NationStates Jolt Archive

WOW, I think we should all tape this thing and watch it later for laughs.

-=Sarcasm=-
Oh yeah, sure, Bush flew the planes into the Twin Towers with a remote-control, thats why he didnt scare the shit outta those kids screaming "OH MY GOD, WE'RE GOING TO WAR AND A BUNCH OF PEOPLE JUST DIED!!!!!!" instead of calmly continuing to read a book to them because he knew it was going to happen..... and Saddam Hussein was no threat to America. Neither was Osama Bin Laden, seeing as how he didn't plan 9/11 and such....
-=Sarcasm=-

Osama was a threat to America, but Saddam wasn't which is why there is a bit of confusion as to why there was an invasion of Iraq rather than a full commitment to finding Osama..

the dems will do anything to overthrow the republic including the propagation of false hoods.
Doesn't surprise me.
I mean if you look at they've done for the last decade, they do nothing but engage in personal attacks and insults.
They havent done anything contributive to solving our nations problems.
They had the whtie house for 8 years.
The environment got worse.
The FBI and ATF was used in the same manner as Mussolini used the Gestapo.
If you were preacher and you said Clinton was a bad person during a sermon, you were arrested and your church seized by the administration.
A couple of soverign nations in Europe were attacked with out cause.
He threatened to bomb Russia over Chechnya, even though the Chechens were terrorists (talking about the ones doing the kidnappings)
Their General, Wesley Clark, almost started World War III be ordering an attack on Russian forces. The only reason he didn't succeed is cause of quick thinking by the British commander who refused his order.

I swear, if you think that the democrats arent weird, turn to C-SPAN and watch them dancing to "Johnny B. Good"

I swear, if you think that the democrats arent weird, turn to C-SPAN and watch them dancing to "Johnny B. Good"
No way...dinner needs to stay down tonight.

switches from Fox to C span.

Hmm. Jerry Springer will run for gov of Ohio
interesting.

ignore whittier he is on the least intelligent part of the radical right

ignore whittier he is on the least intelligent part of the radical right
says some one who hates america.
dumb liberals.

Hmm. Jerry Springer will run for gov of Ohio
interesting.
Makes you wonder what kind of voter he's aiming at...

Makes you wonder what kind of voter he's aiming at...
good question.

hell, at least he aint far left... Oh f*ck, here we go with the Healthcare argument again.... they were in office last two times and didnt do anything bout healthcare...

hell, at least he aint far left... Oh f*ck, here we go with the Healthcare argument again.... they were in office last two times and didnt do anything bout healthcare...

Wasn't Congress dominated by Repbulicans? Hmmmmm

Wasn't Congress dominated by Repbulicans? Hmmmmm
during the time of the healthcare debate, both the white house and congress was in Democrat hands

the dems will do anything to overthrow the republic including the propagation of false hoods.
Doesn't surprise me.
I mean if you look at they've done for the last decade, they do nothing but engage in personal attacks and insults.
They havent done anything contributive to solving our nations problems.
They had the whtie house for 8 years.
The environment got worse.
The FBI and ATF was used in the same manner as Mussolini used the Gestapo.
If you were preacher and you said Clinton was a bad person during a sermon, you were arrested and your church seized by the administration.
A couple of soverign nations in Europe were attacked with out cause.
He threatened to bomb Russia over Chechnya, even though the Chechens were terrorists (talking about the ones doing the kidnappings)
Their General, Wesley Clark, almost started World War III be ordering an attack on Russian forces. The only reason he didn't succeed is cause of quick thinking by the British commander who refused his order.

Now I'm laughing my ass off. Do you do parties?

during the time of the healthcare debate, both the white house and congress was in Democrat hands
That would be the time of "Hillarycare", which would have put the government in charge of 1/7 of the US economy, and the government would have been able to tell medical students what specialties they could go into.

Hmmmm, wasn't there a country that did that, from 1917 to 1991?

The radical right is an oxymoron. Radical means far left...reactionary means far right...so to say it correctly it would be Reactionary Right.

during the time of the healthcare debate, both the white house and congress was in Democrat hands
that long ago?

ignore whittier he is on the least intelligent part of the radical right

Now where would the fun be in that? I mean, just look at what immediately followed your post!

says some one who hates america.
dumb liberals.

He's like a living Tom Tomorrow caricature! How delightful!

