Democrats lead hate campaign

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Painman
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
America is witnessing one of the most despicable political campaigns in our long history - a presidential race filled with lies, distortions and outright hatred - and the offender is not the mythical Republican attack machine the Democrats keep talking about. It's the national Democrat party itself.

You got that right. After the left wing fringe of the Democratic party (85% of them) realized that they were going to lose - again - they decided it was time to pull out all the stops.

:music: All the girls are in love with me, I'm a teenage Limbaughtomy :music:

Seriously dude. Spewing crap like that just makes you look like the same kind of wild-eyed partisan hack you seem to think "85%" of the Democratic party is. Get a grip.

Name me more than 15% that isnt.

Wow, this is really stupid. But I'll go ahead and bite. Take a look at just about any current piece of polling data. Hell, let's take a look at some Fox News Polling just to ensure that we're taking a "fair and balanced" :roll: look at things. 40% of the registered electorate in favor of Kerry. .40 * .85 = 34% of the electorate that is "out on the fringe" as you claim. That's many, many millions of people that you've placed out on the "left wing fringe".

I find this quite interesting since I happen to live not only in the heart of Kerry Country, but northeastern MA, which you might even call the right ventricle of the heart of Kerry Country. And all I see around me are mostly moderate, some liberal, and some socially conservative folk trying to do as well as they can for themselves and their kids, just like most everyone else in the nation. So please, take your hysterical nonsense somewhere else like hannity.com where it might sound more mainstream.
 

IndieSnob

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2001
1,340
0
0
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
America is witnessing one of the most despicable political campaigns in our long history - a presidential race filled with lies, distortions and outright hatred - and the offender is not the mythical Republican attack machine the Democrats keep talking about. It's the national Democrat party itself.

You got that right. After the left wing fringe of the Democratic party (85% of them) realized that they were going to lose - again - they decided it was time to pull out all the stops.



85% of them? Where'd you get this number? Delusionial nightmares? You people don't seem to understand that just because Michael Moore is a 'democrat' he doesn't speak for the party nor every democrat. Keep on digging up this crap though if it makes you feell better.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,108
2,721
126
Originally posted by: Painman
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Painman
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
America is witnessing one of the most despicable political campaigns in our long history - a presidential race filled with lies, distortions and outright hatred - and the offender is not the mythical Republican attack machine the Democrats keep talking about. It's the national Democrat party itself.

You got that right. After the left wing fringe of the Democratic party (85% of them) realized that they were going to lose - again - they decided it was time to pull out all the stops.

:music: All the girls are in love with me, I'm a teenage Limbaughtomy :music:

Seriously dude. Spewing crap like that just makes you look like the same kind of wild-eyed partisan hack you seem to think "85%" of the Democratic party is. Get a grip.

Name me more than 15% that isnt.

Wow, this is really stupid. But I'll go ahead and bite. Take a look at just about any current piece of polling data. Hell, let's take a look at some Fox News Polling just to ensure that we're taking a "fair and balanced" :roll: look at things. 40% of the registered electorate in favor of Kerry. .40 * .85 = 34% of the electorate that is "out on the fringe" as you claim. That's many, many millions of people that you've placed out on the "left wing fringe".

I find this quite interesting since I happen to live not only in the heart of Kerry Country, but northeastern MA, which you might even call the right ventricle of the heart of Kerry Country. And all I see around me are mostly moderate, some liberal, and some socially conservative folk trying to do as well as they can for themselves and their kids, just like most everyone else in the nation. So please, take your hysterical nonsense somewhere else like hannity.com where it might sound more mainstream.


Hysterical nonsense? Please.

I find this quite interesting since I happen to live not only in the heart of Bush Country, but northcentral TX, which you might even call the right ventricle of the heart of Bush Country. And all I see around me are mostly moderate, some liberal, and some socially and fiscally conservative folk trying to do as well as they can for themselves and their kids, just like most everyone else in the nation.

