Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Hate to say it but the OP, hellokeith, has got me nailed---as what I regard as a Paroitic American---I am quite terrified that the Repubs will retain both houses of the congress again.
At this time in our nations history, I see nothing but problems ahead. And almost 50% of Americans have no national representation---as the democratic party has been totally made irrelevant. We need both parties pulling together to face these looming problems---we can moans and groan and play blame games---but they will still be common national problems
we must face together---and that will only occur if the democrats control one or more wings of congress.
At this time in our nations history, I see nothing but problems ahead. And almost 50% of Americans have no national representation---as the democratic party has been totally made irrelevant. We need both parties pulling together to face these looming problems---we can moans and groan and play blame games---but they will still be common national problems
we must face together---and that will only occur if the democrats control one or more wings of congress.
Well said, Rainsford.
The modern republican party self-description has nothing to do with their actual policies, and everything to do with marketing.
It's a crude marketing technique, things like equating support for 'self-reliance' with the party.
It's just code words for the propaganda; what does 'self-reliance' have to do with companies paying off the republicans for the right to pollute, for example? Nothing. It's just a slogan to get people to say they like self-reliance, so they must be a republican, and they vote that way. It's got that little dig, too, at the democrats' very successful programs for helping people to help themselves that some resent.
You saw through the nonsense - good for you. I think the democrats, who are the party that represents 90% of Americans' interests, need to help more see past that.
I can post thousands of messages and recommend great books, but the kool aid is strong in most who have drunk it.
As for angry liberals - you could say that, I guess: watching America so badly damaged, the principles she stands for so abandoned and harmed by the crooks who have duped the republican voters, is harming countless people and really, the human race. Just today, the right of Habeus Corpus, sometimes called the fundamental civil right in the United States, was destroyed by the republicans when the bill was signed letting Bush hold anyone, citizen or not, in prison without trial as long as he wants.
Real Americans would fight that theft of our rights hard. And like our founding fathers who fought the same things that threaten our society now, the excessive concentration of power and wealth harming the average citizen and their basic rights, they'd be angry. In every bad government I've seen, from Stalin to Mao to Kim to Hitler, there have been citizens who opposed the evil and others who actually support it. I see the republicans now supporting the evil threatening our nation.
That anger is patriotism against the threat to our nation's principles. I understand many good people are simply fooled into the wrong side, you too Rainsford when younger, but harm they do. I"m angered by injustice, needless suffering, lies, and the modern republican party has all of those and more. It should say something that some of our most relevant challenges to modern republicans come from the words of past republicans.
I'll recommend a book for republicans who want to hear 'the other side', and maybe recorver: Thom Hartmann's 'Screwed', about the war on the middle class.
The modern republican party self-description has nothing to do with their actual policies, and everything to do with marketing.
It's a crude marketing technique, things like equating support for 'self-reliance' with the party.
It's just code words for the propaganda; what does 'self-reliance' have to do with companies paying off the republicans for the right to pollute, for example? Nothing. It's just a slogan to get people to say they like self-reliance, so they must be a republican, and they vote that way. It's got that little dig, too, at the democrats' very successful programs for helping people to help themselves that some resent.
You saw through the nonsense - good for you. I think the democrats, who are the party that represents 90% of Americans' interests, need to help more see past that.
I can post thousands of messages and recommend great books, but the kool aid is strong in most who have drunk it.
As for angry liberals - you could say that, I guess: watching America so badly damaged, the principles she stands for so abandoned and harmed by the crooks who have duped the republican voters, is harming countless people and really, the human race. Just today, the right of Habeus Corpus, sometimes called the fundamental civil right in the United States, was destroyed by the republicans when the bill was signed letting Bush hold anyone, citizen or not, in prison without trial as long as he wants.
Real Americans would fight that theft of our rights hard. And like our founding fathers who fought the same things that threaten our society now, the excessive concentration of power and wealth harming the average citizen and their basic rights, they'd be angry. In every bad government I've seen, from Stalin to Mao to Kim to Hitler, there have been citizens who opposed the evil and others who actually support it. I see the republicans now supporting the evil threatening our nation.