He's not half the tragic clown that Savage was today - his contributions were ridiculing a number of Democratic female politicians for being fat (oh, the irony of a chubby man making fun of chubby women) and throwing out snide one-liners. Then there was Laura Ingrams, who made the idiotic statement that Michael Moore is solely responsible for degrading the political scene to the point where a potential First-Lady tells a reporter to "Shove it" (Um, "Go f-ck yourself," anyone?). LEt's see, how long has Father Limbaugh been preaching his drivel and spitting his bile? Oh yeah, about a decade now, and about twice as long as Moore's been in the public eye. She may as well have been jumping up and down yelling, "The kettle is black! The kettle is black!"

I tell you, it was a full moon over the fanatic right today...

Now I'm laughing my ass off. Do you do parties?
the only party I do is Republican, thank you.
:)

Meh, believe what you want. However, from what I've seen, it's the neo-con republicans that engage in nothing but personal attacks and wedge politics. And when you have them out-debated, they call you un-American, un-patriotic and a leftist wacko. Reason I know, personal experience with family and other people. I also don't subcribe to the republican belief of favoring big buisness over the middle and lower class, nor do I like the so called moralism that the party preaches. I find what Jimmy Carter said in the Convention to be very true and very good. Kerry is not my favorite, I supported Kucinich, actually, but Kerry represents the working class interests more then Bush could ever be able to.

that long ago?
during the first half of the 90's

Meh, believe what you want. However, from what I've seen, it's the neo-con republicans that engage in nothing but personal attacks and wedge politics. And when you have them out-debated, they call you un-American, un-patriotic and a leftist wacko. Reason I know, personal experience with family and other people. I also don't subcribe to the republican belief of favoring big buisness over the middle and lower class, nor do I like the so called moralism that the party preaches. I find what Jimmy Carter said in the Convention to be very true and very good. Kerry is not my favorite, I supported Kucinich, actually, but Kerry represents the working class interests more then Bush could ever be able to.
we don't put big business over the little guy.
my experience is its the dems who do all the personal attacks, and wedge politics.

during the first half of the 90's
1993 and 1994...which led to the Newt Gingrich-led Republican revolution, thanks to the Contract with America.

Y'know what...we need a new Contract with America.

the only party I do is Republican, thank you.
:)

How does it feel to follow, anyway? I've always wondered about that, perhaps you could enlighten me...

my experience is its the dems who do all the personal attacks, and wedge politics.

Yeah, like how they eat up most of AM radio with all those personal...oh, wait, that's not them, now is it? I love how the extremist right always talks about "angry liberals" when 75% of talk radio consists of neocons doing just what you, Whittier, are complaining about.

Oh, that's right, they're on the right side, so it's ok...

How does it feel to follow, anyway? I've always wondered about that, perhaps you could enlighten me...


Don't fool yourself, you already know. A good 80% of this board is Liberal, if you weren't a "follower" then why do you join the others in jumping on one of the few conservatives to post on this board?

I'm sure you'll come up with something witty, can't wait to see what it is.

there is a problem with this preemptive war stuff.

Yeah, like how they eat up most of AM radio with all those personal...oh, wait, that's not them, now is it? I love how the extremist right always talks about "angry liberals" when 75% of talk radio consists of neocons doing just what you, Whittier, are complaining about.

Oh, that's right, they're on the right side, so it's ok...
You really don't want to go there, do you? Err America is full of vitriol and hate, as is Michael Moore, as is Algore, as is most of Hollywood. We can spend hours posting actual quotes from actual lefties spewing tons of hate and vitriol, just from 2003 to today.

You? You have Michael Savage for quotes "from the right."

Don't make this easier than it already is for me.

What about the pulling out of the Kyoto Protocols? Why is Bush trying to take away Over Time Pay? What about the expansion of NAFTA? (Yes, Bill Clinton did sign this in, his biggest mistake) What about this war? What about gutting the EPA Clean Air and Clean Water Acts? Why is our military budget about $400 billion a year, but our soilders are not being well supplied or trained, and yet GE, Raytheon and other Defense Contractors get the money to build weapons of war and space defence? What about the Republican blocking of universal health care? What about the Republicans campaigning against the GI bill in the 1940's? What about the Tea Pot Dome Scandal? I can go on and on...During the depression, J.P. Morgan said "Who cares about the working man?" One of Esienhower's officals said "What's good for GE is good for America."