Since certain people have been up in arms to read that I think 85% of the democratic party is the left wing fringe I would like to let you in on a secret: It was meant to be an exaggerated statement. Actually its probably a little lower - but its up there! Sure everyone has there political yardsticks. My basic litmus test is that if you are a gungrabber you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you are a tax and spend limosine liberal you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you support gay marriage (which will inevitably include by default legal, nonsexual marriages) you are a member of the left wing fringe. So on and so forth.
 

wiin

Senior member
Oct 28, 1999
937
0
76
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
The congressmen who want
U.N. observers in U.S. vote
9 representatives appeal to Kofi Annan for intervention in presidential election

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 7, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com





WASHINGTON ? The United Nations has turned down a controversial request by nine members of the U.S. Congress to assign international observers to the U.S. presidential election in November.

The request came in the form of a letter drafted by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, and signed by eight other members of the House.

"We are deeply concerned that the right of U.S. citizens to vote in free and fair elections is again in jeopardy," the lawmakers wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Besides Johnson, the other representatives signing the letter to Annan ? all Democrats ? were Julia Carson of Indiana; Jerrold Nadler, Edolphus Towns, Joseph Crowley and Carolyn B. Maloney, all of New York; Raul Grijalva of Arizona, Corrine Brown of Florida, Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, Danny K. Davis of Illinois and Michael M. Honda of California.


Johnson was an early supporter of Sen. John Edwards' campaign for the presidency. Yesterday Edwards was selected as John Kerry's Democratic Party running mate.

"Generally, the United Nations does not intervene in electoral affairs unless the request comes from a national government or an electoral authority ? not the legislative branch," said U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe.

Nevertheless, the proposal by Johnson and the other members of the House has raised the hackles of Republicans and others who saw irony in the timing of the announcement ? just before America's Independence Day celebrations.

"Let me get this straight," wrote Joe Mariani in GOPUSA.com. "A group of Democrats want to bring some people from countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, China and Cuba ? people that have never seen a democratic election in their lifetimes ? to sit in judgment on our elections? What kind of voodoo politics is that? The last time a foreign body had any direct influence over the political process of this country, the situation was corrected by a war for our freedom from British rule. Are these so-called Americans so willing to surrender that hard-won right of self-determination now, and to such a shamelessly scandal-ridden group of anti-American dictatorships and terrorist sympathizers? We may as well dissolve the Union now and save ourselves the pain of watching it done for us."

The Democrats said they feared a repeat of the 2000 election, which was won by George W. Bush, a Republican, through the Electoral College count even though he lost the popular vote.

The Democrats had asked in the letter for "international election monitors" to watch for "questionable practices and voter disenfranchisement on Election Day."

The Democratic Congress members wrote that they did not think sufficient reforms had been implemented to prevent another voting debacle.

"As the next Election Day approaches, there is more cause for alarm rather than less," the letter said.

Because the U.N. Charter bars violations of sovereignty, the State Department, or perhaps the Federal Election Commission, would have to invite observers, said U.N. officials. Monitoring would also have to be approved by the Security Council or the General Assembly.

Since the rule of thumb for vote monitoring is one observer for each 100 polling sites, about 2,000 foreigners would have to be deployed from Key West to Anchorage.

Johnson's letter points to "widespread allegations of voter disenfranchisement" in Florida and other states in 2000, and it cites an April report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that found potential for "significant problems" this time around.

"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," Johnson wrote. "This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself," she added.

The Nov. 7, 2000, election was decided 36 days later when the U.S. Supreme Court made two rulings that stopped Democratic challenger Al Gore's attempt to recount some of the Florida votes. A number of independent investigations confirmed President Bush won the state's 25 electoral votes, giving him a total of 271 to Gore's 267.

Tom Kilgannon, president of Freedom Alliance, a group dedicated to protecting American sovereignty, admonished Johnson and her colleagues.

"Your appeal to the secretary general is alarming and embarrassing," he said. "As a Member of Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution and represent the people of the United States, it is disturbing, to say the least, that you would entrust the most sacred act of American democracy ? our presidential election ? to an international institution, which is unaccountable to the American people and mired by scandal and corruption."

Kilgannon said the request "undermines U.S. sovereignty, demoralizes American servicemen who are fighting to build democratic governments abroad and sends the message worldwide that the United States is nothing more than a Third World nation unable to police itself."