That anger is patriotism against the threat to our nation's principles. I understand many good people are simply fooled into the wrong side, you too Rainsford when younger, but harm they do. I"m angered by injustice, needless suffering, lies, and the modern republican party has all of those and more. It should say something that some of our most relevant challenges to modern republicans come from the words of past republicans.
I'll recommend a book for republicans who want to hear 'the other side', and maybe recorver: Thom Hartmann's 'Screwed', about the war on the middle class.
When's the last time a Republican took responsibility for anything?
Foley ("Oh, a Priest molested me. No wait, it's the alcohol!")
When's the last time a Republican cared squat for America, in general, instead of the corporation keeping him in office?
I'm sorry, but I think that anyone who can claim that the Repubs are working for the best interest of the people and the country needs their meds changed.
I guess I don't mean that to be as smartassed as it may sound, but when I consider how little evidence there is to support such a stance, and the mountain of evidence that exists to disprove it, I don't see how any rational person could make that claim.
I guess I don't mean that to be as smartassed as it may sound, but when I consider how little evidence there is to support such a stance, and the mountain of evidence that exists to disprove it, I don't see how any rational person could make that claim.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
There is a book out there called "Scandal: How "Gotcha" Politics Is Destroying America " by Lanny Davis of all people.
A summary of the book
I think you see "gotcha politics" right here on P&N all the time. A lot of the people just post insults and cute little combinations of frowns and thumps down as if it is a way of having a real debate. Very few people on here actually take the time to try and read other peoples posts and try to understand what they are saying.
Craig234 (who is a flaming liberal) and myself (a flaming conservative) actually have some very good give and take on topics because we don't engage in the personal attacks and politics of destruction.
As far as the "fear of losing another election" don't expect anyone to admit to that.
Witness this exchange on Wolf Blitzer's show
Wolfe: A lot of people are saying this, Donna: If you and the Democrats can't win the House at least, maybe even the Senate this time, you might as well forget about being in Democratic Party because you've got so much going for you right now.
Donna Brazile: The truth is that we still have a number of competitive races. While the political landscape now favor a generic Democratic candidate, we still have to slug it out until the end zone in all these key congressional raises. So this is a good year for Democrats, but we still have to turn out our votes.
Notice she totally avoided the question and went into some talk points driven speech.
A summary of the book
I think you see "gotcha politics" right here on P&N all the time. A lot of the people just post insults and cute little combinations of frowns and thumps down as if it is a way of having a real debate. Very few people on here actually take the time to try and read other peoples posts and try to understand what they are saying.
Craig234 (who is a flaming liberal) and myself (a flaming conservative) actually have some very good give and take on topics because we don't engage in the personal attacks and politics of destruction.
As far as the "fear of losing another election" don't expect anyone to admit to that.
Witness this exchange on Wolf Blitzer's show
Wolfe: A lot of people are saying this, Donna: If you and the Democrats can't win the House at least, maybe even the Senate this time, you might as well forget about being in Democratic Party because you've got so much going for you right now.
Donna Brazile: The truth is that we still have a number of competitive races. While the political landscape now favor a generic Democratic candidate, we still have to slug it out until the end zone in all these key congressional raises. So this is a good year for Democrats, but we still have to turn out our votes.
Notice she totally avoided the question and went into some talk points driven speech.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
If you read through this thread, you will find that the OP was proven to be correct.
People didn't like what the OP stated and resorted to insults and crying troll.
I'm sorry, is Foley still in office? When was the last time you even saw him in public? Don't you think losing his job and his career is taking responsibility? But besides that, how about:
"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said. link from the "evil" news organization.
The real point of the OP's thread, IMHO, is that this forum's postings have turned to a ridiculous staging ground of Bush bashing. Just about every thread within a post or two is angry chat - be it for or against the Bush Administration. If there were even 10% of postings talking about real issues that were not complete slander and had substance beyond "Why is Bush so stupid" I would probably actually spend some more time posting here...
