all that I have because I believe in our constitution. I really dont know how thats ultra conservative. Or biased. Or "neo-con" like. Do I argue on this board when I think something is wrong? Sure. We ALL do. But half the reason I do is, you can see how much integrity and conviction a man or woman has when put on the spot. I have more respect for someone who believes 180 degrees from me but has TRUE conviction based on FACT and not emotion, then someone who feels the same as I do because "it's the right thing to do"...or "it feeeeeels good". Unfortunately, the majority of discussions on this board end in EMOTIONAL name calling, finger pointing, and "well you did it first" shit. Of course, I participate as well. Like I said we all do. But there are some here who show such disregard and disrespect for others who oppose their own view it's sickening. THAT quality I dont exhibit.

Now quote me where I am soooooo right wing lunatic.

Sorry, a little overenthusiastic use of the phrase "you guys". On the other hand, no fair evading my question...you acted like this was some phenomenon of the left alone, don't you think the far right (whether that group includes you or not) is just as implicated in this particular self-delusion?

I do agree. I wouldnt go so far to say they've been "doing it longer" as you said, but yeah...the fringes on BOTH sides have always tried to pass themselves off as moderate. Thats how they keep getting elected. Truth be told, the fringes on either side really are far and few between, and hardly represent the party they claim to. As you know also, the "stances" (for lack of better word) of both parties have changes quite a bit in the last 50-60 years. I have also many times there isnt much difference between the two parties anymore. The differences are still there, but on 70% of the issues (read: majority) both sides are pretty much in agreement.

The same applies to this board. I have a sneaking suspicion if we all got together for beers and football, we would all pretty much get along fine. The vile name calling and spewing of labels on this fucking board is pretty funny, IMHO. There will always be issues we disagree on, but thats human nature. For the most part, we are like congress...a few differences here and there but in agreement on most.

With a few fringe loonies thrown in, of course.