Stories about the action by the members of Congress appeared all over the world ? from Tehran to Uraguay and to China.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would happen if Republicans were the ones requesting the U.N to do this? It would be all over the news 24/7, I'm sure.
 

IndieSnob

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2001
1,340
0
0
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Hysterical nonsense? Please.

I find this quite interesting since I happen to live not only in the heart of Bush Country, but northcentral TX, which you might even call the right ventricle of the heart of Bush Country. And all I see around me are mostly moderate, some liberal, and some socially and fiscally conservative folk trying to do as well as they can for themselves and their kids, just like most everyone else in the nation.

Since certain people have been up in arms to read that I think 85% of the democratic party is the left wing fringe I would like to let you in on a secret: It was meant to be an exaggerated statement. Actually its probably a little lower - but its up there! Sure everyone has there political yardsticks. My basic litmus test is that if you are a gungrabber you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you are a tax and spend limosine liberal you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you support gay marriage (which will inevitably include by default legal, nonsexual marriages) you are a member of the left wing fringe. So on and so forth.


Wow, so if you agree with one liberal thing you're a complete liberal, one conservative you're a complete conservative, etc? I'm astounded at how absolutely stupid your logic is.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Hysterical nonsense? Please.

I find this quite interesting since I happen to live not only in the heart of Bush Country, but northcentral TX, which you might even call the right ventricle of the heart of Bush Country. And all I see around me are mostly moderate, some liberal, and some socially and fiscally conservative folk trying to do as well as they can for themselves and their kids, just like most everyone else in the nation.

Since certain people have been up in arms to read that I think 85% of the democratic party is the left wing fringe I would like to let you in on a secret: It was meant to be an exaggerated statement. Actually its probably a little lower - but its up there! Sure everyone has there political yardsticks. My basic litmus test is that if you are a gungrabber you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you are a tax and spend limosine liberal you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you support gay marriage (which will inevitably include by default legal, nonsexual marriages) you are a member of the left wing fringe. So on and so forth.


Wow, so if you agree with one liberal thing you're a complete liberal, one conservative you're a complete conservative, etc? I'm astounded at how absolutely stupid your logic is.

I'm not. Hes from Texas.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,108
2,721
126
Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Hysterical nonsense? Please.

I find this quite interesting since I happen to live not only in the heart of Bush Country, but northcentral TX, which you might even call the right ventricle of the heart of Bush Country. And all I see around me are mostly moderate, some liberal, and some socially and fiscally conservative folk trying to do as well as they can for themselves and their kids, just like most everyone else in the nation.

Since certain people have been up in arms to read that I think 85% of the democratic party is the left wing fringe I would like to let you in on a secret: It was meant to be an exaggerated statement. Actually its probably a little lower - but its up there! Sure everyone has there political yardsticks. My basic litmus test is that if you are a gungrabber you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you are a tax and spend limosine liberal you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you support gay marriage (which will inevitably include by default legal, nonsexual marriages) you are a member of the left wing fringe. So on and so forth.


Wow, so if you agree with one liberal thing you're a complete liberal, one conservative you're a complete conservative, etc? I'm astounded at how absolutely stupid your logic is.

Wow, Im astounded by your inability to read. I was talking about lawmakers.
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Painman
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Painman
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
America is witnessing one of the most despicable political campaigns in our long history - a presidential race filled with lies, distortions and outright hatred - and the offender is not the mythical Republican attack machine the Democrats keep talking about. It's the national Democrat party itself.

You got that right. After the left wing fringe of the Democratic party (85% of them) realized that they were going to lose - again - they decided it was time to pull out all the stops.

:music: All the girls are in love with me, I'm a teenage Limbaughtomy :music:

Seriously dude. Spewing crap like that just makes you look like the same kind of wild-eyed partisan hack you seem to think "85%" of the Democratic party is. Get a grip.

Name me more than 15% that isnt.

Wow, this is really stupid. But I'll go ahead and bite. Take a look at just about any current piece of polling data. Hell, let's take a look at some Fox News Polling just to ensure that we're taking a "fair and balanced" :roll: look at things. 40% of the registered electorate in favor of Kerry. .40 * .85 = 34% of the electorate that is "out on the fringe" as you claim. That's many, many millions of people that you've placed out on the "left wing fringe".

I find this quite interesting since I happen to live not only in the heart of Kerry Country, but northeastern MA, which you might even call the right ventricle of the heart of Kerry Country. And all I see around me are mostly moderate, some liberal, and some socially conservative folk trying to do as well as they can for themselves and their kids, just like most everyone else in the nation. So please, take your hysterical nonsense somewhere else like hannity.com where it might sound more mainstream.


Hysterical nonsense? Please.

I find this quite interesting since I happen to live not only in the heart of Bush Country, but northcentral TX, which you might even call the right ventricle of the heart of Bush Country. And all I see around me are mostly moderate, some liberal, and some socially and fiscally conservative folk trying to do as well as they can for themselves and their kids, just like most everyone else in the nation.

Since certain people have been up in arms to read that I think 85% of the democratic party is the left wing fringe I would like to let you in on a secret: It was meant to be an exaggerated statement. Actually its probably a little lower - but its up there! Sure everyone has there political yardsticks. My basic litmus test is that if you are a gungrabber you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you are a tax and spend limosine liberal you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you support gay marriage (which will inevitably include by default legal, nonsexual marriages) you are a member of the left wing fringe. So on and so forth.

Gungrabbers? *looks left, looks right* I don't see anyone trying to grab my guns. Hell, I don't even own one. I don't need one here. I don't even lock my door most of the time, and I have a bad habit of leaving my keys in the car. Still got my car.

Tax and spend limousine liberals? Pfft. let's talk about borrow and spend limousine "conservatives".

Gay marriage? Marriage is between two people and their God. The state has no business dabbling in that business to begin with, that's my take. If you feel that this is a state issue, or a national one, you're a hypocrite for the same reason that you feel the gov't ought to keep their hands off your guns. Selective statism is still statism.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,108
2,721
126
Gungrabbers? *looks left, looks right* I don't see anyone trying to grab my guns. Hell, I don't even own one. I don't need one here. I don't even lock my door most of the time, and I have a bad habit of leaving my keys in the car. Still got my car.

Sure use the word literally. You said it yourself - you dont own a gun, so you dont care if they are here are not anyway. :roll:

Tax and spend limousine liberals? Pfft. let's talk about borrow and spend limousine "conservatives".

If it werent for the war on terror we might still have budget surpluses. Although Bush creating that mega drug entitlement for seniors that will cost of 100s of billions in the future sure didnt help any.

Gay marriage? Marriage is between two people and their God. The state has no business dabbling in that business to begin with, that's my take. If you feel that this is a state issue, or a national one, you're a hypocrite for the same reason that you feel the gov't ought to keep their hands off your guns. Selective statism is still statism.

Marriage existed before governments. My point was that we are going to have legal, nonsexual marriages (mother and son for inheritance purposes, etc) and pehaps even legalized polygamy as a result eventually, IMO. Very bad idea.
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Gungrabbers? *looks left, looks right* I don't see anyone trying to grab my guns. Hell, I don't even own one. I don't need one here. I don't even lock my door most of the time, and I have a bad habit of leaving my keys in the car. Still got my car.

Sure use the word literally. You said it yourself - you dont own a gun, so you dont care if they are here are not anyway. :roll: Yes, I do. If I feel the need to own a gun, I can freely go and buy one, whether it's to protect my home, or join an uprising against my gov't, I'm free to buy and own one here in the heart of libbie-land.

Tax and spend limousine liberals? Pfft. let's talk about borrow and spend limousine "conservatives".

If it werent for the war on terror we might still have budget surpluses. Although Bush creating that mega drug entitlement for seniors that will cost of 100s of billions in the future sure didnt help any. Bush gave the budget surplus back to everyone in 2001. There weren't any after that. Forgot already? Did you stop for a minute to consider that much of the cost of Bush's drug entitlement policy consists of profit protections for the drug industry? Separation of corporation and state is equally as important as separation of church and state. The essential necessity of the war in Iraq is another matter that is beyond the scope of this thread and has already been debated ad nauseum.

Gay marriage? Marriage is between two people and their God. The state has no business dabbling in that business to begin with, that's my take. If you feel that this is a state issue, or a national one, you're a hypocrite for the same reason that you feel the gov't ought to keep their hands off your guns. Selective statism is still statism.

Marriage existed before governments. My point was that we are going to have legal, nonsexual marriages (mother and son for inheritance purposes, etc) and pehaps even legalized polygamy as a result eventually, IMO. Very bad idea. Pure slippery slope fallacy here. Also debated ad nauseum here on these forums in the past and beyond the scope of this thread.

Got any more backpedaling for us?
 

IndieSnob

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2001
1,340
0
0
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Hysterical nonsense? Please.

I find this quite interesting since I happen to live not only in the heart of Bush Country, but northcentral TX, which you might even call the right ventricle of the heart of Bush Country. And all I see around me are mostly moderate, some liberal, and some socially and fiscally conservative folk trying to do as well as they can for themselves and their kids, just like most everyone else in the nation.

Since certain people have been up in arms to read that I think 85% of the democratic party is the left wing fringe I would like to let you in on a secret: It was meant to be an exaggerated statement. Actually its probably a little lower - but its up there! Sure everyone has there political yardsticks. My basic litmus test is that if you are a gungrabber you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you are a tax and spend limosine liberal you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you support gay marriage (which will inevitably include by default legal, nonsexual marriages) you are a member of the left wing fringe. So on and so forth.


Wow, so if you agree with one liberal thing you're a complete liberal, one conservative you're a complete conservative, etc? I'm astounded at how absolutely stupid your logic is.

Wow, Im astounded by your inability to read. I was talking about lawmakers.


Uh, obviously you can't read either. Go re-read what I said... "if you agree with one liberal thing you're a liberal'", that would apply to lawmakers and non law-makers. Care to try again?
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
The title story is nothing but a piece of crap cover story to hide the slimey tactics of the right wing BS slingers. I'm not a Democrat, but the Republicans scare me. Personal freedoms are being swept away, the future of the country is being mortgaged away, international co-operation and good will frittered away. Pre-emptive war as international policy is frightnening. The civilized world agreed long ago that tactical nukes were a really bad idea, but Bush says we must have them. Science and the enviornment have been Bush-wacked too. And religious beliefs as policy is way out of bounds. I agree with a number of traditional "Republican" stances, i.e. much gun control legeslation is without value, no lifelong welfare, send illegals home, etc.. But the issues that I disagree with out weigh these by a hundrerd-fold. As far as I'm concerned, the current Republican party is a great danger to our country, its people, and the world in general. If Moore's movie helps to overthrow the current dynasty in Washington, he needs to make some more movies fast. I guess we don't have Superman to fight for "Truth, justice, and the American Way", so I'll settle for Moore.
 

RyanM

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2001
2,387
0
76
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
My basic litmus test is that if you are a gungrabber you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you are a tax and spend limosine liberal you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you support gay marriage (which will inevitably include by default legal, nonsexual marriages) you are a member of the left wing fringe. So on and so forth.

Your basic litmus test is as worthless as the cerebral tissue upon which it formed.

I love guns and I think gays should marry.
I think drugs, prostitution, and gambling should be legal and I favor strong capitalism.

Litmus that, bitch.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,108
2,721
126
Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Hysterical nonsense? Please.

I find this quite interesting since I happen to live not only in the heart of Bush Country, but northcentral TX, which you might even call the right ventricle of the heart of Bush Country. And all I see around me are mostly moderate, some liberal, and some socially and fiscally conservative folk trying to do as well as they can for themselves and their kids, just like most everyone else in the nation.

Since certain people have been up in arms to read that I think 85% of the democratic party is the left wing fringe I would like to let you in on a secret: It was meant to be an exaggerated statement. Actually its probably a little lower - but its up there! Sure everyone has there political yardsticks. My basic litmus test is that if you are a gungrabber you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you are a tax and spend limosine liberal you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you support gay marriage (which will inevitably include by default legal, nonsexual marriages) you are a member of the left wing fringe. So on and so forth.


Wow, so if you agree with one liberal thing you're a complete liberal, one conservative you're a complete conservative, etc? I'm astounded at how absolutely stupid your logic is.

Wow, Im astounded by your inability to read. I was talking about lawmakers.


Uh, obviously you can't read either. Go re-read what I said... "if you agree with one liberal thing you're a liberal'", that would apply to lawmakers and non law-makers. Care to try again?

Your context was otherwise. Typical tactic. No sale.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,108
2,721
126
Originally posted by: MachFive
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
My basic litmus test is that if you are a gungrabber you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you are a tax and spend limosine liberal you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you support gay marriage (which will inevitably include by default legal, nonsexual marriages) you are a member of the left wing fringe. So on and so forth.

Your basic litmus test is as worthless as the cerebral tissue upon which it formed.

I love guns and I think gays should marry.
I think drugs, prostitution, and gambling should be legal and I favor strong capitalism.

Litmus that, bitch.

Hey Mach you may love gays and guns but that doesnt make your ridulous statement anymore valid.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,108
2,721
126
Originally posted by: Painman
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Gungrabbers? *looks left, looks right* I don't see anyone trying to grab my guns. Hell, I don't even own one. I don't need one here. I don't even lock my door most of the time, and I have a bad habit of leaving my keys in the car. Still got my car.

Sure use the word literally. You said it yourself - you dont own a gun, so you dont care if they are here are not anyway. :roll: Yes, I do. If I feel the need to own a gun, I can freely go and buy one, whether it's to protect my home, or join an uprising against my gov't, I'm free to buy and own one here in the heart of libbie-land.

Tax and spend limousine liberals? Pfft. let's talk about borrow and spend limousine "conservatives".

If it werent for the war on terror we might still have budget surpluses. Although Bush creating that mega drug entitlement for seniors that will cost of 100s of billions in the future sure didnt help any. Bush gave the budget surplus back to everyone in 2001. There weren't any after that. Forgot already? Did you stop for a minute to consider that much of the cost of Bush's drug entitlement policy consists of profit protections for the drug industry? Separation of corporation and state is equally as important as separation of church and state. The essential necessity of the war in Iraq is another matter that is beyond the scope of this thread and has already been debated ad nauseum.

Gay marriage? Marriage is between two people and their God. The state has no business dabbling in that business to begin with, that's my take. If you feel that this is a state issue, or a national one, you're a hypocrite for the same reason that you feel the gov't ought to keep their hands off your guns. Selective statism is still statism.

Marriage existed before governments. My point was that we are going to have legal, nonsexual marriages (mother and son for inheritance purposes, etc) and pehaps even legalized polygamy as a result eventually, IMO. Very bad idea. Pure slippery slope fallacy here. Also debated ad nauseum here on these forums in the past and beyond the scope of this thread.

Got any more backpedaling for us?

Your replies to my clarifications have also been stated ad nausem by you and your side. Got anymore?
 

RyanM

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2001
2,387
0
76
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: MachFive
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
My basic litmus test is that if you are a gungrabber you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you are a tax and spend limosine liberal you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you support gay marriage (which will inevitably include by default legal, nonsexual marriages) you are a member of the left wing fringe. So on and so forth.

Your basic litmus test is as worthless as the cerebral tissue upon which it formed.

I love guns and I think gays should marry.
I think drugs, prostitution, and gambling should be legal and I favor strong capitalism.

Litmus that, bitch.

Hey Mach you may love gays and guns but that doesnt make your ridulous statement anymore valid.

Congratulations! You just failed by avoiding answering the question. By doing so, you've been disqualified from further debates on grounds that you are incapable of participating in one. Have a nice day.

I just proved your litmus test wrong. Now, if you care to retract your incredibly uninformed statement and apologize for assuming like an uneducated dolt, perhaps we can actually move on to some sort of serious discussion instead of you just flinging ignorant, unfounded ideas around.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,108
2,721
126
Originally posted by: MachFive
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: MachFive
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
My basic litmus test is that if you are a gungrabber you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you are a tax and spend limosine liberal you are a member of the left wing fringe. If you support gay marriage (which will inevitably include by default legal, nonsexual marriages) you are a member of the left wing fringe. So on and so forth.

Your basic litmus test is as worthless as the cerebral tissue upon which it formed.

I love guns and I think gays should marry.
I think drugs, prostitution, and gambling should be legal and I favor strong capitalism.

Litmus that, bitch.

Hey Mach you may love gays and guns but that doesnt make your ridulous statement anymore valid.

Congratulations! You just failed to avoid answering the question. By doing so, you've been disqualified from further debates on grounds that you are incapable of participating in one. Have a nice day.

I just proved your litmus test wrong. Now, if you care to retract your incredibly ignorant statement and apologize for assuming like an uninformed dolt, perhaps we can actually move on to some sort of serious discussion instead of you just flinging ignorant, unfounded ideas around.


Question? Doesnt a question end with a question mark? :laugh: You not only cant read but understand anything you typed. Your right someone was disqualified from the conversation - you!

1. Dope is for dopes.

2. All hoes belong in jail.

3. Most states already have some form of gambling.

Was that simple enough for you? :roll:
 

RyanM

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2001
2,387
0
76
You failed reading comprehension, didn't you? You know what, don't answer that. I'd hate for you to look any more foolish than you already do.

1. You make ignorant statement proclaiming that you have a litmus test which deems someone liberal or conservative based on their response to any single issue.
2. I point out it's stupidity exceeds that of your average mongoloid by showing that my political philosophy would label me simultaneously liberal and conservative, which is a contradiction in terms, unless we're talking some sort of quasi-Schrodinger quantum manifold political dimension where one can coexist as both a liberal and a conservative.
3. You fail to acknowledge that your litmus test isn't worth the two-bit education you must've recieved, and proceed to pat yourself on the back for no good reason whatsoever.
4. I bring to light your avoidance and lack of mental comprehension.
5. You continue to ignore my critcism of your so-called litmus test and fail miserably at both an attempt at humor and an explication of your sad political philosophy.

That about sums up the discussion thus far.

Now, would you like to emend your litmus test to perhaps encompass more than your skewed black and white view of the political arena, or would you perhaps like to bless us with more gems of your twisted worldview?

We're rapt with anticipation.
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
I thought the "tax and spend" label put on liberals was killed ever since Bush arrived in office but I see its alive and well.

Frankly, I don't know how liberals/democrats could ever spend more than the republicans have but whatever.....
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
I find this quite interesting since I happen to live not only in the heart of Bush Country, but northcentral TX, which you might even call the right ventricle of the heart of Bush Country.

Heart? Dubya has no heart. You live in the colon of Bush Country. Judging by your rant, I think you need to come up for air.
;)

Michael Reagan is a hypocrite. He is a mirror image of Moore, only worse. At least Moore is funny. Reagan is just hateful. He is probably jealous that Moore is so successful and popular.
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: Painman
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Gungrabbers? *looks left, looks right* I don't see anyone trying to grab my guns. Hell, I don't even own one. I don't need one here. I don't even lock my door most of the time, and I have a bad habit of leaving my keys in the car. Still got my car.

Sure use the word literally. You said it yourself - you dont own a gun, so you dont care if they are here are not anyway. :roll: Yes, I do. If I feel the need to own a gun, I can freely go and buy one, whether it's to protect my home, or join an uprising against my gov't, I'm free to buy and own one here in the heart of libbie-land.

Tax and spend limousine liberals? Pfft. let's talk about borrow and spend limousine "conservatives".

If it werent for the war on terror we might still have budget surpluses. Although Bush creating that mega drug entitlement for seniors that will cost of 100s of billions in the future sure didnt help any. Bush gave the budget surplus back to everyone in 2001. There weren't any after that. Forgot already? Did you stop for a minute to consider that much of the cost of Bush's drug entitlement policy consists of profit protections for the drug industry? Separation of corporation and state is equally as important as separation of church and state. The essential necessity of the war in Iraq is another matter that is beyond the scope of this thread and has already been debated ad nauseum.

Gay marriage? Marriage is between two people and their God. The state has no business dabbling in that business to begin with, that's my take. If you feel that this is a state issue, or a national one, you're a hypocrite for the same reason that you feel the gov't ought to keep their hands off your guns. Selective statism is still statism.

Marriage existed before governments. My point was that we are going to have legal, nonsexual marriages (mother and son for inheritance purposes, etc) and pehaps even legalized polygamy as a result eventually, IMO. Very bad idea. Pure slippery slope fallacy here. Also debated ad nauseum here on these forums in the past and beyond the scope of this thread.

Got any more backpedaling for us?

Your replies to my clarifications have also been stated ad nausem by you and your side. Got anymore?

Yeah. Stop spewing nonsense and making the right wingers here who actually try to make a case for something look bad.
 

J Heartless Slick

Golden Member
Nov 11, 1999
1,330
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Michael Reagan: Democrats lead hate campaign
Juneau Empire Online ^ | July 4, 2004 | Michael Reagan

Posted on 07/04/2004 10:43:57 AM PDT by FairOpinion

America is witnessing one of the most despicable political campaigns in our long history - a presidential race filled with lies, distortions and outright hatred - and the offender is not the mythical Republican attack machine the Democrats keep talking about. It's the national Democrat party itself.

If anybody doubts the truth of this I invite them to look at one Michael Moore - slime master extraordinary, a practiced prevaricator, hater of America and radical socialist who has produced what nobody can deny is nothing less that a Democrat campaign commercial masquerading as a documentary.

Moore, however, is simply a symbol for an angry party gone mad. Utterly convinced of the fiction that President Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, who by divine right as a Democrat was entitled to occupy the White House which his party regards as their private property, the Democrats are in a state of uncontrolled rage. The symbol of the Democrat party is no longer a donkey, it's a crazed jackal.

Consider the thrust of the Democrats' campaign rhetoric - that when it comes to the president, to his administration, and to Iraq there is no such thing as good news. To them, the only good news is bad news for America. They want us to fail in Iraq so they can blame the president. They want the economy to go into the tank so they can blame the president.

Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, they bash the president no matter what he does. They don't, of course, tell you how they'd do things differently. They only tell you that everything President Bush does is wrong and then assure us that they could do it better. They demand that the president pay more attention to the U.N., for example, and when he does work with the U.N. they give him no credit.

They demand that the president turn Iraq over to Iraqis, and when he does they growl and mutter because he didn't do it the way they say they would have done it - but they won't tell us how they would have done it.

They are giddy over Michael Moore's hate film. Yet they have the nerve to claim that the discourse in politics is getting meaner and meaner and they point their fingers at the Republicans as the culprits. It's not the Republicans, however, who are supporting films such as Moore's incredibly deceptive "Fahrenheit 9/11," filled with false charges and cleverly distorted images such as showing President Bush interrupted by reporters during a golf game allegedly attacking terrorism when he was really talking about the Palestinian bombings.

But the Democrats so hate George W. Bush that they are willing to believe anything negative about him, even to the extent of supporting Moore in his exercise of slander and deceit when they should be condemning it and disassociating themselves from the film as decent people would do when confronted with its deceptions.

The fact is, it has never been about truth with the Democrats - it's always been about lies because they still believe the Bush-stole-the-election canard, and as a result they are willing to believe anything about the president even if it goes beyond the realm of reason, as Moore's film does.

Face it, Michael Moore hates America. He goes abroad and tells the people in Europe that we are the dumbest people on earth. "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance," he told the British press. "We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

He explained 9/11 by blaming the United States: "We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants."

He insisted that the terrorists currently killing our soldiers in Iraq can be compared to our Revolutionary War heroes who fought off British oppression: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists or 'The Enemy.' They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win."

This goes beyond hate crime - it is nothing less than treason. And the Democrats, by aiding and abetting and praising this traitorous person, share his guilt.

That's how far their hatred has taken them.

All along I thought I disagreed with Bush's policies:
1. The invasion of Iraq was based on wrong intelligence that was selectively choosen by Bush et al.
2. Resources used to fight al-Qaida were diverted to invade Iraq.
3. The economy is not growing as fast as needed.
4. Faith based iniatives treading on the separation of church and state.
5. Bush supports a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages.
6. Bush's tax cuts will lead to monstrous deficits and evetually high interest rates.

After reading Mr Reagan's commentary it turns out I am a mindless America and Bush hater.

:Q
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Democrats lead hate campaign

How low will they go?
-------------------------------------

Well the Repugs have a lock on the Lie Campaign especially for the last 4 years so Hate and going Low as possible is the only thing left to combat the Lies.