A perfect example.... People around here would rather run around screaming and yelling at the top of their lungs towards anyone with an (R) next to their name (which I have *actually* experienced, at work even), than come together and, oh I don't know, maybe find ground that everyone agrees on and get the government to do something about it?
Oh well...rant over. See you all in 2 years.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Actually this forum is just a giant pissing match. Those who dislike Bush and the status quo just happen to out number those who like Bush and the direction he has led this country 20 to 1. If it bothers you just find another forum where the numbers are the opposite.
I agree, her response was sort of weird, but that might be because Wolf Blitzer's question was pretty stupid. Like most elections, this one is turning into the election to end all elections for all time. If the Dems come out on top, they'll be crowing about how the Republican revolution is dead in the water, if the Republicans win we'll be subjected to months of jeering about how the polls were wrong again and the Dems are "out of step". What neither side will notice is that 2008 is only 2 years away, and promises to be a very different race than 2006...which was different than 2004. A Democratic success in 2006 in no way means victory in 2008, a Republican victory in 2006 doesn't mean they'll stay in power past 2008. This notion of a point after which one side holds power forever is deeply flawed.
Of course she SHOULD have said that instead of that silly speech. But she did make an important point that Dems missed in 2004. The landscape of politics now supports, as it did in 2004, a generic Democrat. But once you have a real live Democrat running, the results can be quite different. Kerry was expected to beat Bush, in part, because polling before he was nominated suggested the majority of voters would rather have "a Democrat" than Bush as President. The problem was that this allowed people to construct their ideal Democrat without paying attention to the bad things such a candidate might bring to the table. So those results weren't very reflective of what actually happened when Kerry ran.
Have you read your own post? You seem DAMN angry, bitter, and you are trying to provoke people... Plus, you seem to be into conspiracies like a "liberal media" etc...
When Evangelicals attack. :laugh:
Keith is angry because it was just revealed that Cheney and those other devil worshippers laugh at the Bible thumpers all the time. They sit around and make jokes about them. And because Ralph Reed got caught.
When Evangelical, Holier than Thou hypocrit crooks get caught it is so much fun!
Keith is angry because it was just revealed that Cheney and those other devil worshippers laugh at the Bible thumpers all the time. They sit around and make jokes about them. And because Ralph Reed got caught.
When Evangelical, Holier than Thou hypocrit crooks get caught it is so much fun!
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
I agree OP, the libs were like this right before "that guy" that ran against Bush and lost in 2K4.
Krakn3Dfx
Platinum Member
- Sep 29, 2000
- 2,969
- 1
- 81
Most useless port ever.
DEMs are mad, sure. Not for any reason you think about or take into consideration. We're mad because our economy is in the dumper, foreclosures are at an all-time high, job numbers are pathetic, we're suffering through a war that should have never been started, our public education system is the worst it's been...ever, and No Child Left Behind has set us back 40 years, we're in danger of losing social security for those who need it or will need it, our healthcare system is in shambles, do I need to go on? Bush has done nothing, absolutely NOTHING to advance this country, and has in most cases set us back decades. He didn't do it alone, but nothing he's done has improved any of those situations.
So yes, we're mad, but it's because of your ignorance and lack of ability to actually care about the direction this country is heading in, not because we didn't win in 2000 or in 2004, or because we might not win in 2006 or 2008, but because every time we don't win, it just shows how much lazier and self-centered this nation has become as a whole.
You'll get what you deserve, the rest of us will just have to deal with it.
DEMs are mad, sure. Not for any reason you think about or take into consideration. We're mad because our economy is in the dumper, foreclosures are at an all-time high, job numbers are pathetic, we're suffering through a war that should have never been started, our public education system is the worst it's been...ever, and No Child Left Behind has set us back 40 years, we're in danger of losing social security for those who need it or will need it, our healthcare system is in shambles, do I need to go on? Bush has done nothing, absolutely NOTHING to advance this country, and has in most cases set us back decades. He didn't do it alone, but nothing he's done has improved any of those situations.