Don't fool yourself, you already know. A good 80% of this board is Liberal, if you weren't a "follower" then why do you join the others in jumping on one of the few conservatives to post on this board?

I'm sure you'll come up with something witty, can't wait to see what it is.
anyone else notice how the right always pretends they are the minority and accuse the liberals of harassing them in every single statement they make ,whether it has anything or not to do with the statement

there is 2 thigns you can be sure of about the radical right, they are delusional and hypocritical

I'm sorry, but liberals wont have a argument after this one word: Seattle. Just look at the damn place, THEY HAVE HUGE INFLATED PENISES STROLLING DOWN THE STREET, AND MOTHERS BRING THEIR CHILDREN TO WATCH THEM!!

too conservative for this board
too liberal for certain republican groups (they're upset cause I said there are cases in women shouldn't be second guessed on abortion, and govt. shouldn't ban gay marriage, not to mention my support for federal funding of public schools, not to mention I told some rich fellow to f off when he insisted I support closing all public schools in return for his support)

You dirty republican.

Last time I watched one of Bush's unsuccessful jabs at public speaking, I nearly wet myself.

anyone else notice how the right always pretends they are the minority and accuse the liberals of harassing them in every single statement they make ,whether it has anything or not to do with the statement

there is 2 thigns you can be sure of about the radical right, they are delusional and hypocritical
you are harrassing conservatives

Chess, do me a favor and look up the political meaning of the word radical and right. Using them together is an oxymoron.

Don't fool yourself, you already know. A good 80% of this board is Liberal, if you weren't a "follower" then why do you join the others in jumping on one of the few conservatives to post on this board?

I'm sure you'll come up with something witty, can't wait to see what it is.

Oh, indeed, I will - such as pointing out that I'm mocking his pride in a party affiliation, not which party that happens to be. I see such a party as something for a fool who needs to be told who to vote for and where to stand on the issues. I'm an independent (actually a liberal Libertarian in belief), and I find the dichotomous would which you perceive to be quite humorous - keep it up. ;)

says some one who hates america.
dumb liberals.

I do certainly hope that you're not one of those types that think anyone that isn't right...hates America.

-=Sarcasm=-
Oh yeah, sure, Bush flew the planes into the Twin Towers with a remote-control, thats why he didnt scare the shit outta those kids screaming "OH MY GOD, WE'RE GOING TO WAR AND A BUNCH OF PEOPLE JUST DIED!!!!!!" instead of calmly continuing to read a book to them because he knew it was going to happen..... and Saddam Hussein was no threat to America. Neither was Osama Bin Laden, seeing as how he didn't plan 9/11 and such....
-=Sarcasm=-

For the ignorant far left morons that think Bush planned the 9/11 attacks...let's just ignore them. Children shouldn't have a say in political matters, and thus should be ignored. On the other hand, Saddam was in no means a threat to the American people. He was only a threat to his own people, kind of like all the other dictators in this world that haven't gotten any attention from Mr. Bush.

....there are cases in women shouldn't be second guessed on abortion, and govt. shouldn't ban gay marriage, not to mention my support for federal funding of public schools, not to mention I told some rich fellow to f off when he insisted I support closing all public schools in return for his support)
Whittier you are just a Commie Pinko :D

You say that children shouldnt have a say in political matters, yet i'm only 15 years of age... explain yourself... did you mean, immature paranoid liberal fools, or children?

Oh, indeed, I will - such as pointing out that I'm mocking his pride in a party affiliation, not which party that happens to be. I see such a party as something for a fool who needs to be told who to vote for and where to stand on the issues. I'm an independent (actually a liberal Libertarian in belief), and I find the dichotomous would which you perceive to be quite humorous - keep it up. ;)

Ah, got it. I've seen too many of the liberal piranah's just jump on the one or two conservatives that have the guts to jump into the fray on these boards.

So tell me, how do you subsidise (god damn my spelling is bad, too lazy to look the word up though) lower income families while keeping the government out of their lives? Asking because I've never spoken to a liberal libertarian before.

You really don't want to go there, do you? Err America is full of vitriol and hate, as is Michael Moore, as is Algore, as is most of Hollywood. We can spend hours posting actual quotes from actual lefties spewing tons of hate and vitriol, just from 2003 to today.

You? You have Michael Savage for quotes "from the right."

Don't make this easier than it already is for me.

I could care less about your partisan crap, Panny. I know you're on a little rightist crusade, and I look down on you just like the rest of the sheep, right or left. You just happen to have the bozo in office right now, and I happen to have been listening to your Champions of the AM dial all day today calling the kettle black the same way as good Whittier here. You two just keep synchronously ignoring and producing irony, and we'll all be fine.

you are harrassing conservatives
only in reply to them harassing liberals in every post they make just to harass liberals, notice how i only bash conservatives in the proper thread and posts

Oh, indeed, I will - such as pointing out that I'm mocking his pride in a party affiliation, not which party that happens to be. I see such a party as something for a fool who needs to be told who to vote for and where to stand on the issues. I'm an independent (actually a liberal Libertarian in belief), and I find the dichotomous would which you perceive to be quite humorous - keep it up. ;)
that's a valid point.

Chess, do me a favor and look up the political meaning of the word radical and right. Using them together is an oxymoron.
not unless you get into specific definitions of the word radical, using it in a generality to mean someone strictly agaisnt the norm

I do certainly hope that you're not one of those types that think anyone that isn't right...hates America.



For the ignorant far left morons that think Bush planned the 9/11 attacks...let's just ignore them. Children shouldn't have a say in political matters, and thus should be ignored. On the other hand, Saddam was in no means a threat to the American people. He was only a threat to his own people, kind of like all the other dictators in this world that haven't gotten any attention from Mr. Bush.
I agree

But you're using it politically. Or do you mean right as in the guy on the right of you physically?

Politically it means someone to the FAR LEFT...so what you're saying is FAR LEFT RIGHT...which means...uh...moderates I guess.

Last time I watched one of Bush's unsuccessful jabs at public speaking, I nearly wet myself.

I nearly spilled my drink...we'd turned Presidential addresses into drinking games. Quite entertaining - the rhetoric makes for great drinking rules and the inadvertant humor he creates keeps the mood light so we can stomach what he has to say. A good time is often had by all.

Anbar, you going to answer my question?

I'm honestly interested in the point of view.

I could care less about your partisan crap, Panny. I know you're on a little rightist crusade, and I look down on you just like the rest of the sheep, right or left. You just happen to have the bozo in office right now, and I happen to have been listening to your Champions of the AM dial all day today calling the kettle black the same way as good Whittier here. You two just keep synchronously ignoring and producing irony, and we'll all be fine.
It would have been faster for you to type "I give up," but I will accept that.

But you're using it politically. Or do you mean right as in the guy on the right of you physically?

Politically it means someone to the FAR LEFT...so what you're saying is FAR LEFT RIGHT...which means...uh...moderates I guess.Not at all...

"Radical" simply means ..."favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions." Radicalness can be associated with either left or right.

I suspect you are confusing it with conservative--most neocons are actually radicals of the rightist persuasion not wanting so much to conserve society but to remake it to conform to their ideals. They eschew the radical label however, preferring to delude themselves as well as others.

Ah, got it. I've seen too many of the liberal piranah's just jump on the one or two conservatives that have the guts to jump into the fray on these boards.

So tell me, how do you subsidise (god damn my spelling is bad, too lazy to look the word up though) lower income families while keeping the government out of their lives? Asking because I've never spoken to a liberal libertarian before.

Good question, that's one of those grey areas. As such, I'll just say this: A balance must be struck in all things, and on that belief I make my decisions. The government should not hand out money free of strings (after all, it is the government's money), but at the same time, some families do need support and should be able to get it without the government gaining control over them or in a large way dictating their lives. Usually I watch the politicians to see whose plan balances between these two the best. If you're getting government money, you will have to have some intrusion, but it should be limited to to the point which keeps the government's money from being wasted.

Hope that helps - as you can see, I'm divided on the issue myself.

Not at all...

"Radical" simply means ..."favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions." Radicalness can be associated with either left or right.

I suspect you are confusing it with conservative--most neocons are actually radicals of the rightist persuasion not wanting so much to conserve society but to remake it to conform to their ideals. They eschew the radical label however, preferring to delude themselves as well as others.


So you're saying my college proffessors were wrong and so were my text books? Okay, so if change (IE. favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.) can be conservative...which is wierd because I thought conservatives where against change...then what does Reactionary mean politically?

Good question, that's one of those grey areas. As such, I'll just say this: A balance must be struck in all things, and on that belief I make my decisions. The government should not hand out money free of strings (after all, it is the government's money), but at the same time, some families do need support and should be able to get it without the government gaining control over them or in a large way dictating their lives. Usually I watch the politicians to see whose plan balances between these two the best. If you're getting government money, you will have to have some intrusion, but it should be limited to to the point which keeps the government's money from being wasted.

Hope that helps - as you can see, I'm divided on the issue myself.


Alright, and I actually agree with that...damn, all this time thinking I was a moderate while all along I had some liberal libertarian in me.

So you're saying my college proffessors were wrong and so were my text books? Okay, so if change (IE. favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.) can be conservative...which is wierd because I thought conservatives where against change...then what does Reactionary mean politically?
you want to quote the definition of radicla out of your text book where it says it specifically, no paraphrasing now

*Puts on head phones and blairs the USSR anthem blocking out the voices of annoying republican commentators.*

C-span time!

;)

you want to quote the definition of radicla out of your text book where it says it specifically, no paraphrasing now


Yeah, let me go back ten years and see if I can buy back the used book I sold.

Actually, the guy put up a chart. I'll try to use what means I can to demonstrate it for you.



Radical-------------------Moderate-----------------------Reactionary
l------------------------------l-----------------------------l
-----------Liberal-------------------------conservative


Basically, what I was taught was that Radical's where people to the far left. And the definition that was given was very similar to what Rubina wrote, "favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions" which are basically people who want massive change (IE. Leftists) where as Reactionarys want to revert back to how things were in the past.


EDIT-Hope the chart looks better now.

It's not terribly rewarding to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. Or an unarmed army of such, to wit the appallingly dumb thundering voting cattle herds of the US. Yeehaw, Mr. Whittier. Keep up the jingoistic verbal diarrhea and Europe-bashing on a board evidently hosted in England. Details aren't your kinds' forte, are they? Attacking IraQ when the actual WMDs were being readied in IraN...oops, did Mr. Rove forget to hit spell-check? (Aw, shucks, who needs all that commie grammar stuff anyway. Not usns in the Ozarks, we got this here Bible and that's the only darn readin' we'll ever need. Also real handy for whackin' any of those terrorist liberals over the head if any should ever stray into our neck of the woods. Ain't no difference between all them camel-jockeys, anyway, and my grampa says they's responsible for Dale Earnhard's crash. There-ifn that ain't reason enough to blow the sh*t outta their backwards-assed desert, I don't know what is.) Thank you for restoring my faith in this board, however, Neusia; from looking at it for a couple of days I could have sworn it was frequented predominantly by war-mongers and rabid US Republicans. Perhaps I'll keep reading, eagerly awaiting word from the 80% other-than. (Where art thou?) I am already blown away that anyone actually follows the Convention. I had been under the impression it was an anachronism so boring not even US networks can be bothered to cover it (small surprise, they're all owned by Disney) and the outcome of which was a foregone conclusion. Perhaps it is entertaining to listen to someone else's "falsehoods" for a change. Fox and its lockstep brethren networks sure are neither a source of information nor are they entertaining. I remain intrigued, however, Mr. Whittier, about Democrat "false hoods." More to the point, what is a right hood? Is that where you live?
;) Oh, calm down. Peace, dude. This is what happens in free discourse. Not that Americans would know much about that anymore.

So you're saying my college proffessors were wrong and so were my text books? Okay, so if change (IE. favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.) can be conservative...which is wierd because I thought conservatives where against change...then what does Reactionary mean politically?

I suspect you just didn't pay attention... like you didn't just now. You issued an ultimatum to quit using the word radical in relation to the political right. I pointed out that you were confusing conservative with right[wing] (they aren't equivalent, you know) and that 'radical' can be applied to either left or right philosophies. You continue to confuse the terminology. You fail.

It would have been faster for you to type "I give up," but I will accept that.

No...actually, my point that Limbaugh has been degrading politics long before Moore and the currect line of extremist Bush-haters still stands quite strong. Your point that I am somehow doing exactly what I am commenting on, however, has been invalidated - hence, I concede nothing. It's completely wrong, in that I am not trying to say that the Dems have any kind of purity in this area. Indeed, both parties have been at each others' heels for many, many decades, but Limbaugh ushered in the spin and hatred we see rampant today.

I really don't see too much giving up coming from this side of my modem, but you do seem to be skirting the point. Perhaps you were choosing to save yourself some time?

Yeah, let me go back ten years and see if I can buy back the used book I sold.

Actually, the guy put up a chart. I'll try to use what means I can to demonstrate it for you.



Radical-------------------Moderate-----------------------Reactionary
l------------------------------l-----------------------------l
-----------Liberal-------------------------conservative


Basically, what I was taught was that Radical's where people to the far left. And the definition that was given was very similar to what Rubina wrote, "favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions" which are basically people who want massive change (IE. Leftists) where as Reactionarys want to revert back to how things were in the past.


EDIT-Hope the chart looks better now.

if thats what reactionary is then the radical right are radical, no treactionary. i dont recall the us government being a theocracy or deciding the freedom fo speech, press, and assembly were undeserved and shouldnt exist if it is against the GOP

Lincornia, your post looks interesting but it's hard to read. Can you try to put it in paragraph form?

From what I can gather you're stereotyping American's and I saw my name and Whittier's in there but I couldn't decifer it.

Double post

Alright, and I actually agree with that...damn, all this time thinking I was a moderate while all along I had some liberal libertarian in me.

Well, when you contrast the Libertarianism I believe in compared to that of Ayn Rand, it's a pretty moderate position overall, really. I've just never seen the merit to the arguments of "X side has never done any good in this country!" It seems both sides have always both contributed to the whole and tempered each other, and after how many years of a two party system, I don't see how anyone could believe that one of the two has always been completely worthless. It just doesn't make any sense logically, and I prefer to vote for what I like in both when I see it.

The media coverage just kind of scares me...the CNN people reviewing it with such praise and analysis...you'd think it was a basketball tourney rather than a convention. They should cut the crap and just allow us to draw our own conclusions...they had better not do the same at the Republican convention.

It's alright, mostly...I noticed Bill Clinton saying '...making the economy better for middle-class Americans...,' which is kind of strange - how can you expect a wonderful, thriving economy if you're only going to help the middle and lower classes? Large corporations drive this economy, after all.

I suspect you just didn't pay attention... like you didn't just now. You issued an ultimatum to quit using the word radical in relation to the political right. I pointed out that you were confusing conservative with right[wing] (they aren't equivalent, you know) and that 'radical' can be applied to either left or right philosophies. You continue to confuse the terminology. You fail.


Well Rubina, I did pay attention. Very close attention. Right and Conservative and left and Liberal is the same thing. What you're trying to say is that you can actually have a conservative (true conservative, not Republican conservative which is actually like a hair to the right of Democratic Libralism) to on the left of center. But you can't. Conservatives don't want change, Liberals want change, Radicals what massive change while Reactionaries want to go back to the way things were in the past.

Now the titles differ according to the culture, for instance...in a communist country Conservatives support the ruling communist party while the liberals want something less than that. So while Communism is far left in the US, in that country it is actually far right.

Get it?

Large corporations drive this economy, after all.
Does that give them the right to abuse the environment to breaking point, as has so clearly been represented with the deregulation policies of Bush's Administration?

Theres a line we need to draw. And the Democrats draw it perfectly - The Economy under Clinton was better than under Bush.

You know how this thread reads to me? Like a whole lot of right-wingers real worried about the democrats taking back the White House, can't say I blame them, if I was right-wing, after tonight's materful speeches by Gore, Carter and mostly Clinton, I might be worried too! :cool:

*starts crying* I missed the Clinton speach. *smaks forhead*. I just lost track of time here on my computer and forgot to switch on the TV.

The radical right is an oxymoron. Radical means far left...reactionary means far right...so to say it correctly it would be Reactionary Right.

Well, I consider myself a radical moderate. ;)

Thought the speeches tonight were pretty solid, Clinton's especially was awesome. Almost made me want to be a Democrat.

Nice to see Clinton give a non-wonk speech.

"Strength and wisdom are not mutually exclusive."

Well, I consider myself a radical moderate. ;)

Thought the speeches tonight were pretty solid, Clinton's especially was awesome. Almost made me want to be a Democrat.
Even people who hate him admit Clinton is a masterful speaker. The man has public speaking chops.

...The government should not hand out money free of strings (after all, it is the government's money), but at the same time, some families do need support and should be able to get it without the government gaining control over them or in a large way dictating their lives.....



Ok that is wher you are wrong Anbar.... It is NOT the government's money. It is the TAXPAYERS' money they are giving away. The money ALL Americans work hard to earn.

*starts crying* I missed the Clinton speach. *smaks forhead*. I just lost track of time here on my computer and forgot to switch on the TV.

Heh, I'm not watching, period. Savage was right about one thing - conventions are outdated. What new info can I get that I won't get from news reports tomorrow morning, or more to the point, that I didn't already know? I'm not exactly waiting around to see who gets the nomination or anything. The party celebrating gets pumped up, I suppose that's the important thing, and that seems to be the case. I really can't think of a good reason to watch, anyone care to throw any in?

I'm going for dinner, maybe I'll check back later tonight.

Clinton is an awesome speaker. I saw him give a speach on foriegn policy to a group of Arabs in Kuwait (supporting Bush's position as well) and he had the whole room standing.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, Mr. Charisma isn't the one running for President.

Well Rubina, I did pay attention. Very close attention. Right and Conservative and left and Liberal is the same thing. What you're trying to say is that you can actually have a conservative (true conservative, not Republican conservative which is actually like a hair to the right of Democratic Libralism) to on the left of center. But you can't. Conservatives don't want change, Liberals want change, Radicals what massive change while Reactionaries want to go back to the way things were in the past.

Now the titles differ according to the culture, for instance...in a communist country Conservatives support the ruling communist party while the liberals want something less than that. So while Communism is far left in the US, in that country it is actually far right.

Get it?

Hmmm. Looks like you should have paid more attention in grammar class too. As for your confused terminology... for starters "left" and "liberal" are most certainly not the same, nor are "right" and "conservative."

I thought the convention was quite good. I was impressed with Hillary and Bill, and Carter was really good. I didn't care for the entertainment part of it... and yeah... most of it was rhetoric... but it was good, and made me proud to be a democrat and an American :)

Now look at me, going on with the rhetoric myself...

Ok that is wher you are wrong Anbar.... It is NOT the government's money. It is the TAXPAYERS' money they are giving away. The money ALL Americans work hard to earn.

*Chuckles* I thought someone would bring that up, sooner or later, and it's a good point. I actually changed the wording a couple times, but came back to the words "the government" in the sense of the government being the people. The money does, indeed, belong to all of us, and like anyone who holds a collective investment, we all want to make sure it's being used properly, efficiently, and effectively. I consider the limited governmental controls I'd mentioned as being something of all of our eyes staring over the shoulders of the Welfare program. I don't mean that these controls are that of the government as a separate entity, but that those are the controls we put in place to manage the money we allocate collectively to assist those who need it (and ensure that they actually get it).

There is no doubt that both parties have done what they feel is in (emphesis on feel) the best interest of the country. Just as there can be no doubt that there is vitrol and hate directed at each other from both sides.

What apalls me is the depth to which certain fringe elements will go to. I recently found a web site that had a depiction of a 17th (I believe 17th at least) century painting called ***** eats his children. This painting shows the greek myth of the titan, father to the greek gods, eating his children in response to the fortelling that he would be deposed by his son. It's a fairly graphic depiction of a naked man, chewing on the arm of a decapitated baby. The problem was tho, someone had superimposed Bush's head onto the titan.

I think that's goes beyond the boundries, and I honestly cant remember if the same were ever perpetrated by the right against Clinton.

Meh. Didn't read all the pages, so bear with. I have but two simple things to say:

Insults and name-calling fly equally from the left as well as the right.

and: Left wing violence, right wing violence.. it's all the fucking same.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Rubina, looks like you need to take a class. We'll talk about this after you're done taking it.

Hell, I'll try to explain it one last time....I'll do it like teaching 5th grader.

Conservatives are always right of Liberals.

Liberals are always left of Conservatives.

Now...in different countries, this may mean different things.

For instance, in a communist country, supporting communism is actually a conservative position...LEFT of them are people trying to CHANGE (key words are in caps) that government to something else.

BUT! Oh, hope you get this. On the world stage...Communism is actually to the left of center...so depending on where you are looking at the sides will decide how things place on the right/left line for you. But at all times, when you want change...that's left, when you want things to stay the same that's right. Depending how much you want things to change or stay the same decides your label...Radicals want massive change...Liberals want change in general...get it yet?

You know what the definition of a compassionate conservative is? A Democrat!

They nailed it. The right is probably not too happy tonight and I can't say I blame them.

There is no doubt that both parties have done what they feel is in (emphesis on feel) the best interest of the country. Just as there can be no doubt that there is vitrol and hate directed at each other from both sides.

What apalls me is the depth to which certain fringe elements will go to. I recently found a web site that had a depiction of a 17th (I believe 17th at least) century painting called ***** eats his children. This painting shows the greek myth of the titan, father to the greek gods, eating his children in response to the fortelling that he would be deposed by his son. It's a fairly graphic depiction of a naked man, chewing on the arm of a decapitated baby. The problem was tho, someone had superimposed Bush's head onto the titan.

I think that's goes beyond the boundries, and I honestly cant remember if the same were ever perpetrated by the right against Clinton.


And this is why it is going to be tough for them to beat Bush. Most normal people can disagree with someone and not take them for Satan, but you get these types...the ones who did that change to the painting...and what it does is push away all the normal people who may want to vote against Bush.

They find it hard to agree with someone who would do something like that. And they'll end up voting for Bush just so they won't agree with those fringe elements of the left.

I can't even bring myself to argue with right-wingers right now. They are in deep denial. How can anyone argue that America is better off now than 4 years ago?

To the person who lumped Americans all together is ignorant and apathetic, I have to say that adopting the tactics of the idealology you oppose is no way to win an argument.

Chess, do me a favor and look up the political meaning of the word radical and right. Using them together is an oxymoron.
Well if you type in "radical right" for a Google search, it is amazing how many topics are listed. Carry on Chess, you are doing just fine!!

Rubina, looks like you need to take a class. ...[snippity doodah] Good try there, Neusia (does that rhyme with noisier?). You need to go back and read your own posts... you'd be surprised at how confused you've been in them.

I'd have to disagree that conventions are outdated and you can just read summaries after the fact. Neither of my two examples are from conventions but it touches on the point of why watch the speeches rather than read about them. Would it really have been the same to only read highlights of Martin Luther King Jr.'s I Have A Dream Speech? Would it have been the same to only have highlight's of JFK's inagguaration (sp?) speech. I suppose I can't say, wasn't alive then and only experience it through recording, but I certainly find watching the speech much more effective than reading bits of it. Great speakers need to be seen or at least heard. Bush is better off being paraphrased.

says some one who hates america.
dumb liberals.
How is nationalism/patriotism in any way connected with intelligence or the lack of it? Righto, laddie - I want sources, graphs and in-depth analysis.

*anticipates a lot of thumb-twiddling ahead*

Neusia... liberal does not equal left. Full stop. End. Period, as you might say.

and: Left wing violence, right wing violence.. it's all the fucking same.

Discuss amongst yourselves.
Discuss? Ok, I don't think Crass are a credible source on anything. We can't all go raise goats on a hippy commune.

the dems will do anything to overthrow the republic including the propagation of false hoods.


So will the Republicans. Frankly, so will any party in the world, either to take power or hold on to it.

I find both US parties quite apalling, though. They are pretty much the same, with just a few details different, but I think that they both are in bed with corporations and the fact that between these two they control almost all aspects of political life in the US it becomes very difficult for the common man to be heard in the highest spheres in government.

Anyway, good luck with your election. May the lesser evil win.

kerry talks about being just another American. when was the last time he worked an 8 hour day? i don't know too many americans that go any but a $264.00 meal and then don't even leave a tip for the waitress.

I hate democrats. You know black people always vote democrat because they think they're getting something out of it. When was the last time the democratic party helped them out? The democrats actually oppress blacks by increasing welfare. Back when congress passed the civil rights act republicans actually had a higher percentage who voted for it than democrats.

I refuse to watch anything where people just pat each other on the back, reaffirming their own kind, and basically accomplishing nothing. I would much rather see people speaking in from of the opposing party. That ought to liven things up a little. :D

kerry talks about being just another American. when was the last time he worked an 8 hour day? i don't know too many americans that go any but a $264.00 meal and then don't even leave a tip for the waitress.

I hate democrats. You know black people always vote democrat because they think they're getting something out of it. When was the last time the democratic party helped them out? The democrats actually oppress blacks by increasing welfare. Back when congress passed the civil rights act republicans actually had a higher percentage who voted for it than democrats.
does bush claim to be an average american? or working for american interests? i dont think bush has even met an average american since he was 10

and in the 1950s there was southern democrats. you tell me how icnreasing welfare oppresses black people, id love to hear that inane dribble