So yes, we're mad, but it's because of your ignorance and lack of ability to actually care about the direction this country is heading in, not because we didn't win in 2000 or in 2004, or because we might not win in 2006 or 2008, but because every time we don't win, it just shows how much lazier and self-centered this nation has become as a whole.
You'll get what you deserve, the rest of us will just have to deal with it.
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
If your head and your heart don't work in unison, then you are one messed up individual. I'm 26, and I turned liberal around the time I stopped listening to my elders and paid attention to politics for myself. And I've begun to understand a simple thing. In order for me to become conservative I'd have to do two things. 1) completely disregard all morals and concern for humanity and thus become a heartless empty husk of a man. And 2) I'd have to drop my IQ a minimum of 58 pt, because so long as I maintain an IQ over 100 I'm too intelligent to vote conservative.
Everything I do in life takes into account both my head and my heart, it's one of those things that makes me a human.
I guess that any American who doesn't agree with everything the ruling party does should just bend over and take it while not complaining. That is, after all, why this country was founded. Complete and total domination by the ruling party with no say, no right to be angry, and no freedom to express it.
Furthermore, I am a conservative and I am pissed. Why? Because the tools of the "republicans" hijacked my party, my ideals, and my government to turn it into a neo-fascist quasi religious power grab intent on shackeling the future of this country to endless wars and bottomless pits of debt.
Call yourself whatever you want hellokeith, but don't besmirch my party by calling yourself a Republican. If you want to be a social conservative, take any other name. Here's a few you can try out.
Despotarian
Subjugatarian
Fearmonger
Tyrranical Majority (or minority)
Xenophobe
Bed wetter (war on fear...ohhh noes!)
Or any other name for somebody who is so afraid of the unknown that you have to beg for protection or beat it with a stick.
Furthermore, I am a conservative and I am pissed. Why? Because the tools of the "republicans" hijacked my party, my ideals, and my government to turn it into a neo-fascist quasi religious power grab intent on shackeling the future of this country to endless wars and bottomless pits of debt.
Call yourself whatever you want hellokeith, but don't besmirch my party by calling yourself a Republican. If you want to be a social conservative, take any other name. Here's a few you can try out.
Despotarian
Subjugatarian
Fearmonger
Tyrranical Majority (or minority)
Xenophobe
Bed wetter (war on fear...ohhh noes!)
Or any other name for somebody who is so afraid of the unknown that you have to beg for protection or beat it with a stick.
(International Machine Consortium - it appears you did not pay attention to my responses in the two threads about the evangelical subject. I suggest you go back and respond to me in those threads instead of being off topic in this one.)
Shadow9d9 - Can you highlight which words or phrases in my original post you took as "angry, bitter, and provoking"?
(On your other point, I'm unsure there is even any point in discussing media bias. IMO, it has been shown many times over that the majority of the media is left liberal biased, but even if it could be proven, the libs would never accept the evidence. This is kinda off topic also, but I'd be open for a discussion on it in another thread.)
Red Dawn - Interesting point. Wouldn't it stand to reason that Libs in a forum minority would be more agitated? Or are Libs all just aggrevated and it doesn't matter the ratio?
LegendKiller - I don't believe I've ever called myself a Republican. I'd have to look back through all my threads, but I'm pretty sure I've only ever stood up for conservative and Christian values and not the Republican party per se.
Shadow9d9 - Can you highlight which words or phrases in my original post you took as "angry, bitter, and provoking"?
(On your other point, I'm unsure there is even any point in discussing media bias. IMO, it has been shown many times over that the majority of the media is left liberal biased, but even if it could be proven, the libs would never accept the evidence. This is kinda off topic also, but I'd be open for a discussion on it in another thread.)
Red Dawn - Interesting point. Wouldn't it stand to reason that Libs in a forum minority would be more agitated? Or are Libs all just aggrevated and it doesn't matter the ratio?
LegendKiller - I don't believe I've ever called myself a Republican. I'd have to look back through all my threads, but I'm pretty sure I've only ever stood up for conservative and Christian values and not the Republican party per se.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter