NationStates Jolt Archive

THINGS YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO BE A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him , a bad guy when Bush's
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and
a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
with China & Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all of mankind
without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary
Clinton.

The best way to improve the military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health
care to all Americans is socialism.

HMO's and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at
heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable
offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George
Bush's cocaine conviction in none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers
for your recovery.

You support states' rights, which means former Attorney General John
Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the
right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the 80's is irrelevant.


REMEMBER: Friends don't let friends vote Republican!!

That is sadly kind of true...

That's why I'm not a Republican; the way they've gone downhill over the past few years (and before that) is despicable.

Lyric, I think I love you.

Good article!

Wow, this article was sutpendusly steriotypical!

Wow, this article was sutpendusly steriotypical!

Yet entertaining!

1) You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.



2) You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand -in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.



3) You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who

can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.



4) You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and

doctors are overpaid.



5) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans

are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.



6) You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by

cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.



7) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay

is natural.



8) You have to believe that businesses create oppression and

governments create prosperity.



9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but

pasty-faced, fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.



10) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than

actually doing something to earn it.



11) You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.



12) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start

wars.



13) You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels

can't deliver the programming quality PBS does.



14) You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for

certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.



15) You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too

high.



16) You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria

Steinman are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Alva Edison.



17) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial

quotas and set-asides aren't.



18) You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than

HIV.



19) You have to believe that conservatives are racists but black people couldn't make it without your help.



20) You have to believe that the only reason democratic socialism

hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.



And for any “gun control nuts” out there, a Definition:



Gun Control -- The theory that a woman lying in a alley, naked,

raped, beaten and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police why the attacker has a fatal bullet wound.

lol both of these remind me of the quote in my sig.

1) You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.



2) You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand -in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.



3) You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who

can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.



4) You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and

doctors are overpaid.



5) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans

are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.



6) You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by

cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.



7) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay

is natural.



8) You have to believe that businesses create oppression and

governments create prosperity.



9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but

pasty-faced, fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.



10) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than

actually doing something to earn it.



11) You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.



12) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start

wars.



13) You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels

can't deliver the programming quality PBS does.



14) You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for

certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.



15) You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too

high.



16) You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria

Steinman are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Alva Edison.



17) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial

quotas and set-asides aren't.



18) You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than

HIV.



19) You have to believe that conservatives are racists but black people couldn't make it without your help.



20) You have to believe that the only reason democratic socialism

hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.



And for any “gun control nuts” out there, a Definition:



Gun Control -- The theory that a woman lying in a alley, naked,

raped, beaten and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police why the attacker has a fatal bullet wound.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing the same hillarity with this post that we did with the topic starter. Strong, you're stupinity is, Young Republican.

I like the top 20 democratic one better.

:D 1) You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.



2) You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand -in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.



3) You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who

can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.



4) You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and

doctors are overpaid.



5) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans

are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.



6) You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by

cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.



7) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay

is natural.



8) You have to believe that businesses create oppression and

governments create prosperity.



9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but

pasty-faced, fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.



10) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than

actually doing something to earn it.



11) You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.



12) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start

wars.



13) You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels

can't deliver the programming quality PBS does.



14) You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for

certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.



15) You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too

high.



16) You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria

Steinman are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Alva Edison.



17) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial

quotas and set-asides aren't.



18) You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than

HIV.



19) You have to believe that conservatives are racists but black people couldn't make it without your help.



20) You have to believe that the only reason democratic socialism

hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.



And for any “gun control nuts” out there, a Definition:



Gun Control -- The theory that a woman lying in a alley, naked,

raped, beaten and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police why the attacker has a fatal bullet wound.

Kecibukia, I think I love you.

Good article!!! :D

Mmmm, hypocricy.

lol both of these remind me of the quote in my sig.

Jon Stewart is a good man...

I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing the same hillarity with this post that we did with the topic starter. Strong, you're stupinity is, Young Republican.

So its funny when someone generalizes about the repubs but when someone does one for the democrats their stupid? Jeez I guess neither side really can laugh about itself anymore.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing the same hillarity with this post that we did with the topic starter. Strong, you're stupinity is, Young Republican.

"Stupinity" ?

BTW I vote Libertarian

:D

Kecibukia, I think I love you.

Good article!!! :D

:fluffle:

Is it nessesary to quote the whole damn thing TWICE!

Is it nessesary to quote the whole damn thing TWICE!

Yeah! We're sucking up bandwidth here people! So quit it!

"Stupinity" ?

BTW I vote Libertarian

Thats a term that went right over our heads-we're too simple to know that word.

Yeah! We're sucking up bandwidth here people! So quit it!

But it tastes so good. Can't we just do it for a little longer? :rolleyes:

Thats a term that went right over our heads-we're too simple to know that word.

Read?!?!?!?!

Who typed the reponse for you? :p

I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing the same hillarity with this post that we did with the topic starter. Strong, you're stupinity is, Young Republican.

Ah, don't worry about it. I expected SOME Republican on this Forum would come up with something like that. He's just pissed off because he didn't think of it first.

Rather than defending the points I made (because he can't) he is going to try to deflect attention from my words, by pointing the figer in a different direction. In debates, this manoever is called "dragging a red herring."

How aren't these lists trolling?

But it tastes so good. Can't we just do it for a little longer? :rolleyes:


Nurse: Doctor...He's Adicted.

Doctor: Electrotherapy?

*Nurse nods*

Doctor: Well, get those electrodes on his nipples!

To be continued...

*SNIP*

Well that's nice.

Why not answer her comments?

Ah, don't worry about it. I expected SOME Republican on this Forum would come up with something like that. He's just pissed off because he didn't think of it first.

Rather than defending the points I made (because he can't) he is going to try to deflect attention from my words, by pointing the figer in a different direction. In debates, this manoever is called "dragging a red herring."

Not a Republican.

Not pissed off.

Don't care about your "Points" which you neglect to refute the opposite posted BTW.

Ah, don't worry about it. I expected SOME Republican on this Forum would come up with something like that. He's just pissed off because he didn't think of it first.

Rather than defending the points I made (because he can't) he is going to try to deflect attention from my words, by pointing the figer in a different direction. In debates, this manoever is called "dragging a red herring."


Yes-certainly terrible to respond in kind.

Nurse: Doctor...He's Adicted.

Doctor: Electrotherapy?

*Nurse nods*

Doctor: Well, get those electrodes on his nipples!

To be continued...


AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Please sir may I have some more? :rolleyes:

Well that's nice.

Why not answer her comments?


Which comments? The snip kind of muddles things. I've made more than one post.

Read?!?!?!?!

Who typed the reponse for you? :p


I wish I knew what you meant.

1) You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.



2) You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand -in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.



3) You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who

can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.



4) You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and

doctors are overpaid.



5) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans

are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.



6) You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by

cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.



7) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay

is natural.



8) You have to believe that businesses create oppression and

governments create prosperity.



9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but

pasty-faced, fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.



10) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than

actually doing something to earn it.



11) You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.



12) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start

wars.



13) You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels

can't deliver the programming quality PBS does.



14) You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for

certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.



15) You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too

high.



16) You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria

Steinman are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Alva Edison.



17) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial

quotas and set-asides aren't.



18) You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than

HIV.



19) You have to believe that conservatives are racists but black people couldn't make it without your help.



20) You have to believe that the only reason democratic socialism

hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.



And for any “gun control nuts” out there, a Definition:



Gun Control -- The theory that a woman lying in a alley, naked,

raped, beaten and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police why the attacker has a fatal bullet wound.
1) Aids is spread by lack of education. And yeah, educators usually like to get paid. Selfish bastards.
2) Unrelated subjects. Other threads show you the real stances of democrats and liberals (2 different groups!).
3) I think this could have saved space and been tied into number one.
4) I don't know many liberals who think lawyers are our saviours. Patients need protection. Sometimes we need lawyers for that. Doctors ARE overpaid.
5) We really wouldn't do much if China acquired nuclear weapons except say, "Stop that." China has us by the pearls. Most of the people who want to have assault rifles are scary and shouldn't be left alone with a butter knife.
6) Yes. You do. When you take into account the rise in temperature over the last hundred years and call it a coincidence... what is that? Faith?
7) Yes. You do.
8) Huh?
9) Mixed. Sometimes hunting is necessary. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes it does damage. I think you can be liberal and still hunt overpopulated deer.
10) What are you talking about? Is this a liberal point of view? This wasn't in any of the liberal agenda letters I receive.
11) Yeah. What have artists done for society? Are you trying to prove you're uncultured?
12) That's just wrong. Anyone who believes that is an asshole.
12 1/2) Someone else has probably beaten me by going through your list.
13) Well, there is the Daily Show on Comedy Central. So 499 channels.
14) NRA is fucked up. Why do you need send an entire round of bullets into the guts of a squirrel?
15) ATM fees don't bother you? They bug the hell out me.
16) Important in different ways. As important? Why aren't they important?
17) HA! HA!
18) Fuck anti smokers. Grabs a red.
19) Too big a subject. No short answer available. Please call again.
20) I guess that's true. Jesus would have probably done well leading a democratic socialist country.

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Please sir may I have some more? :rolleyes:


Nurse: Doctor! It's not working! He's still absorbing bandwith. The shocks arn't strong enough!

Doctor: Dammit Nurse, I'm a doctor, not an electrician! Up the Voltage! 100,000 volts through EACH nipple!

Nurse: Doctor! It's not working! He's still absorbing bandwith. The shocks arn't strong enough!

Doctor: Dammit Nurse, I'm a doctor, not an electrician! Up the Voltage! 100,000 volts through EACH nipple!

I'd quote Marv right now but I'd rather not get a warning. :p

Ah, don't worry about it. I expected SOME Republican on this Forum would come up with something like that. He's just pissed off because he didn't think of it first.

Rather than defending the points I made (because he can't) he is going to try to deflect attention from my words, by pointing the figer in a different direction. In debates, this manoever is called "dragging a red herring."

Both of those lists have been posted on NS at least once before in the time that I was here. There is nothing original about either one, they just sort of float around the web. The fact still remains that the one you posted was taken as humor but an exact polar opposite was taken as a flame by the exact same people. It really makes you and your fellows look pretty fucking pathetic.

Nurse: Doctor! It's not working! He's still absorbing bandwith. The shocks arn't strong enough!

Doctor: Dammit Nurse, I'm a doctor, not an electrician! Up the Voltage! 100,000 volts through EACH nipple!
Gives you a cold damp cloth. There, there.

Since I wanted to answer each statement, it saves everyone time from going back and forth to read what the hell I was talking about. I didn't just quote the whole thing and say, "I LOVE YOU!"

Both of those lists have been posted on NS at least once before in the time that I was here. There is nothing original about either one, they just sort of float around the web. The fact still remains that the one you posted was taken as humor but an exact polar opposite was taken as a flame by the exact same people. It really makes you and your fellows look pretty fucking pathetic.

[Left hand pointerfinger on nose, right hand pointer pointing at Ekland]

1) You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.Sure... sounds as plausible as being homosexual is the reason its around...
2) You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand -in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.Ah, yes. That's why.
3) You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.And who's fault is it that we have bad teachers in the first place?
4) You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.Not over here...
5) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.Statistics prove us right... more Americans get killed by guns stolen from law-abiding citizens than by nukes stolen from the Red Chinese.
6) You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.Changes in the brilliance of the sun? Never heard of that crap actually.
7) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.I'd bet you'd argue against left-handed the same way if it was still considered a sin.8) You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.Not Republican governments
9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty-faced, fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.I've never been to Seattle.
10) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.I know a lot of parents that agree...
11) You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.It was called "patronizing" because the government consisted of private persons...
12) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.I personally blame Bush, not the soldiers...
13) You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the programming quality PBS does.I suppose so. I don't get either.
14) You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.The constitution says it's good to go to towns that just had a school shooting and hold a gun rally?
15) You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.Hm...
16) You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinman are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Alva Edison.Not to mention George Washington, Martin Luther King...
17) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.I think of that whenever I refuse to mark "caucasian" on those
18) You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.Ever tried using a condom to protect yourself from passive smoking? (It sucks...;))19) You have to believe that conservatives are racists but black people couldn't make it without your help.Because the conservatives are racist the black people can't make it without our help20) You have to believe that the only reason democratic socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.Are you confusing West with East Germany?

Some of these are very sarcastic, so don't think I'm claiming that "conservatives are racist". I know it's not true, I'm just responding as sarcastically as the statements were... ;)

EDIT: Forgot to add that I'm not a Democrat, but a Green... :p

Wow people actually responding to these things like they are actually being used against the other side. I guess sarcasm is lost online, :rolleyes:

Wow people actually responding to these things like they are actually being used against the other side. I guess sarcasm is lost online, :rolleyes:Did you read my response? :D

Both of those lists have been posted on NS at least once before in the time that I was here. There is nothing original about either one, they just sort of float around the web. The fact still remains that the one you posted was taken as humor but an exact polar opposite was taken as a flame by the exact same people. It really makes you and your fellows look pretty fucking pathetic.

Flame? I was looking for humor.

So the people that responded are pretty fucking pathetic?

Hmmmm?

Wow people actually responding to these things like they are actually being used against the other side. I guess sarcasm is lost online, :rolleyes:

One sided post A response: "That's hilarious! Completely accurate! Post more!"

One sided post B response: "That's Stupid! Completely untrue! Go away!"

Flame? I was looking for humor.

So the people that responded are pretty fucking pathetic?

Hmmmm?

One sided post A response: "That's hilarious! Completely accurate! Post more!"

One sided post B response: "That's Stupid! Completely untrue! Go away!"

Get the picture?

Did you read my response? :D

My post was more aimed at armed military states.

Wow people actually responding to these things like they are actually being used against the other side. I guess sarcasm is lost online, :rolleyes:
I've seen those arguments used by the other side before.
Wait...
Republicans have a sense of humor?
That explains Dan Quayle! I thought they were serious...

Get the picture?

No all I see are words. ;)

Both of those lists have been posted on NS at least once before in the time that I was here. There is nothing original about either one, they just sort of float around the web. The fact still remains that the one you posted was taken as humor but an exact polar opposite was taken as a flame by the exact same people. It really makes you and your fellows look pretty fucking pathetic.

I didn't take it as a flame. Where did I ever say it was flaming? I didn't. I only said that sort of move was what a professional debater would call "dragging a red herring."

And that is exactly what he did. I framed the debate. He tried to reframe it, by dragging the red herring. Rather than answer my points, he decided to completely ignore them, and raise his own points. This is bad form in a debate.

The correct form, in a debate, would have been to provide adequate answer to my points....and THEN to raise his own points, which would then have thrown the ball into my court. It would THEN be up to me to answer his points...and if I failed to do so, and attempted to change the focus by dragging my own red herring....that would be bad form on my part.

See, I started off on the offensive. He chose to take the defensive side...and rather than defend, simply chose to attack, first. That is bad form for a debate. FIRST you defend...THEN, you get your turn to attack...and the original attacker has to denfend. Seems to me that Kecubia, and ilk...does not want to take the defensive position at all....perhaps because they can only handle being in the attacker position, and not in the defender position.

which speaks volumes about their debating ability (or lack thereof) I never said it was flame. I only said it was bad form.

And I'll be happy to answer his points...AFTER my points have been adequately answered. NOT BEFORE. I would like my turn as the attacker, first. you do not, in any debate, always get to be the attacker. since I started the debate, it is my perogative to take the attacker position first.

i'm equally willing, in due course, to take the defensive position. doesn't appear as though Kecubia is, though.

I didn't take it as a flame. Where did I ever say it was flaming? I didn't. I only said that sort of move was what a professional debater would call "dragging a red herring."

And that is exactly what he did. I framed the debate. He tried to reframe it, by dragging the red herring. Rather than answer my points, he decided to completely ignore them, and raise his own points. This is bad form in a debate.

The correct form, in a debate, would have been to provide adequate answer to my points....and THEN to raise his own points, which would then have thrown the ball into my court. It would THEN be up to me to answer his points...and if I failed to do so, and attempted to change the focus by dragging my own red herring....that would be bad form on my part.

See, I started off on the offensive. He chose to take the defensive side...and rather than defend, simply chose to attack, first. That is bad form for a debate. FIRST you defend...THEN, you get your turn to attack...and the original attacker has to denfend. Seems to me that Kecubia, and ilk...does not want to take the defensive position at all....perhaps because they can only handle being in the attacker position, and not in the defender position.

which speaks volumes about their debating ability (or lack thereof) I never said it was flame. I only said it was bad form.

And I'll be happy to answer his points...AFTER my points have been adequately answered. NOT BEFORE. I would like my turn as the attacker, first. you do not, in any debate, always get to be the attacker. since I started the debate, it is my perogative to take the attacker position first.

i'm equally willing, in due course, to take the defensive position. doesn't appear as though Kecubia is, though.

Lyric you made a huge generalization in your post and in response to show how rediculous it was Kecubia did the same for the other side. Honestly you started with rediculous points to enrage the other side. You may not like republicans and thats fine. But dont for one second think that we are all alike.

Yes, the secularist liberal democrats foolishly believe all of these things. Republicans know better. Unfortunatly most democrats don't even understand the absurdity of these positions, so I'll point it out here.

1) You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

It is of course spread by sweat, laziness, and God's personal displeasure with you.

2) You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand -in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.
As a Republican we're all aware that once accused you have no rights and if you can find a lawyer who's willing to defend you he ought to share your sentence as an accomplice.

3) You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

Public school is a socialist plot to destabalize our economy by reducing the labor force.

4) You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

We know that the only good lawyers are corprate lobbyists.

5) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

And of course, the best way to take care of China's posession of Nuclear weapons is to invade immediatly, and enter into robust trade with them so that the weight of all the money they earn from us will clog their infrastructure. Guns must be made freely available to obviate the need for the socialist plot of public schools. Once the labor force is small enough then the public will no longer believe that we have a need to artificially shrink it.

6) You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

When will you democrats learn about the scientific process. Only stuff that's written down and says "we're doing everything just right," is scientificly sound reasoning. Stuff that says "oh, no! the sky is falling," or "maybe we ought to try this," is just junk science and fairy tales. Besides, the world will freeze over whenever God wants it to, and global flood from melting polar ice caps is rediculous. God promised never to end the world in a flood again.

7) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay
is natural.

Christian science has noted that there is a definite "skirt wearing gene" on the X Chromasome that expresses itself when redundant. But every last gay person on the face of the earth was repeatedly molested as a child and now only wants to molest other children.

8) You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

It's a known and mathematically demonstrable fact that as government approaches zero (G->0) opportunity approaches infinity. Once government is abolished, or rather, dragged into the bathroom and drowned in the tub, there will be unlimited opportunity. You can be whatever you want, from industrial careers like coal miner, to medical occupations like miner's consumption patient.



9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but
pasty-faced, fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

For those of you who think that you understand nature, you fail to realize that things die. A large percentage of animals went extinct before people were ever created, 6,000 years ago. The only way to appreciate nature is to kill lots of it.

10) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

Self esteem is a function of the money you own and your pride in your country. I have supreme self-confidence because I am an American. That makes me great. If you don't have similar self esteem then you're obviously a commie and should get the hell out.

11) You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

That's not the half of where you liberals go wrong with art. Art is oil paint on canvas pictures of naked women with blurry naughty parts. Art isn't supposed to make you "think" about things or "appreciate" them. The only thing art is supposed to enlighten is the wallets of elitist community college professors by taking money out of them for no good, productive reason.

12) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

And when you do accuse "corrupt politicians" you pick those that aren't corrupt. Bush isn't corrupt. His presidency has been marked by innovation, or "alteration" if you will, of his offices powers. It's not corrupt, it's just a bit... you know, spotty.

13) You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels
can't deliver the programming quality PBS does.

Yes. Things that come in more labels are inherently better. Budweiser makes the best beer in the world, that's why they're able to sell Bud, bud lite, bud dry, bud ice, bud select... The list goes on and on. Name one notable beer that ever came out of Germany or Mexico.

14) You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for
certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

If you don't understand this then I can't help you. It's just so obvious that the NRA is good, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution

15) You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

Democrats always say "we need more taxes," but they never actually say how much they thinks is a sufficiently high rate of taxes. They'll never be happy until there is no reward for work at all. They're chasing some Star Trek fantasy in which people enjoy their work. You're not supposed to like your job, that's how you know it's a job. If you couldn't tell your work from your hobbies then how would you know when to spend your money? If people liked their jobs the economy would grind to a halt. There is only one correct level of taxation - Lower Than it is Now.

16) You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria

Steinman are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Alva Edison.

This list is a bit out of date. Liberals have developed a more sophisticated version of this failure. Now they teach that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Some of them are even trying to teach that Ronald Reagan was somehow involved in some made-up scandal called the Iran Contra affair. They even want to keep his face off of mount Rushmore.

17) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

Don't you see that the only justifiable quota for college admission is the Legacy system. Racial groups that perform badly on standardized tests do so because they have a lower intelligence. Rich people who do poorly on standardized tests do so because they have a more thorough understanding of the matter than the person who wrote the test (who was probably a liberal). We know this because they carry the genes of their rich parents, who must have been intelligent, otherwise how would they have made all that money.

18) You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

Yes, they're both harmless, unless God hates you or you're a minority. Second hand smoke is another communist plot to destabalize the capitalist economy by encouraging people not to spend money on cigarettes and to keep their healthcare costs low, weakening the pharmaceutical industry.

19) You have to believe that conservatives are racists but black people couldn't make it without your help.

Racist means that you attribute individual characteristics to race. Conservatives don't do that. Conservatives judge whole groups by their race.

20) You have to believe that the only reason democratic socialism

hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

When of course, that's only true of pure free-market economics. And the places where Democratic Socialism was tried and did work are all flukes because the government kept interfering to make it work.

And for any “gun control nuts” out there, a Definition:

Gun Control -- The theory that a woman lying in a alley, naked,

raped, beaten and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police why the attacker has a fatal bullet wound.

The woman who shot the guy is clearly the morally superior woman because the other bitch probably had it coming to her.

Lyric you made a huge generalization in your post and in response to show how rediculous it was Kecubia did the same for the other side. Honestly you started with rediculous points to enrage the other side. You may not like republicans and thats fine. But dont for one second think that we are all alike.

The difference is that practically no democrat believes any of the things on that list, but the list that Lyric put up is true of the Republican party platform, most republican pundits, and many conservatives on this board. The conservatives just rationalize it all by pointing out differences that make no difference.

*snip*




Now, that was funny.

Lyric you made a huge generalization in your post and in response to show how rediculous it was Kecubia did the same for the other side. Honestly you started with rediculous points to enrage the other side. You may not like republicans and thats fine. But dont for one second think that we are all alike.

Well, I DO think all Republicans hate poor people, and they all hate homosexuals. so how about you prove me wrong?

Let's see a Republican lawmaker stick up for civil rights, human rights, gay rights for once. Let's see a Republican lawmaker who actually passes a law that helps WORKERS more than it helps giant multi-nationals!

Again, I judge by the actions of your leaders...the very people you vote for and support, as a Republican. I can't speak for all rank-and-file Republicans....but I can make a generalization, based upon the actions of those you guys vote for and support.

And I have yet to see a Republican lawmaker publicly stand up for, and vote for gay rights (though I have seen plenty of them line up to pass anti-gay legislation, Constitutional or not) I have yet to see a Republican lawmaker put the needs to the average Joe ahead of the needs of big business.

So prove me wrong, if you think I am. None of your leaders have done anything to gain my vote. They stand FOR everything I'm against...and AGAINST everything I'm for.

The difference is that practically no democrat believes any of the things on that list, but the list that Lyric put up is true of the Republican party platform, most republican pundits, and many conservatives on this board. The conservatives just rationalize it all by pointing out differences that make no difference.

Really so you know what every republican on these boards believe? Lyric posted abursd generalizations that really don't apply to all republicans. This is the problem these days. Its always us versus them. Why the hell cant we all just start realizing there differences in opinions but that doesnt mean we can all work together to make things better.

Yes, the secularist liberal democrats foolishly believe all of these things. Republicans know better. Unfortunatly most democrats don't even understand the absurdity of these positions, so I'll point it out here.
*snip*

:D ok now that is funny.

oddly both the republican and democrat parties are somewhere to the right of the main conservative/centre right/neocon parties (they are somewhere between the conservative/tory party/new labour/SNP/Liberal democrats and the BNP/veritas/ukip (in most things but not all)) here in britain

Really so you know what every republican on these boards believe? Lyric posted abursd generalizations that really don't apply to all republicans. This is the problem these days. Its always us versus them. Why the hell cant we all just start realizing there differences in opinions but that doesnt mean we can all work together to make things better.
To do that we would need to stop trying to make laws based on opinion.

Really so you know what every republican on these boards believe? Lyric posted abursd generalizations that really don't apply to all republicans. This is the problem these days. Its always us versus them. Why the hell cant we all just start realizing there differences in opinions but that doesnt mean we can all work together to make things better.

True but somebody has to take the first step.

So in the case of the US, would that not be the Republicans since they are the majority?

I didn't take it as a flame. Where did I ever say it was flaming? I didn't. I only said that sort of move was what a professional debater would call "dragging a red herring."

And that is exactly what he did. I framed the debate. He tried to reframe it, by dragging the red herring. Rather than answer my points, he decided to completely ignore them, and raise his own points. This is bad form in a debate.

The correct form, in a debate, would have been to provide adequate answer to my points....and THEN to raise his own points, which would then have thrown the ball into my court. It would THEN be up to me to answer his points...and if I failed to do so, and attempted to change the focus by dragging my own red herring....that would be bad form on my part.

See, I started off on the offensive. He chose to take the defensive side...and rather than defend, simply chose to attack, first. That is bad form for a debate. FIRST you defend...THEN, you get your turn to attack...and the original attacker has to denfend. Seems to me that Kecubia, and ilk...does not want to take the defensive position at all....perhaps because they can only handle being in the attacker position, and not in the defender position.

which speaks volumes about their debating ability (or lack thereof) I never said it was flame. I only said it was bad form.

And I'll be happy to answer his points...AFTER my points have been adequately answered. NOT BEFORE. I would like my turn as the attacker, first. you do not, in any debate, always get to be the attacker. since I started the debate, it is my perogative to take the attacker position first.

i'm equally willing, in due course, to take the defensive position. doesn't appear as though Kecubia is, though.

Once again,

I don't care about "your" cutnpaste "points". I really don't care about the cutnpaste points I posted either.

There was no "debate" intended. Just a "Republicans Suck" trollish post. Any statement otherwise is disingenous and you know it. I posted a "Democrats Suck" trollish post.

As for "dragging a red herring" , you used "Ad Hominems".

Ah, don't worry about it. I expected SOME Republican on this Forum would come up with something like that. He's just pissed off because he didn't think of it first.

Rather than defending the points I made (because he can't) he is going to try to deflect attention from my words, by pointing the figer in a different direction. In debates, this manoever is called "dragging a red herring."
You're actually under the delusion that your list is to be taken seriously and not just as a poor trolling attempt? That "democrat" list was posted ages ago as a thread by some other forgotten partisan troll.

Once again,

I don't care about "your" cutnpaste "points". I really don't care about the cutnpaste points I posted either.

There was no "debate" intended. Just a "Republicans Suck" trollish post. Any statement otherwise is disingenous and you know it. I posted a "Democrats Suck" trollish post.

As for "dragging a red herring" , you used "Ad Hominems".

If you didn't care, then why did you respond? ;)

Really so you know what every republican on these boards believe? Lyric posted abursd generalizations that really don't apply to all republicans. This is the problem these days. Its always us versus them. Why the hell cant we all just start realizing there differences in opinions but that doesnt mean we can all work together to make things better.

Because your definition of "better" is diametrically opposed to our definition of "better?"

Well, I DO think all Republicans hate poor people, and they all hate homosexuals. so how about you prove me wrong?
I'm a republican and I dont hate poor people and homosexuals. I think that just about proves you wrong.

Again, I judge by the actions of your leaders...the very people you vote for and support, as a Republican. I can't speak for all rank-and-file Republicans....but I can make a generalization, based upon the actions of those you guys vote for and support.
Really so I can say all democrats are all like the worst points of hillary clinton? Making generalizations is really stupid and it leads to things like racism, hatred, and more awful things.

So prove me wrong, if you think I am. None of your leaders have done anything to gain my vote. They stand FOR everything I'm against...and AGAINST everything I'm for.

So your problems are against the leadership thats great. I think there needs to be an overhaul with them too. However you make so many generalizations against a party of people who's views are not all the same. Its insulting really and you could have done this in better taste

If you didn't care, then why did you respond? ;)


Because I get tired of stupid generalizations and was somewhat interested in how those who take them seriously would respond to other stupid generalizations. (see the how to piss off... thread)

1st off this isn't original this is like the 4th or 5th time I've seen it.
Now the main problem with with your critique is that most of what you address is really at the Christian Right not really conservative.
The rest in red.

THINGS YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO BE A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him,no, but less bad that the Iranians were at that time so at the time it made sense to arm him. a bad guy when Bush's
daddy made war on him,He was our Frankenstein's Monster at that point, me made him and we need to break him. a good guy when Cheney did business with himDuring the 80's so see above. and
a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.ditto above

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist,The arguement is that trade with Cuba will help Castro stay in power. In reality you couldn't be elected in may districts if you suport trade w/Castro's Cuba....The embargo will be lifted before his body reached room temp once he dies what was once a Cold War policy is now just spite. but trade
with China & Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony. Trade with China has brought about Pro Western reforms and the same should be true in Vietnam. Like I said Cuba is spite and votes.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all of mankind
without regulation. This is why REAL conservatives need to wrestle control away from the Christian Right. The Christian agenda has tainted politics for too long.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary
Clinton.
Ok I DO hate Hillary, but Homosexuals are ok by me and Jesus is ok too, he just needs to stay clear of government

The best way to improve the military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.Better to raise pay across the board for the military, VA funding is dropping because the bulk of vets are WWII and they are dying in droves so no need to maintain funding at record levels ...correct?

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
That is decistion best left to the individual school board, but IMO the government has no place suppling condoms to anybody ever....however if a civic organisantion (planned parenthood act up ect) wants to pass them out fine by me.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health
care to all Americans is socialism.Do to our destruction of the Iraqi health care system temporarilly yes. And if national health care is so good why do so many Canadians seek care in the US?

HMO's and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at
heart. I'll give you that one.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.
More of the Christian Right !!!

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable
offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.
The thing that makes it impeachable is that Dollar Bill was under oath. If his attorny was smart he would have had the proceeding sealed so that the Pres could have told the truth and it wouldn't have hit the public. If Bush said what he said under oath that to would have concievably impeachable.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George
Bush's cocaine conviction in none of our business.
You have proof of his conviction???

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers
for your recovery.
Support of a prohabition on drugs is to suport the black market and the funds from the "war on drugs should be used more effectivly on rehab this would help lower taxes

You support states' rights, which means former Attorney General John
Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the
right to adopt.
He lost to a dead guy please...The voting rights act needs to be repealed and a basic compitancy quiz should be given to each and every voter.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the 80's is irrelevant.
Clinton visted the Soviet Union in the 1960's an enemy nation while activly protesting the Vietnam War it has reason to be looked at. Had Bush done likewise Iwould agree he would need to be looked at too.


REMEMBER: Friends don't let friends vote for the Christian Right

True but somebody has to take the first step.

So in the case of the US, would that not be the Republicans since they are the majority?

The only steps the Republicans want to take is running roughshod over everyone that does not march in total lockstep with them.

they (the Republicans) have been stepping for quite some time. Stepping on our rights...stepping on our freedoms and liberties, stepping on civil rights....stepping on the economy...etc etc etc.

So your problems are against the leadership thats great. I think there needs to be an overhaul with them too. However you make so many generalizations against a party of people who's views are not all the same. Its insulting really and you could have done this in better taste

Yep. I could have done it in better taste. and the Republicans could have passed more anti-gay legislation in better taste, too, couldn't they?

Better yet, they could just leave us the hell alone, and quit trying to legislate us out of existence! Because we are here, we're queer, and they need to just damn well get used to the idea that we are not going to go away. We are human beings, too...and desrve to be treated in just as dignified a manner as any other human being.

1st off this isn't original this is like the 4th or 5th time I've seen it.
Now the main problem with with your critique is that most of what you address is really at the Christian Right not really conservative.
The rest in red.

You know...I would not entirely argue that with you...my bitch is definitely more with the Christian Right than anyone else...but the Republicans continue to kowtow and suck up to them, and so it makes them just as guilty, in my not so humble opinion.

Until the Republicans quit kowtowing and sucking up to the Christian Right...I see no difference between them.

And I fully plead "guilty as charged" to the charge that the people I REALLY have a problem with are the Christian Right.

Yep. I could have done it in better taste. and the Republicans could have passed more anti-gay legislation in better taste, too, couldn't they?

Better yet, they could just leave us the hell alone, and quit trying to legislate us out of existence! Because we are here, we're queer, and they need to just damn well get used to the idea that we are not going to go away. We are human beings, too...and desrve to be treated in just as dignified a manner as any other human being.

I'm talking about how you shouldnt label all republicans based on the actions of a few and all of a sudden you go off on anti-gay legislation. Dude I'm all for equal rights for gays but your not helping your cause by lumping people into one group. Thats how stereotypes get started. Attacking everyone because of the shortcommings of the few in charge aren't going to win you any allies. And Lyric everytime you come on these boards about an issue you overreact and get emotional. Calm down and chill out. Stop getting so worked up in a forum for christ sakes.

to Kecibukia

Im not going to bother explaining why what you say makes no sense. Im just going to say that its sad that youre a libertarian defending republicans. Im a libertarian (more or less) too, and I can not think of an administration that has done more to limit civil liberties then the bush administration. the patriot act is the most offensive thing ive ever read. ill pay higher taxes, but i dont want the government in my private life. try explaining that to a republican.

to Kecibukia

Im not going to bother explaining why what you say makes no sense. Im just going to say that its sad that youre a libertarian defending republicans. Im a libertarian (more or less) too, and I can not think of an administration that has done more to limit civil liberties then the bush administration. the patriot act is the most offensive thing ive ever read. ill pay higher taxes, but i dont want the government in my private life. try explaining that to a republican.


A libertarian willing to pay more taxes?

yeah, i believe that social autonomy is more important and fundamental then economic autonomny. therefore i would rather have the democrats who would take my money and leave me alone then the republicans who would leave my money but tell me who to marry and watch me take out library books and force me to pray and accept bad science etc.

A libertarian willing to pay more taxes?

Quiet you might spook it. We need to tranquillize this specimin and set it up in its own special habitat so we may study it.

yeah, i believe that social autonomy is more important and fundamental then economic autonomny. therefore i would rather have the democrats who would take my money and leave me alone then the republicans who would leave my money but tell me who to marry and watch me take out library books and force me to pray and accept bad science etc.
I can't find either option less or more attractive. They're both shitty, if you consider it. What use are civil liberties if you don't have the extra money to pay for them?
What good is extra money if you don't have the freedom to spend it however you choose?

to Kecibukia

Im not going to bother explaining why what you say makes no sense. Im just going to say that its sad that youre a libertarian defending republicans. Im a libertarian (more or less) too, and I can not think of an administration that has done more to limit civil liberties then the bush administration. the patriot act is the most offensive thing ive ever read. ill pay higher taxes, but i dont want the government in my private life. try explaining that to a republican.

One thing... SHow me the post where I defended Republicans.

As a real constitutional convervative how do you think I feel to be painted with the same brush? :(

You know...I would not entirely argue that with you...my bitch is definitely more with the Christian Right than anyone else...but the Republicans continue to kowtow and suck up to them, and so it makes them just as guilty, in my not so humble opinion.

Until the Republicans quit kowtowing and sucking up to the Christian Right...I see no difference between them.

And I fully plead "guilty as charged" to the charge that the people I REALLY have a problem with are the Christian Right.

One thing... SHow me the post where I defended Republicans.

Ah... ok. Let me edit. You defended dogmatic republican thinking. I reference numbers 2 (nobody has ever aborted a baby, that is murder, they have aborted a fetus. captital punishment is completly different (not that im against it, i happen to think its the humane thing to do)) and number 7(?) (gender roles are historically culturally defined, we have seen cultures where everything is turned on its head, so you are obviously advancing the theory that homosexuality isnt natural, which it is, weve seen it in hundreds of species).

either that or youve got no sense of humor. theres a big humor gap between this list (which sounds defensive) and the other list (which is just bitter humor). Slight difference in tone and content = big difference in funny.

And I fully plead "guilty as charged" to the charge that the people I REALLY have a problem with are the Christian Right.
Pfft. The Christian Right are nothing. The true enemy, if you will, are those who advocate total market freedom, low taxes, no public services, etc. They are the ones who rule in favour of corporatism over workers. Abortion and gay marriage are trifles compared to the economic and societal destruction that the free market/corporatists risk bringing us to.

yeah, i believe that social autonomy is more important and fundamental then economic autonomny. therefore i would rather have the democrats who would take my money and leave me alone then the republicans who would leave my money but tell me who to marry and watch me take out library books and force me to pray and accept bad science etc.
If you look at their actual policies you will find that both parties will take your money and tell you how to live.

As a real constitutional convervative how do you think I feel to be painted with the same brush?
Maybe you should stop voting Republican, and you'll stop getting attacked by Lyric?

As a real constitutional convervative how do you think I feel to be painted with the same brush? :(

Well, if you keep going along with them...and not standing up to them for kowtowing to the Christian right...then, I'm sorry, but you are just as guilty, in my eyes, as those who take the actions they take against us.

you want to see me support a Republican? Then show me a Republican who will stand up to the Christian Right, and maybe I'll support him. As long as they (and you) continue to go along with the Christian Right, by voting for the candidates they endorse...then you deserve to be painted with the same brush, because you are enabling them.

So far...I don't see a massive movement within the Republican Party to stand up to the Chritian Right, and tell them that they can't have everything they want...and that they have gone too far! You all just keep going right along with the program, voting for the guy with the R- in front of his name, for better or worse.

I can tell you I did NOT vote for Gore in 2000. I had a few reasons, the primary of which was that I did not believe Gore could defeat Bush, because he was too closely associated with Clinton. If I were Gore, I'd be cursing the name of Clinton!

My main reasons for not voting Gore in 2000 follow:

I was a resident and a registered voter in the State of Texas. I knew damn well Bush was gonna carry Texas, and so my vote for Gore would make no difference.
I had lived in Kentucky, just previous to my move to Texas in 2000. When I moved, the Texas Primary had already happened, and the Kentucky one hadn't...so I did not get to vote in the primary. My vote in the primary would have gone to Bill Bradley.
Before Kentucky, I lived in New Jersey, when Bill Bradley was my Senator. Senator Bradley did a lot of things I approved of, and I felt I owed Bradley my support.
Thus, since I knew my Gore vote wouldn't matter, from Texas....I wrote in my vote for the 2000 General Election, and voted Bill Bradley for President. I wrote in myself for VP. I knew my vote was a throwaway, but I was also making a statement, however small, with that vote.

If I lived in a state where my vote mighta mattered, I might have abandoned my principles, and voted Gore. I didn't...and so I didn't. Thus it is that Bill Bradley got at least one vote for President in the General Election in 2000....mine!

*snip*

Very nice

Remember! Friends don't let Friends vote Democrat

To quote W.C.Feilds I don't vote for anybody ;)
Pfft. The Christian Right are nothing. The true enemy, if you will, are those who advocate total market freedom, low taxes, no public services, etc. They are the ones who rule in favour of corporatism over workers. Abortion and gay marriage are trifles compared to the economic and societal destruction that the free market/corporatists risk bringing us to.


If you look at their actual policies you will find that both parties will take your money and tell you how to live.


Maybe you should stop voting Republican, and you'll stop getting attacked by Lyric?

I can't believe people act surprised when a politician lies, cheats, steals, swindels, plunders, loots, raids, blows, sniffs, snorts, inhales, rapes, embezzels, and goes to war for self gain

This has been the description of Politicians since democracy was first concieved (Greece), and when that fell. It reappeared again when a Republic was born (Rome). Now we have Democrats AND Republicans and we expect them to be moral people. :)

Poli = Many
Tics = Blood suckers

How aren't these lists trolling?

Not just trolling but flaming too.

I live in Kansas and I have to fight to get them to not teach creation! I really can't stand either party right now.

Well, if you keep going along with them...and not standing up to them for kowtowing to the Christian right...then, I'm sorry, but you are just as guilty, in my eyes, as those who take the actions they take against us.

you want to see me support a Republican? Then show me a Republican who will stand up to the Christian Right, and maybe I'll support him. As long as they (and you) continue to go along with the Christian Right, by voting for the candidates they endorse...then you deserve to be painted with the same brush, because you are enabling them.

So far...I don't see a massive movement within the Republican Party to stand up to the Chritian Right, and tell them that they can't have everything they want...and that they have gone too far! You all just keep going right along with the program, voting for the guy with the R- in front of his name, for better or worse.

I can tell you I did NOT vote for Gore in 2000. I had a few reasons, the primary of which was that I did not believe Gore could defeat Bush, because he was too closely associated with Clinton. If I were Gore, I'd be cursing the name of Clinton!

My main reasons for not voting Gore in 2000 follow:

I was a resident and a registered voter in the State of Texas. I knew damn well Bush was gonna carry Texas, and so my vote for Gore would make no difference.
I had lived in Kentucky, just previous to my move to Texas in 2000. When I moved, the Texas Primary had already happened, and the Kentucky one hadn't...so I did not get to vote in the primary. My vote in the primary would have gone to Bill Bradley.
Before Kentucky, I lived in New Jersey, when Bill Bradley was my Senator. Senator Bradley did a lot of things I approved of, and I felt I owed Bradley my support.
Thus, since I knew my Gore vote wouldn't matter, from Texas....I wrote in my vote for the 2000 General Election, and voted Bill Bradley for President. I wrote in myself for VP. I knew my vote was a throwaway, but I was also making a statement, however small, with that vote.

If I lived in a state where my vote mighta mattered, I might have abandoned my principles, and voted Gore. I didn't...and so I didn't. Thus it is that Bill Bradley got at least one vote for President in the General Election in 2000....mine!

Pfft. The Christian Right are nothing. The true enemy, if you will, are those who advocate total market freedom, low taxes, no public services, etc. They are the ones who rule in favour of corporatism over workers. Abortion and gay marriage are trifles compared to the economic and societal destruction that the free market/corporatists risk bringing us to.


If you look at their actual policies you will find that both parties will take your money and tell you how to live.


Maybe you should stop voting Republican, and you'll stop getting attacked by Lyric?

Well, the Christian Right is not a trifle to me...they fuel the fires of hatred, bigotry, and discrimination that serve to keep me downtrodden.

I am a transsexual. I can tell you that, when the economy falters, WE are always the first ones thrown onto the economic shit-heap...and we are also always the last ones picked off the shit-heap during good economic times. The only reason I had no trouble staying employed in the 90's is because our economy was so hot, and jobs were so plentiful...that employers often had no other choice.

You think I'm full of shit? Well, you take any other person with my exact-smae skills, experience, and abilities. The other person will be a straight person (doesn't matter if they are male or female, black, white, Hispanic...doesn't matter...the only for sure difference is going to be that the other candidate is NOT a transsexual.) I guarantee you that 999 times out of a thousand, given such a choice, the employer will hire the non-transsexual. Of course, they won't cop to the discrimination, but it is in fact what is happening. Why else do you think that fully 70 PERCENT of transgender people recently surveyed are either un- or under-employed? That is an appalling figure!

and it is all because Bush fucked up the economy...and I ended up on the economic shit-heap, and now I can't get off it, because there are too many non-transsexual candidates with my same skills. And it is also a proven fact that physically unattractive people have a decided disadvatage in the workplace.

As to the rest...yeah, maybe if the conservatives would stand up to the Christian Right, and the Corporatists that are screwing over workers in the name of the God-Almighty buck....and tell their leaders to start caring more about the average Joe/Jane sixpack...then, yeah, I'd quit "attacking" them.

And I know what y'all Republicans will say already....I made a choice, and now I should deal with the consequences. Well, I do not see why being denied a chance to earn a livelihood should be a consequence of doing something completely legal to my own body...something which hurts no one, and which does not affect my ability to do a job. I swear, convicted CRIMINALS are treated better in the workforce than my people are, and most of us never committed any crime. I know I haven't!

and, as to the choice thing...well it could be argued I made a choice. however, that could only be argued if you have no idea what kind of mental/emotional torture it is to live with Gender Identity Disorder. I tell you that the only choice I made was whether to live as a woman....or die as a man. I chose to live. Does that make me some kind of Grendel who is unworthy now of being given a chance to earn a living? The fact that I chose to live?

I tell you sincerely, I am no threat to anyone...in spite of what you may think. First of all, I'm not contagious...you cannot contract GID from me. Secondly, I'm completely asexual, and not interested in sexual/romantic relations with ANYONE...male, female, or beast, for that matter!

all I want is to work, earn a livelihood, and be left the hell alone to do it...and to make or break my own self, based on my skills, abilities, and merits...without my gender status being used against me. Is that such an unreasonable thing to want?

Lyric you made a huge generalization in your post and in response to show how rediculous it was Kecubia did the same for the other side. Honestly you started with rediculous points to enrage the other side. You may not like republicans and thats fine. But dont for one second think that we are all alike.

I agree. Alot of liberals seem to enjoy generalizing about people that they don't even know. I find it boring to tell the truth.

Of course, there are some republicans I find boring to for doing the same thing about democrats.

Remember not everyone is a far left liberal or a far right conservative. Alot of us are in the middle of both parties and some just flat out independant.

Not just trolling but flaming too.

How is it flaming, to attack an ideology? It's not. So quit saying it is.

that, or YOU quit attacking liberals. you can't have it both ways, Corny. Either you deal with it....or YOU stop your attacks on liberals. It isn't flaming, at all, to attack an ideology. And if it is, then you are just as guilty. It's not just a one-way street.

Corny: You attack MY ideology...that's flaming!!
corny: I attack YOUR ideology...that isn't flaming!!

See the hypocrisy?

Ah, don't worry about it. I expected SOME Republican on this Forum would come up with something like that. He's just pissed off because he didn't think of it first.

Rather than defending the points I made (because he can't) he is going to try to deflect attention from my words, by pointing the figer in a different direction. In debates, this manoever is called "dragging a red herring."

To be fair, you didn't make them. That's one of those E-mail messages that circulates around and everyone thinks they're oh so fucking clever for reposting it only a week after someone else did.

Kecibukia:

I know it must feel good to defend your own personal honor and that of The Party's by making a similar list about democrats, but Jesus Christ, fix the organization. Breaking shit up like that hurts the eyes.

As to the rest...yeah, maybe if the conservatives would stand up to the Christian Right, and the Corporatists that are screwing over workers in the name of the God-Almighty buck....and tell their leaders to start caring more about the average Joe/Jane sixpack...then, yeah, I'd quit "attacking" them.
As I said, the corporatists are the larger problem. I will stand up for transexual, gay rights and the rest when the opportunity arises, but priority #1 over that is still opposing the ravages of extreme capitalism. I'm not discriminating against you or anything.

Unfortunately conservatives aren't going to stand up to the extreme capitalists because they are one and the same. I prefer the religious right to the capitalists because at least the former support environmental protection sometimes.

The people's flag is deepest red.

Kecibukia:

I know it must feel good to defend your own personal honor and that of The Party's by making a similar list about democrats, but Jesus Christ, fix the organization. Breaking shit up like that hurts the eyes.

Sorry, wasn't paying that much attention. Just did a direct cutnpaste.

Well, I DO think all Republicans hate poor people, and they all hate homosexuals. so how about you prove me wrong?

I don't hate the poor (in fact, I give to charities to help the poor) and I don't hate homosexuals. One of my best friends is a lesbian on my university bowling league that meets every tuesday night! There I just proved you wrong.

Let's see a Republican lawmaker stick up for civil rights, human rights, gay rights for once.

Then why is my civil right to spread God's word a taboo in the Democratic party? WHy can't I preach on the street? Why can't I get a bunch of people together and pray at school infront of everyone? Civil Rights? You have room to talk. Gay rights? We don't care what they do behind closed doors. I also support Civil Unions. I also support Human rights. That is one reason why I supported the Iraq War. Also, those that abuse it need to be punished and they are being punished. Now what is your beef? I just disproved you four times now.

Let's see a Republican lawmaker who actually passes a law that helps WORKERS more than it helps giant multi-nationals!

Lets see the Democrats actually survive without union support. BTW: Unions have done more harm NOW than good. They've done wonderful things in the past but now....they are nothing more than a political tool who use donations for political campaigning which is a violation of election laws.

Again, I judge by the actions of your leaders...the very people you vote for and support, as a Republican. I can't speak for all rank-and-file Republicans....but I can make a generalization, based upon the actions of those you guys vote for and support.

And its those generalizations that will get you into trouble.

And I have yet to see a Republican lawmaker publicly stand up for, and vote for gay rights (though I have seen plenty of them line up to pass anti-gay legislation, Constitutional or not) I have yet to see a Republican lawmaker put the needs to the average Joe ahead of the needs of big business.

Define anti-gay legislation! Are you talking about the STATE constitutional proposals that only recognize marriage between one man and one woman? I don't support those states that pass amendments declaring those illegal. I'm a republican and maybe one day, a republican lawmaker.

So prove me wrong, if you think I am. None of your leaders have done anything to gain my vote. They stand FOR everything I'm against...and AGAINST everything I'm for.

Just like your leaders are for everything I'm against and against everything I'm for.

True but somebody has to take the first step.

So in the case of the US, would that not be the Republicans since they are the majority?

Doesn't matter who. However, you have Dean that spouts lies at almost every turn and alienating independants and conservative democrats.

It has to change with the party leaders before things can change elsewhere. And by party leaders, I'm talking all of them from the local to the national level.

Because your definition of "better" is diametrically opposed to our definition of "better?"

Stop insulting the other side of a debate lyric. You won't win friends that way.

Just like your leaders are for everything I'm against and against everything I'm for.
You fucking Americans are so sheltered! The Democrats and Republicans are so similar, that they're almost indistinguishable!

I love how Americans assume that the rantings of an extremist on the opposite side of the political spectrum to them somehow formulates the ther party's official policies.

Corneliu, the Democrats, in reality, are not ultra-liberal leftys; Lyric, the Republicans are not the fascist theocrats you imagine them all to be.

"Their" leaders don't for everything you're against. You just imagine that they do.

How is it flaming, to attack an ideology? It's not. So quit saying it is.

Its flaming because you generalized about a political party. That sets up for a massive fight. I guess I should've said flamebaiting.

that, or YOU quit attacking liberals. you can't have it both ways, Corny.

I just respond in kind. If someone insults me, I insult back. You generalize about me, I'll generalize about you. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Either you deal with it....or YOU stop your attacks on liberals.

Then stop your attacks on conservatives.

It isn't flaming, at all, to attack an ideology. And if it is, then you are just as guilty. It's not just a one-way street.

Generalizing can be considered flamebating. It has a tendency to spiral out of control.

Corny: You attack MY ideology...that's flaming!!

corny: I attack YOUR ideology...that isn't flaming!!

See the hypocrisy?

You attacked mine first! If my attack on your ideology if flaming then you already flamed. You can't have it one way. Now can you show me where I have attacked your ideology? And I never said that attacking your ideology isn't flaming but since you did attack my ideology, I am honor bound to engage you.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"


I think you missed the point of that one there, Joe College.

You fucking Americans are so sheltered! The Democrats and Republicans are so similar, that they're almost indistinguishable!

I love how Americans assume that the rantings of an extremist on the opposite side of the political spectrum to them somehow formulates the ther party's official policies.

Corneliu, the Democrats, in reality, are not ultra-liberal leftys; Lyric, the Republicans are not the fascist theocrats you imagine them all to be.

"Their" leaders don't for everything you're against. You just imagine that they do.So when did you first notice that polarization was the cause for the moral decline of the US? :D

You fucking Americans are so sheltered! The Democrats and Republicans are so similar, that they're almost indistinguishable!

I love how Americans assume that the rantings of an extremist on the opposite side of the political spectrum to them somehow formulates the ther party's official policies.

Corneliu, the Democrats, in reality, are not ultra-liberal leftys; Lyric, the Republicans are not the fascist theocrats you imagine them all to be.

"Their" leaders don't for everything you're against. You just imagine that they do.

I already know this Swimmingpool. However, certain elements in both parties don't seem to know this. Lyric is one of them. Both parties need to stop labeling one another but I doubt both parties will stop. *sighs* Sad really.

can we have a chat too man?

Stop insulting the other side of a debate lyric. You won't win friends that way.

the quote he is referring to appreas below....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
Because your definition of "better" is diametrically opposed to our definition of "better?"


Now, please tell me how that is insulting to the other side of the debate...to point out that our vision of Utopia, as it were, is THEIR vision of Hell...and that THEIR vision of Utopia, as it were, is OUR vision of Hell?

I'm merely pointing out here that what THEY define as "better" we define as "worse"...and what WE define as "better" THEY define as "worse."

Again, please enlighten us as to how it is insulting to point out a very obvious fact that between the two camps, our visions and definitions of "better" are diametrically opposed? Or do you not understand what "diametrically opposed" means?

You fucking Americans are so sheltered! The Democrats and Republicans are so similar, that they're almost indistinguishable!

I love how Americans assume that the rantings of an extremist on the opposite side of the political spectrum to them somehow formulates the ther party's official policies.

Corneliu, the Democrats, in reality, are not ultra-liberal leftys; Lyric, the Republicans are not the fascist theocrats you imagine them all to be.

Uhhhh, yes they are. The Republicans, anyway. If they aren't then the ones who aren't sure kowtow and suck up and cave in to the ones who are, which makes them every bit as bad.

ON EDIT: I WISH the Democrats were the ultra-liberal lefties that corny paints them to be, because I am unashamedly an ultra-liberal lefty. I am a Social liberal, full-tilt radical boogie liberal (meaning I'm VERY LIBERAL on Social Issues) and I'm a Socialist, economically speaking.

I WISH the Democratic Party mirrored my own outlook. Alas they don't. But they come a hell of a lot closer to it than the Republicans do, and since they are, therefore, the lesser of two evils, in my eyes...I support them...because no one else has a chance of keeping the fascist theocrats and corporatist kleptocrats out of office!

Uhhhh, yes they are. The Republicans, anyway. If they aren't then the ones who aren't sure kowtow and suck up and cave in to the ones who are, which makes them every bit as bad.

NO WE ARE NOT!!!!

I already know this Swimmingpool. However, certain elements in both parties don't seem to know this. Lyric is one of them. Both parties need to stop labeling one another but I doubt both parties will stop. *sighs* Sad really.
Oh please will you stop backpedalling, trying not to look like the Party dog that you are.
Just like your leaders are for everything I'm against and against everything I'm for.

Even Lyric is less partisan than you because at least he has distanced himself from the Democrats.

Even Lyric is less partisan than you because at least he has distanced himself from the Democrats.Lyric is female...

Isn't Lyric a she?

Oh please will you stop backpedalling, trying not to look like the Party dog that you are.

Whose backpeddaling? I'm not.

Even Lyric is less partisan than you because at least he has distanced himself from the Democrats.

She is far more partisan than I am.

NO WE ARE NOT!!!!

Prove it with ACTIONS....not words.

As long as you support candidates that suck up to the fascist theocrats, and do not stand up against them...then you are every bit as bad.

She is far more partisan than I am.

Oh please, even if she might be the second most partisan person on the planet, you'd still be the first.

Corny:
No, I'm NOT more partisan than you are.

I admit to being a registered Democrat. This is only because I want to vote in primaries.
I'm actually more ANTI-Republican than I am PRO-Democrat. But I recognize only the Democrats have the ability to oust the Republicans, who I hate more. So I support the Democrats.

The reason I am so anti-Republican is because the entire Republican Party is made up of three groups....

1. Fascist Theocrats
2. Corporatist Kleptocrats
3. Those who kowtow to, suck up to, and otherwise cave in to Number 1, Number 2, or both.

Prove it with ACTIONS....not words.

Apparently you missed my posts.

As long as you support candidates that suck up to the fascist theocrats, and do not stand up against them...then you are every bit as bad.

I don't think Congressman Murphy is sucking up to fascist theocrats. I look for integrity and morals in my candidate. do you?

Apparently you missed my posts.



I don't think Congressman Murphy is sucking up to fascist theocrats. I look for integrity and morals in my candidate. do you?

Morals like Bob Packwood? Jack Ryan? Bob Taft? Rush Limbaugh? Newt Gingrich?

I give a flying FUCK about morals. All I care about is...what is this guy going to do to better my lot in life, what is this guy going to do to help the economy, so that I don't fucking starve on the economic shit-heap?

Everything else can go to Hell, as far as I am concerned!

In other words...I care about the stuff that ACTUALLY MATTERS. Not about bullshit that doesn't.

Corny:
No, I'm NOT more partisan than you are.

Apparently you are!

I admit to being a registered Democrat. This is only because I want to vote in primaries.

And that is why I registered Republican so that I can vote in the primaries.

I'm actually more ANTI-Republican than I am PRO-Democrat.

I can say the samething but the other way around but I know you won't believe me.

But I recognize only the Democrats have the ability to oust the Republicans, who I hate more. So I support the Democrats.

Just like the Republicans who actually look out for the military and our national security. Do you know that the majority of the people don't trust the Democrats in the realm of National Security? I wonder why that is.

The reason I am so anti-Republican is because the entire Republican Party is made up of three groups....

THis should be good.

1. Fascist Theocrats

Wrong

2. Corporatist Kleptocrats

Democrats get more money from companies than the republicans do so that's wrong.

3. Those who kowtow to, suck up to, and otherwise cave in to Number 1, Number 2, or both.

Again, wrong.

Anyway, you and I will not see eye to eye on this and so before this gets anymore out of hand, why don't we agree to disagree?

anyway, Im outta here for about three hours or so. I'll be back later if you care to continue this. I got some housework to do, and I need to fix dinner.

Whose backpeddaling? I'm not.

So how is it going to be? How can you maintain that there is not much difference between the parties, yet that Democratic leaders "are against everything I'm for"?

As long as you support candidates that suck up to the fascist theocrats, and do not stand up against them...then you are every bit as bad.
Did you even read my post (well, more deeply than to pick up that phrase)?

Morals like Bob Packwood? Jack Ryan? Bob Taft? Rush Limbaugh? Newt Gingrich?

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, and I could give a rats ass about anyone else you listed.

I give a flying FUCK about morals.

Then whats moral about killing an innocent life?

All I care about is...what is this guy going to do to better my lot in life, what is this guy going to do to help the economy, so that I don't fucking starve on the economic shit-heap?

All I care about is defending our country from those that want to destroy it. I believe in a stronger military and soveriegnty. I have to look at who can defend the nation I love the best.

Everything else can go to Hell, as far as I am concerned!

Including that which gives you the freedom to post on here like oh.... I don't know, our military?

In other words...I care about the stuff that ACTUALLY MATTERS. Not about bullshit that doesn't.

The military doesn't matter to you?

I can say the samething but the other way around but I know you won't believe me.
...
Just like the Republicans who actually look out for the military and our national security.
Why should we believe you when you contradict yourself in the same post?

Really so you know what every republican on these boards believe? Lyric posted abursd generalizations that really don't apply to all republicans. This is the problem these days. Its always us versus them. Why the hell cant we all just start realizing there differences in opinions but that doesnt mean we can all work together to make things better.

Did I say every? No I said "many." And if you care to read any of the threads that bring up things like abortion and the death penalty, you'll see that, in overwhelming numbers, people who are pro-death are anti-choice and people who are pro-choice are anti-death.

It is hypocritical to think that a person who may by guilty of a crime must be put to death and to think that a blob of cells that may be a person must be brought to life. Most liberals are aware that there is some fuzzy ground between preserving the life of a fetus and taking away the rights of a real person, and they choose to err on the side of protecting the rights of the clearly human. Conservatives choose to err on the side of killing the clearly alive and taking away their rights, for the sake of possible guilt or possible life.

It is not the same to say
"To be a democrat today you have to be against executing killers, but for killing fetuses," as it is to say "to be a republican today you have to believe that condemned prisoners should all be killed but the life of a zygote must be preserved at all costs."

The anti-democrat one is an absurd mischaracterization of a position that no democrat holds. The anti-republican one is just phrasing the most common republican position (pro-death penalty and anti-abortion rights) in such a way as to point out the contradiction. The two are not equivilant.

The Guerraheim response was a more equivalent version of the anti-democrat one because it was hyperbole and very few (I won't say none, because American conservatives are self-satirizing these days) Republicans actually believe as that post claimed to.

The anti-democrat post was absurdism.
The original post was comic understatement.

Why should we believe you when you contradict yourself in the same post?

Ok how did I contradict myself with my statements?

Ok how did I contradict myself with my statements?
By trying to claim that you don't like the Republicans that much, then going into detail as to why the Republicans are so great.

Apparently you are! (more partisan)

Not possible Corny. No one can be more partisan that someone who is still pro-Bush. Being pro-Bush is the political equivalent of light speed. As support for Bush approaches sincerity a body's density approaches infinity.

Just like the Republicans who actually look out for the military and our national security. Do you know that the majority of the people don't trust the Democrats in the realm of National Security? I wonder why that is.

It's called Propaganda. The generals like the Republicans because Republicans will pour money into the military, but they don't do it to improve national defense. They do it because they've got relatives in the arms manufacturing business. So the military doesn't end up with what it needs, it ends up with what the relatives of the president and the chairman of the defense committee and other such notables choose to make. That's what Rumsfield meant when he said "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want or would wish to have." i.e. We'll take whatever we're given because we don't care about the guys carrying the weapons, we care about the guys making and selling them.



THis should be good.

Wrong

Democrats get more money from companies than the republicans do so that's wrong.

Again, wrong.

Anyway, you and I will not see eye to eye on this and so before this gets anymore out of hand, why don't we agree to disagree?

You just make this shit up as you go along don't you. I have yet to see you ever provide a shred of evidence for anything you say. It's well known that the Republicans make more money from companies than Democrats. They get more money than Democrats, and most of it comes from companies.

You fucking Americans are so sheltered! The Democrats and Republicans are so similar, that they're almost indistinguishable!


I love how Americans assume that the rantings of an extremist on the opposite side of the political spectrum to them somehow formulates the ther party's official policies.

Corneliu, the Democrats, in reality, are not ultra-liberal leftys; Lyric, the Republicans are not the fascist theocrats you imagine them all to be.

"Their" leaders don't for everything you're against. You just imagine that they do.

Perhaps not all Republicans are fascist theocrats, but that element is there and holds undue sway in the party's leadership. Just the other day Pat Robertson said that the US should assassinate Hugo Chavez because he disagrees with Chavez's economic views. And Pat Robertson is counted among Bush's "spiritual advisors."

Stop insulting the other side of a debate lyric. You won't win friends that way.

You know Corneliu, I never thought I'd see the day that I'd agree with you completly on anything. But you're right. That insult was way out of line. To say that Republicans disagree with Democrats is truly a horrible thing to say. To say that the Republican party opposes things like workers' rights, religious freedom, defense of civil rights, privacy rights, and peaceful alternatives to war is really a horrible thing to say about any group of people. No group of people could possibly be so putridly evil that they actually believe in the things stated as planks in the Republican party platform. Well, maybe the Republicans could, but no one else.

By trying to claim that you don't like the Republicans that much, then going into detail as to why the Republicans are so great.

When it comes to the military, yes they are. notice that is the only thing I mentioned was the military and national security. Even poll numbers indicate that the majority of the people trust Republicans over Democrats in regards to national security.

However, I will partly concede what you are saying

Very nice
Remember! Friends don't let Friends vote Democrat

Very cute paraphrase of the old drunk driving PSA. But you mispelled fiend, there's no 'r' in it.

To quote W.C.Feilds I don't vote for anybody ;)

To quote Will Rogers. "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat."

Very cute paraphrase of the old drunk driving PSA. But you mispelled fiend, there's no 'r' in it.

Actually, its a rephrase of Lyric's "Friends don't let Friends vote Republican"

Not just trolling but flaming too.

Yes, but we're all flamingly retarded. We know we're in for a firefight, so it's our choice.

To quote Will Rogers. "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat."

Sweet!

A brownie for you sir!

Didn't think anybody knew him anymore!

Actually, its a rephrase of Lyric's "Friends don't let Friends vote Republican"

Uhmmm I think you missed his joke. ;)

Uhmmm I think you missed his joke. ;)

Actually no I didn't but I'm not going to play Domici's games.

I'm talking about how you shouldnt label all republicans based on the actions of a few and all of a sudden you go off on anti-gay legislation. Dude I'm all for equal rights for gays but your not helping your cause by lumping people into one group. Thats how stereotypes get started.

You can't be for something and vote against it. If you vote for the people who are against gay rights, against helping the poor, against teaching children, pretend to be against abortion but are for policies that result in more abortions... Well then, get what? You're against gay rights, helping the poor, and everything else that the Republican party is against.

Actually no I didn't but I'm not going to play Domici's games.Course not! You spoil everyone's fun! :D

Uhmmm I think you missed his joke. ;)

Well, it's official, that someone has beaten me to publishing the "Real Republican Dictionary" so I guess I'll just post all my entries here as they become relevant.

Irony - Having qualities in common with unprocessed steel.
Humor - Mythical bodily fluids including Bile, Phegm, and two forgotten fluids that were apparently ill suited to the human condition.

You can't be for something and vote against it. If you vote for the people who are against gay rights, against helping the poor, against teaching children, pretend to be against abortion but are for policies that result in more abortions... Well then, get what? You're against gay rights, helping the poor, and everything else that the Republican party is against.NO party completely hits all its members' or voters' policies on the nail (especially not in bipartisan America). I'm a Green and I don't support pulling out of Iraq.

Course not! You spoil everyone's fun! :D

LOL! Every party needs a party pooper :D:D

Put your point is well taken :)

Corny:
No, I'm NOT more partisan than you are.

I admit to being a registered Democrat. This is only because I want to vote in primaries.
I'm actually more ANTI-Republican than I am PRO-Democrat. But I recognize only the Democrats have the ability to oust the Republicans, who I hate more. So I support the Democrats.

I couldn't agree more. I don't understand (though I don't disagree) when people complain about Democrats and Republicans being too similar to support the Democrats. Yes, the Democrats are too much like the Republicans. It's like the difference between having 212 degree water poured on you and 211 degee water poured on you. But if you're already bathing in it turn off the heat. Sure you will initially have 211 water and then 210 water, but eventually you'll get down to a nice hospitable 98.6. If you just turn the heat up higher because water can't get any hotter than 212 then things will never get any better.

Both parties have their good points and utterly stupid points...one more than the other. :headbang:

Either way, Republicans that bring their religion into politics are dumb shits that should have been aborted themselves and Democrats that oppose the disposal of irreformable criminals and pulling out of iraq and morons as well.

Both parties have their good points and utterly stupid points...one more than the other. :headbang:

Either way, Republicans that bring their religion into politics are dumb shits that should have been aborted themselves and Democrats that oppose the disposal of irreformable criminals and pulling out of iraq and morons as well.Are you sure that's what you wanted to say? ;)

I couldn't agree more. I don't understand (though I don't disagree) when people complain about Democrats and Republicans being too similar to support the Democrats. Yes, the Democrats are too much like the Republicans. It's like the difference between having 212 degree water poured on you and 211 degee water poured on you. But if you're already bathing in it turn off the heat. Sure you will initially have 211 water and then 210 water, but eventually you'll get down to a nice hospitable 98.6. If you just turn the heat up higher because water can't get any hotter than 212 then things will never get any better.
For a moment there, I was still thinking celsius. At those kinds of temperatures, 212 isn't much different from 98... :D

NO party completely hits all its members' or voters' policies on the nail (especially not in bipartisan America). I'm a Green and I don't support pulling out of Iraq.

True, but there is a definite tendency in the Republican party to redefine their morals to follow the party line. Like when Bush blocked a court decision that said that Iraq had to honor a judgment against it on behalf of American soldiers that were tortured during Saddam's rule. That's about the most horrible lack of support for the troops that one can imagine. He's actually robbing them of justice, and yet most the Bushies came out in support of their president's betrayal of the troops. Conservatives constantly tell liberals that "Bush is the president and whether you agree with him or not you have to support him" which is not only complete bullshit on its own merits, it hypocritical bullshit from most conservatives, because, for the most part, they didn't support Clinton at all. And Clinton wasn't even a little bit liberal. He was a conservative Democrat with some concessions to the big money Republicans.

:headbang: GAH! Dammit! Thanks for pointing that out. Democrats that SUPPORT pulling out of Iraq are dumbasses. Thank you my good man.

PS: that smiley kicks ASS!

Either way, Republicans that bring their religion into politics are dumb shits that should have been aborted themselves and Democrats that oppose the disposal of irreformable criminals and pulling out of iraq and morons as well.


Are you sure that's what you wanted to say? ;)

Well, pulling out of Morons would cut down on the need for all those abortions.

For a moment there, I was still thinking celsius. At those kinds of temperatures, 212 isn't much different from 98... :D

And you know, I meant to include the metric conversion. A pox on my American myopia.

And you know, I meant to include the metric conversion. A pox on my American myopia.Just make sure to call it Fahrenheit (a little F every now and then helps avoid confusion) unless you're talking about -40. :D

Oh do shut up, it was hastily put together.

Oh do shut up, it was hastily put together.I only spend long on my posts if they are long by themselves, but I've had a natural affinity to proper spelling, so I don't blame you for having more mistakes than I might put in. Besides, berating someone for spelling is never a really good arguement. ;)

Err...that wasn't really directed towards you.

The military doesn't matter to you?

Not when it is misused to prop up the balance sheets of Exxon-Mobil at the expense of American blood.

When it is used to ACTUALLY DEFEND AMERICA, then yes, it matters. But when it is used to promote the interests of Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, BP, and Amoco...then, no, the military doesn't matter to me. That answer your question?

Sweet!

A brownie for you sir!

Didn't think anybody knew him anymore!

Actually, one of my favorite quotes is from Will rogers, and it is one of the auto-signature lines I use with my email program.

If all dogs do not go to Heaven then, when I die, I want to go where they went.
To which I can only add a heartfelt AMEN!!

You can't be for something and vote against it. If you vote for the people who are against gay rights, against helping the poor, against teaching children, pretend to be against abortion but are for policies that result in more abortions... Well then, get what? You're against gay rights, helping the poor, and everything else that the Republican party is against.

DING, DING, DING, DING!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Please sir may I have some more? :rolleyes:

Can I help? I've got a pulse generator that might work to increase pain delivery to EA. :grins:

Not when it is misused to prop up the balance sheets of Exxon-Mobil at the expense of American blood.

Even though this war isn't about oil at all!

When it is used to ACTUALLY DEFEND AMERICA, then yes, it matters.

So do you believe in a strong military?

But when it is used to promote the interests of Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, BP, and Amoco...then, no, the military doesn't matter to me. That answer your question?

No since your trying to paint the War in Iraq as a war for oil when infact it is not. If it was then why did Bush sign the energy bill that will begin to ween us off of foreign oil? Not right away but it will. So how about it?

No since your trying to paint the War in Iraq as a war for oil when infact it is not. If it was then why did Bush sign the energy bill that will begin to ween us off of foreign oil? Not right away but it will. So how about it?

Quick question. Who controls the Iraqi oil wells at the moment. An iraqi company that belongs to the government or an American one?

And please don't use that "Where's the cheap oil" argument. It has been shown not only by me, but several others that cheap oil for the consumer is the worst possible idea for an oil company's profit. Supply and demand. Control the supply, you can make the demand do whatever you want it to do. Prices too low? Squeeze the supply, hoard it.

Quick question. Who controls the Iraqi oil wells at the moment. An iraqi company that belongs to the government or an American one?

The Iraqis as far as I know since they are bickering over oil revenues between the provinces of Iraq.

Ah, I love it. The threads where democrats make fun of republicans and laugh, but when republicans try to make fun of democrats, the democrats get super defensive.

The Iraqis as far as I know since they are bickering over oil revenues between the provinces of Iraq.

Are you certain? Wasn't there something about using Iraqi oil for "reconstruction" purposes? Also, wasn't there something that prevented any American company that touches said oil from being investigated via judicial authorities in America?

I'm probably sure you will call this propoganda and whatnot, but I'd at least keep an open mind.

http://www.fpif.org/iraq/occupation/0309oilrev_body.html

Companies are there to make money. And with a double bonus of oil money and immunity from legal investigations, are you saying that the corporations will be good little boys and girls and not pocket the money?

Ah, I love it. The threads where democrats make fun of republicans and laugh, but when republicans try to make fun of democrats, the democrats get super defensive.

You're telling me the Republicans don't do the same thing?

You're telling me the Republicans don't do the same thing?

Both sides do it!

You're telling me the Republicans don't do the same thing?

I am? I must have missed that part in my thread. :rolleyes: Yes, Republicans do the same thing. Although I mostly notice the Democrats who are the ones who attack the most, the amount of angry Republican threads are much smaller than angry Democrat ones. I guess it's cause they're in office, so they have nothing to worry about. :p

Ah, don't worry about it. I expected SOME Republican on this Forum would come up with something like that. He's just pissed off because he didn't think of it first.

Didn't think of it first? Newsflash, there's been at least a dozen of these threads from both sides since the boards started. I had almost thought never to see another but I see my belief that stupidity is an endemic condition in the human race reborn through you posting another one. Good job, I was getting to be too much of an optimist anyway.

No since your trying to paint the War in Iraq as a war for oil when infact it is not. If it was then why did Bush sign the energy bill that will begin to ween us off of foreign oil? Not right away but it will. So how about it?

Bwaahahahaha! I try to be funny now and then, but I don't think I'll ever be able to top that. "Bush is for energy conservation, that's why he's given the oil companies billions of dollars when they already make trillions. That'll solve all the problems of the energy crisis!" Whatever happened to the days when Republicans used to say "you don't solve problems by just throwing money at them?" And here Bush is doing nothing more than throwing money at the oil companies. Money and oil. All he has to do is put it in a bottle and we've got the worlds most expensive Molotov cocktail.

Ah, I love it. The threads where democrats make fun of republicans and laugh, but when republicans try to make fun of democrats, the democrats get super defensive.

Super defensive? I'm pretty sure that most of us just responded in kind.

But I've already pointed out that the anti-democrat list wasn't the equivilant of the anti-republican one. The anti-dem one was based on mischaracterization and hyperbole, the anti-rep one was deadpan reductionism, or comic understatement.

To compare the two is like saying that Michael Moore overstating and exaggerating is the liberal equivalent of conservative Ann Coulter making stuff up and calling for those who disagree with her to be murdered.

Just because it's the closest that the Republicans can get doesn't mean it's the conservative equivalent. There are some things that conservatives don't have a counterpart to, like souls, scruples, or a shred of decency (now that's liberal hyperbole)

Quick question. Who controls the Iraqi oil wells at the moment. An iraqi company that belongs to the government or an American one?

And please don't use that "Where's the cheap oil" argument. It has been shown not only by me, but several others that cheap oil for the consumer is the worst possible idea for an oil company's profit. Supply and demand. Control the supply, you can make the demand do whatever you want it to do. Prices too low? Squeeze the supply, hoard it.

Like Nintendo used to do before the rise of Playstation and X-box. Goes to show you. All empires crumble.

Even though this war isn't about oil at all!



So do you believe in a strong military?



No since your trying to paint the War in Iraq as a war for oil when infact it is not. If it was then why did Bush sign the energy bill that will begin to ween us off of foreign oil? Not right away but it will. So how about it?

If that energy bill is such a good thing, then why does Cheney STILL refuse to make public, the people he met with, and whose input he accepted...when crafting that energy bill? what's he hiding, if the bill is so terrific??

And I do believe in a strong DEFENSIVE military. I have no use for an OFFENSIVE military. They need to be at home, defending our borders. not over there, defending Exxon-Mobil's ledgers.

Quick question. Who controls the Iraqi oil wells at the moment. An iraqi company that belongs to the government or an American one?

And please don't use that "Where's the cheap oil" argument. It has been shown not only by me, but several others that cheap oil for the consumer is the worst possible idea for an oil company's profit. Supply and demand. Control the supply, you can make the demand do whatever you want it to do. Prices too low? Squeeze the supply, hoard it.

Exactly. That tactic is commonly referred to, in political arenas, as "hydraulic despotism." Try looking that up sometime.

Super defensive? I'm pretty sure that most of us just responded in kind.

But I've already pointed out that the anti-democrat list wasn't the equivilant of the anti-republican one. The anti-dem one was based on mischaracterization and hyperbole, the anti-rep one was deadpan reductionism, or comic understatement.

To compare the two is like saying that Michael Moore overstating and exaggerating is the liberal equivalent of conservative Ann Coulter making stuff up and calling for those who disagree with her to be murdered.

Just because it's the closest that the Republicans can get doesn't mean it's the conservative equivalent. There are some things that conservatives don't have a counterpart to, like souls, scruples, or a shred of decency (now that's liberal hyperbole)


Not so fast!! If you remember correctly, Sentor McCarthy was a Republican. And his downfall came when a then-little-known attorney stood up to him, publicly, and said, "Have you not a shred of decency, sir?"

Not so fast!! If you remember correctly, Sentor McCarthy was a Republican. And his downfall came when a then-little-known attorney stood up to him, publicly, and said, "Have you not a shred of decency, sir?"

You're right. Yet again I have it proven to me that no matter how clever I think I'm being, it is impossible to satirize a conservative.

Like Nintendo used to do before the rise of Playstation and X-box. Goes to show you. All empires crumble.

????

If you mean in relation to oil, currently, there are no alternatives to oil that is both efficient and popular enough to replace that. Besides, manufacturing entertainment consoles is a bit more complicated, but less restrictive than looking for natural resources that will eventually dry up.

If that energy bill is such a good thing, then why does Cheney STILL refuse to make public, the people he met with, and whose input he accepted...when crafting that energy bill? what's he hiding, if the bill is so terrific??

Because he's the Vice President and therefor doesn't have to reveal anything. Executive Privelage. Even the Courts held that one up. Nice try hun!

And I do believe in a strong DEFENSIVE military. I have no use for an OFFENSIVE military. They need to be at home, defending our borders. not over there, defending Exxon-Mobil's ledgers.

Get off the war for oil kick Lyric. Its not about oil and we all know it.

THINGS YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO BE A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him , a bad guy when Bush's
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and
a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
with China & Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all of mankind
without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary
Clinton.

The best way to improve the military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health
care to all Americans is socialism.

HMO's and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at
heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable
offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George
Bush's cocaine conviction in none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers
for your recovery.

You support states' rights, which means former Attorney General John
Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the
right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the 80's is irrelevant.


REMEMBER: Friends don't let friends vote Republican!!
It appears that you got most of them, except you might want to include Bushanomics and how record deficits and national debt are good for the country and that Clinton started the recession, even though 26 Million jobs were created during his term?

Because he's the Vice President and therefor doesn't have to reveal anything. Executive Privelage. Even the Courts held that one up. Nice try hun!
Executive privelege works well for Republicans only?

Get off the war for oil kick Lyric. Its not about oil and we all know it.
It is about OIL. :(

This sailor agrees with me. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9426918&postcount=903)

Secret US plans for Iraq's oil (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm)

U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ahJS35XsmXGg&refer=top_world_news)

IS OIL OR BIG BUSINESS AN UNDISCLOSED MOTIVE FOR THE WAR ON IRAQ? (http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp)

Will The End of Oil Mean the End of America? (http://www.countercurrents.org/po-freeman270404.htm)

If the US economy is not to grind to a halt under these circumstances it must choose one of three alternate strategies: dramatically lower its living standards (something it is not willing to do); substantially increase the energy efficiency of its economy; or make up the shortfall by securing supplies from other countries. President Bush’s National Energy Policy published in March 2001 explicitly commits the US to the third choice: Grab the Oil. It is this choice that is now driving US military and national security policy. And, in fact, the past 60 years of US policy in the Middle East can only be understood as the effort to control access to the world’s largest supply of oil.

Get with the program Corny. :eek:

Executive privelege works well for Republicans only?


It is about OIL. :(

This sailor agrees with me. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9426918&postcount=903)

Secret US plans for Iraq's oil (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm)

U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ahJS35XsmXGg&refer=top_world_news)

IS OIL OR BIG BUSINESS AN UNDISCLOSED MOTIVE FOR THE WAR ON IRAQ? (http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp)

Will The End of Oil Mean the End of America? (http://www.countercurrents.org/po-freeman270404.htm)



Please, show us some real sources instead of the liberal BBC and some no-name sites that no one has ever heard of it.

Why on earth would be spending the US be spending all this money on the war for oil that will probably not pay back?

Oil prices are at an all-time high too. Yep, so much for liberating that 'oil'

7) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

:D

Kecibukia, I think I love you.

Good article!!! :D

Does this mean that you are a Democrat CL?

Sorry, but I couldn’t resist. :D

Canada City']Please, show us some real sources instead of the liberal BBC and some no-name sites that no one has ever heard of it.
Ahhh contempt prior to investigation? Firstly, they are not all BBC or no-name sites, and secondly, you replied in less than 25 minutes, so unless you are a speed reader, you didn't bother reading the material?

Canada City']Why on earth would be spending the US be spending all this money on the war for oil that will probably not pay back?
First of all, it is only taxpayers money, so the large corporations don't have to pay. Secondly, it is called "futures" on the stock market. If the US were to run out of oil then her economy would collapse. So a $200 Billion investment is a drop in the bucket.

Canada City']Oil prices are at an all-time high too. Yep, so much for liberating that 'oil'
This has nothing to do with current oil prices. The US oil giants are STILL making record profits. Just keep buying those gas guzzlers and the oil company executives will keep smiling.

Executive privelege works well for Republicans only?

No! It actually goes both ways.

It is about OIL. :(

Yes is this the CH residence? Hello sir. I hvae a proposition for you. How would you like to buy a bridge in San Fran as well as a beach in Miami?


Get with the program Corny. :eek:

Why don't you.

This has nothing to do with current oil prices. The US oil giants are STILL making record profits. Just keep buying those gas guzzlers and the oil company executives will keep smiling.

Guess what? There's going to be TOUGHER regulations now on SUVs! You know who is pushing this? That's right, BUSH! :eek:

Also, the energy bill that was just recently signed is going to lower our dependence on foreign oil. Not right away but it will over time so why launch a war for oil and then sign this into law? Oops, another one debunked.

Get with the program Canuck! :eek:

Does this mean that you are a Democrat CL?

Sorry, but I couldn’t resist. :D

I'm registered as a Republican.

I was really just mirroring a similar response, thats all.

To be honest-I tend to have conservative views-but I dont fall in step blindly. I usually watch and listen a little more before I decide on things.

Because he's the Vice President and therefor doesn't have to reveal anything. Executive Privelage. Even the Courts held that one up. Nice try hun!

There's a difference between having the right to and it actually being right not to.

If a cop shoots you in the process of a crime but then you escape and the wound heals over with the bullet still in you, you don't have to allow them to go in and take the bullet out, even if the bullet will prove your guilt or innocence. The fact that you won't allow it to be taken out doesn't mean you're innocent, it means you're hiding something. Same deal with Dick Cheney. He doesn't have to, but if everything was as innocent as he's pretending it is he would.

And executive privilege is supposed to cover matters of national security. What the hell did Enron have to do with national security?

There's a difference between having the right to and it actually being right not to.

If a cop shoots you in the process of a crime but then you escape and the wound heals over with the bullet still in you, you don't have to allow them to go in and take the bullet out, even if the bullet will prove your guilt or innocence. The fact that you won't allow it to be taken out doesn't mean you're innocent, it means you're hiding something. Same deal with Dick Cheney. He doesn't have to, but if everything was as innocent as he's pretending it is he would.

And executive privilege is supposed to cover matters of national security. What the hell did Enron have to do with national security?

Doesn't matter what I think. The fact remains that he doesn't have to reveal anything if he doesn't want too. Besides that, that is also one of our rights too you know? Wether we agree with it or not is, in reality, irrelevant. The Courts backed up the administration regarding this so I consider the issue settled. You'll have to ask the courts on why they ruled the way they did.

You're right. Yet again I have it proven to me that no matter how clever I think I'm being, it is impossible to satirize a conservative.

Ah, no...you can satirize them. The only problem is that they don't recognize satire when it hits them between the eyes!

I mean, fucking George Carlin said it best when he said that Nixon was the perfect symbol for America, because the guy looked like he hadn't taken a shit in about a month!

I mean...you take a lump of coal...and shove it up the average conservatives ASS...and in two weeks you have a diamond!

Because he's the Vice President and therefor doesn't have to reveal anything. Executive Privelage. Even the Courts held that one up. Nice try hun!



Get off the war for oil kick Lyric. Its not about oil and we all know it.

Why does he NEED Executive Privilege on this? I mean...if it is SO GOOD...and SO in the best interests of our country...then what's there to hide?? Nice attempt at a sidestep to the question, corny, but I'm not backing off this one until you answer it.

As to the war not being for about oil...how would you know? Your guys never HAVE known WHAT the war is about, have you? Or if you have, you sure haven't been straight with the American public about what it's about, have ya? First it was about WMD's...then you couldn't find any...and it was all about Saddam being a bad guy. Then it was pointed out to you guys that Kim Jong-Il was a bad guy, too. Then it became about "liberating the Iraqi people." so what the FUCK is it about, then, if not for oil? You can't answer that question, because your side never has known! I say it's all about oil and Operation Anigo Montoya.

Why does he NEED Executive Privilege on this? I mean...if it is SO GOOD...and SO in the best interests of our country...then what's there to hide?? Nice attempt at a sidestep to the question, corny, but I'm not backing off this one until you answer it.

Because its none of our damn business what they discussed behind closed doors. I've stated that everytime and apparently it isn't getting through

As to the war not being for about oil...how would you know? Your guys never HAVE known WHAT the war is about, have you?

1) I know because it is quite obvious that it isn't.
2) If you bothered to read the war resolution, you can see what it was about.
a) Human Rights
b) Ending the reign of an oppressive dictator
c) Enforcing UN Resolutions
d) Weapons of Mass Destruction though this turned out to be false.

Or if you have, you sure haven't been straight with the American public about what it's about, have ya?

Actually, we have been upfront. We admitted that the intel on WMD was bad and have taken steps to make sure that doesn't happen again. We've shown the Rape and Torture rooms. Heard testimony from those that suffered under Saddam's regime. We have been more honest than the Liberal left think.

First it was about WMD's...then you couldn't find any...and it was all about Saddam being a bad guy. Then it was pointed out to you guys that Kim Jong-Il was a bad guy, too. Then it became about "liberating the Iraqi people." so what the FUCK is it about, then, if not for oil? You can't answer that question, because your side never has known! I say it's all about oil and Operation Anigo Montoya.

Read the war resolution and you'll find what it was all about. Yes the WMD charge was based on bad intelligence. Alwell...that happens. Nothing is as simple as people try to make it out to believe. That is why we need more human resources in intelligence and now the CIA is doing just that. About time too!

Doesn't matter what I think. The fact remains that he doesn't have to reveal anything if he doesn't want too. Besides that, that is also one of our rights too you know? Wether we agree with it or not is, in reality, irrelevant. The Courts backed up the administration regarding this so I consider the issue settled. You'll have to ask the courts on why they ruled the way they did.
But I wonder...had the courts ruled that Clinton didn't have to talk about Monica Lewinsky...would you have considered THAT issue settled? Something tells me you wouldn't.

Because its none of our damn business what they discussed behind closed doors. I've stated that everytime and apparently it isn't getting through

But what Clinton did behind closed doors with Monica WAS our business, wasn't it, Corny?

why do I get the feeling you are nothing but a Party hack?

But I wonder...had the courts ruled that Clinton didn't have to talk about Monica Lewinsky...would you have considered THAT issue settled? Something tells me you wouldn't.

Yes I would've considered the issue settled. I wouldn't like it but I would've considered it settled. Just like I didn't like the fact that evidence was excluded from Clinton's Senate Trial! However its over with and I have accepted the fact that he wasn't tossed from power! That is how life is. Welcome to the real world.

Life isn't fair.

Yes I would've considered the issue settled. I wouldn't like it but I would've considered it settled. Just like I didn't like the fact that evidence was excluded from Clinton's Senate Trial! However its over with and I have accepted the fact that he wasn't tossed from power! That is how life is. Welcome to the real world.

Life isn't fair.
Sure you would've considered it settled. The very bitterness I detect in your post tells me it's all settled in your mind. NOT.

I get the feeling that you are either A- A Republican Party shill or B- Intentionally going out of your way to annoy me, because you know how badly I hate the Republican Party...and everything it stands for!

At least I'm willing to own up to MY biases...how about you, Corny?

Life isn't fair.And when they told you it was... they lied. :D

But what Clinton did behind closed doors with Monica WAS our business, wasn't it, Corny?

Since he was caught....yes it became our business. We expect our leaders to be moral and law abiding citizens. The fact that he lied to a federal grand jury didn't help him much. However, I'm not going to rehash something from the past because it really is irrelevant to today's time.

why do I get the feeling you are nothing but a Party hack?

I don't know. Why do I get the feeling you are nothing but a Party hack? That question can go both ways.

I do look at the issues and listen to both sides of the story. I way my opinion based on their answers and what I have been able to dig up then I make my voting decisions. I would vote for a democrat if I felt they could do a better job in the realms of National Security and on military matters but so far, none have been able to grab my attention. Those are my 2 main issues. If a democrat can come along and promise me better security and a strong military and not cave to the debating society known as the UN and not destroy our intelligence agencies then I would vote for them.

Sure you would've considered it settled. The very bitterness I detect in your post tells me it's all settled in your mind. NOT.

As I said, I may not like it but I would abide by whatever the courts decide. That is why we have a judiciary branch. I don't like half the decisions that come from it but I also respect the court though I may blast them every now and then.

I get the feeling that you are either A- A Republican Party shill or B- Intentionally going out of your way to annoy me, because you know how badly I hate the Republican Party...and everything it stands for!

Actually its more closer to B than to A.

At least I'm willing to own up to MY biases...how about you, Corny?

I have a few times but today....sorry, not going to give you that satisfaction :D

And when they told you it was... they lied. :D

Actually, no one told me life was fair! :D

Since he was caught....yes it became our business. We expect our leaders to be moral and law abiding citizens. The fact that he lied to a federal grand jury didn't help him much. However, I'm not going to rehash something from the past because it really is irrelevant to today's time.



I don't know. Why do I get the feeling you are nothing but a Party hack? That question can go both ways.

I do look at the issues and listen to both sides of the story. I way my opinion based on their answers and what I have been able to dig up then I make my voting decisions. I would vote for a democrat if I felt they could do a better job in the realms of National Security and on military matters but so far, none have been able to grab my attention. Those are my 2 main issues. If a democrat can come along and promise me better security and a strong military and not cave to the debating society known as the UN and not destroy our intelligence agencies then I would vote for them.


Actually, as I have stated before...I'm more ANTI-Republican than PRO-Democrat. I just recognize that only the Democrats can keep the Republicans from power, and so I support them. Lesser of two evils.

MY main issues are the economy (MY FUCKING WALLET AND BELLY) and Civil Rights (STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY BEDROOM) I have never seen a Republican that matches my feelings on either issue. In fact, every Republican I've ever seen has views diametrically opposed to my own, on the two issues most important to me. So how can I do anything but hate and despise them?

Since he was caught....yes it became our business. We expect our leaders to be moral and law abiding citizens. The fact that he lied to a federal grand jury didn't help him much. However, I'm not going to rehash something from the past because it really is irrelevant to today's time.

I think it's time that you just got back the sort of partisan hackery that seems to be your sole means of communication.

Clinton did NOT cheat on his wife. He said so. You may disagree with the way Clinton did things, but he was your president and you had to support him. It was because of conservative attack dogs like you that Osama Bin Laden got away. He tried to go after the people behind 9/11 before it ever happened, and Republicans kept crying "no war for Monica." You republicans are treasonous America haters. It's because of you that the twin towers fell.

We expect our leaders to be more intelligent than we are. If any idiot could be president then I'd have applied for the job myself, or sent you, but people with that job have to be really well qualified. Clinton was, Bush isn't.

hmmm. It seems I've fallen a good deal short of the mark. A lot of what I said was actually true, so it isn't exactly the same as the anti-Clinton pro-Bush stuff, but I'll keep working on it.

Actually, as I have stated before...I'm more ANTI-Republican than PRO-Democrat. I just recognize that only the Democrats can keep the Republicans from power, and so I support them. Lesser of two evils.

Just like the republicans to keep us secured and not under the influence of the UN. Lesser of the two evils. We could keep this up all day you know?

MY main issues are the economy (MY FUCKING WALLET AND BELLY) and Civil Rights (STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY BEDROOM) I have never seen a Republican that matches my feelings on either issue.

So I guess you are opposed to getting more money to spend on whatever it is you want to buy? We aren't in your bedroom. Big brother isn't here you know.

In fact, every Republican I've ever seen has views diametrically opposed to my own, on the two issues most important to me. So how can I do anything but hate and despise them?

Try seeing things from their side for once instead of denouncing them at every turn? Despite popular belief, I do listen to the democrats. I listen to what they have to say and if they say something I agree with, I acknowledge it and if not, I don't. During the elections, I actually listened to Kerry. He made good points but never expanded on them. Ok, granted, most politicians do this. However, Kerry contradicted himself to many times. With Bush, Bush actually stated what he ment and never wavered from said arguements. He was upset when things he was told turned out to be wrong. Why do you think that Intel agencies got a shake up over the WMD intel? And apparently, we should've listened to him regarding the 9/11 Commission since some key facts were somehow omitted from the final document regarding Atta who was identified in 2000. This actually brings the whole document into question. What else was omitted that shouldn't have been?

I don't know. Why do I get the feeling you are nothing but a Party hack? That question can go both ways.

The difference is that Lyric gets the impression that you're a party hack because you have that sort of noodley moral compass that always flops straight down wherever you point it because that's where the Republican party position is. It lets you think that Bush is pro-military despite threatening to veto legislation that gave them better healthcare, closing VA hospitals, and not giving them the body armor that they need. It lets you think he's anti-abortion despite the fact that abortion rates went down every year Clinton was in office, and came back up when Bush got into office. Lyric thinks you're a partisan hack because you change your beliefs to match the party platform or the Bush agenda.

You think that Lyric is a partisan hack because (I think I remember an allusion to gender) she appeals to things like fact and reason, which are often opposed to the Republican party platform and the Bush agenda. This leads you to think that she's using logic and reason because they conviniently disagree with the conservative position just like conservatives will appeal to the idea of small government when they want to be pro-racism but appeal to the idea of torte reform when they want big government (taking medical civil suits out of the states and making them a strictly federal thing).

It's projection on your part, its observation on hers.

Clinton did NOT cheat on his wife. He said so. You may disagree with the way Clinton did things, but he was your president and you had to support him.

Then what do you call having sex with someone who wasn't his wife? Sure sounds like he cheated to me. Yes I respect the office of the President. I supported him in somethings and not others but then he is the president and I respect his judgements in policy matters. I don't have to like them and I didn't most of the time but I did respect them.

We expect our leaders to be more intelligent than we are. If any idiot could be president then I'd have applied for the job myself, or sent you, but people with that job have to be really well qualified. Clinton was, Bush isn't.

Apparently the people disagree that Bush isn't qualified since he was elected twice.

Apparently the people disagree that Bush isn't qualified since he was elected twice.Which doesn't say much about the people, if you interpret it that way...

Which doesn't say much about the people, if you interpret it that way...

You can also interpret it the other way and say those that voted for Bush were smart enough not to fall for Kerry. Everything can be taken both ways :D

Ah, no...you can satirize them. The only problem is that they don't recognize satire when it hits them between the eyes!

I mean, fucking George Carlin said it best when he said that Nixon was the perfect symbol for America, because the guy looked like he hadn't taken a shit in about a month!

I mean...you take a lump of coal...and shove it up the average conservatives ASS...and in two weeks you have a diamond!

The problem is worse than that. In order to satirize you have to exaggerate their bad points to the point that it's worse than they actually are, but not so bad that it's just not conceptually possible. And that window gets narrower and narrower with every passing year.

e.g. On Janeane Garofalo's (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) radio show they used to call the White House press Corp "whores." Now that sounds like satire, because they're not actual whores, but they compromise their integrity for money the way that whores compromise their sexual integrity for money. Well, then we hear about Jeff Gannon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon), a member of the White House Press Corp who was an actual literal whore. So theoretically you could satirize a conservative if you aim for just the right level of absurdity, but anything that you say that is not so absurd as to deserve a raspberry rather than a laugh will probably turn out to be precognition rather than satire. Just wait a couple of months, we'll probably hear a story about a diamond mining mogul who actually just fishes the gems out of his toilet bowl.

Then what do you call having sex with someone who wasn't his wife? Sure sounds like he cheated to me. Yes I respect the office of the President. I supported him in somethings and not others but then he is the president and I respect his judgements in policy matters. I don't have to like them and I didn't most of the time but I did respect them.

Remember I was using your metric for guaging the truth of the Presidents actions. Bill Clinton said he didn't, therefore he didn't. Normally I appeal to facts, which say he did, but for the sake of this argument I'm appealing to conservative debate tactics, which say he didn't (when co-opted). If the president says he didn't and objective reality says he did then objective reality is a traitor to this country and should be invaded by the FOX Newsvanguard.

Apparently the people disagree that Bush isn't qualified since he was elected twice.

Yes, but with all the people who say that they voted for him because "he's the kinda guy ya could have a beer with" I don't think that says a whole lot for how qualified they think he is. They just have a notion of trust that says "if someone is dumber than me then he can't slip one past me, but if he's smarter than me, then I don't know how to keep tabs on him."

Doesn't matter what I think. The fact remains that he doesn't have to reveal anything if he doesn't want too. Besides that, that is also one of our rights too you know? Wether we agree with it or not is, in reality, irrelevant. The Courts backed up the administration regarding this so I consider the issue settled. You'll have to ask the courts on why they ruled the way they did.

You're dodging the point. The issue isn't whether or not he has to, but should he. You're appealing to that common tactic of ammoral bastards (I'm not calling you one per se I'm just pointing out that they use that tactic and now you're using it on their behalf) conflating what's good with what's legally forbidden.

e.g. is it right for a corporation to buy a PO box in the Bahamas in order to claim that they're a Bahamas corporation and not subject to American taxes, even though their corporate headquarters is still in America and they own and operate huge tracts of property in America? No, it's not right, but it's not illegal either.

Is it right for Dick Cheney to go behind closed doors and counsel a bunch of executives on how to rip of thousands of people, defraud the public and the government, and then hide behind it? No.

Also, you said that it's a right that we have too? No it isn't. You can't be forced to confess, but if there's evidence of your guilt of a crime in your posession you have to turn it over. There was one case in which it was determined that you can't subject a person to surgery in the name of collecting evidence, but you can be forced to masturbate into a cup (though I shudder to think what that force might entail) if the government wants evidence against you. Now you're telling me that Dick Cheney refusing to hand over meeting minutes is availing himself of a right we all have? You conservatives really do dine at the morality smorgasbord don't you?

1. Just like the republicans to keep us secured and not under the influence of the UN. Lesser of the two evils. We could keep this up all day you know?



2. So I guess you are opposed to getting more money to spend on whatever it is you want to buy? We aren't in your bedroom. Big brother isn't here you know.



3. Try seeing things from their side for once instead of denouncing them at every turn? Despite popular belief, I do listen to the democrats. I listen to what they have to say and if they say something I agree with, I acknowledge it and if not, I don't. During the elections, I actually listened to Kerry. He made good points but never expanded on them. Ok, granted, most politicians do this. However, Kerry contradicted himself to many times. With Bush, Bush actually stated what he ment and never wavered from said arguements. He was upset when things he was told turned out to be wrong. Why do you think that Intel agencies got a shake up over the WMD intel? And apparently, we should've listened to him regarding the 9/11 Commission since some key facts were somehow omitted from the final document regarding Atta who was identified in 2000. This actually brings the whole document into question. What else was omitted that shouldn't have been?

1. Secured, my ass! SCARED, more like it. Tom Ridge, anyone? Remember, he even ADMITTED the Terror code was used to boost Bush's poll numbers! Any time bush's numbers were down, the terror code went up! Anyone for more duct tape and plastic sheeting?

2. No, i'm in favor of getting more money. I believe I said this was one of my inportant issues. But how do I get more money when Bush policies encourage offshoring of jobs, and the general lowering of wages, across the board? and before you say wages have gone up...YES...NOMINAL wages HAVE gone up, you are right...but ACTUAL BUYING POWER has gone way down, because the prices of everything going up is by far outstripping what meager wage increases we get. If the economy is so fucking good, then why am I sitting here, typing this now, and waiting for the fucking phone to ring in response to the 25 or so resumes I bomb out each and every week, hoping against hope? Why am I not, instead ACTUALLY WORKING AT A PAYING JOB?? No, i'm not lazy, either. I FUCKING WANT TO WORK!!

3. I can't even make myself THINK from the side of hatred, bigotry and prejudice. Whenever I see Republican, the instant connection is made in my mind, more bigotry, intolerance, hatred, prejudice. DOMA, anyone? Refusing to pass ENDA, anyone? Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, anyone? No, until the Republicans quit their stinkin' thinkin' I can't see things from their side.

To say that Republicans disagree with Democrats is truly a horrible thing to say. To say that the Republican party opposes things like workers' rights, religious freedom, defense of civil rights, privacy rights, and peaceful alternatives to war is really a horrible thing to say about any group of people. No group of people could possibly be so putridly evil that they actually believe in the things stated as planks in the Republican party platform. Well, maybe the Republicans could, but no one else.
The Democrats, or at least most of them, also oppose worker's rights, privacy, and peace. This "socialist liberal" image is entirely invented.

When it comes to the military, yes they are. notice that is the only thing I mentioned was the military and national security. Even poll numbers indicate that the majority of the people trust Republicans over Democrats in regards to national security.

However, I will partly concede what you are saying
Now I am even more confused. You seem to hold these conflicting beliefs:

1. There is little difference between the parties.
The Democrats and Republicans are so similar, that they're almost indistinguishable!

"Their" leaders don't stand for everything you're against. You just imagine that they do.I already know this Swimmingpool. However, certain elements in both parties don't seem to know this.

2. Democrats stand for everything you are against, whereas Republicans stand for what you stand for.
Just like your leaders are for everything I'm against and against everything I'm for.

3. The Republicans are only worth voting for because they're not as bad as the Democrats.
I'm actually more ANTI-Republican than I am PRO-Democrat.
I can say the samething but the other way around but I know you won't believe me.

4. The Republicans are great because they spend gratuitously on the military.
Just like the Republicans who actually look out for the military and our national security.

I couldn't agree more. I don't understand (though I don't disagree) when people complain about Democrats and Republicans being too similar to support the Democrats. Yes, the Democrats are too much like the Republicans. It's like the difference between having 212 degree water poured on you and 211 degee water poured on you.
Oh man, you're as bad as Corneliu! You're a Democratic dog!

When it is used to ACTUALLY DEFEND AMERICA, then yes, it matters. But when it is used to promote the interests of Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, BP, and Amoco...then, no, the military doesn't matter to me. That answer your question?
Did you read any of the new Iraqi Constitution?

Article 109
Oil and gas are the property of all the Iraqi people in regions and provinces.

Article 110
The central government administers oil and gas extracted from current wells, along with governments of the producing regions and provinces, on the condition that revenues are distributed in a way that suits population distribution around the country.
Looks like my hope came true: public ownership of oil wells.

Canada City']Please, show us some real sources instead of the liberal BBC and some no-name sites that no one has ever heard of it.
Ah yes, if you don't want your beliefs to be challenged, just dismiss the credibility of the sources. The BBC is a more credible source than almost any other news organisation. Who would you suggest? The Murdoch media?

Remember I was using your metric for guaging the truth of the Presidents actions. Bill Clinton said he didn't, therefore he didn't. Normally I appeal to facts, which say he did, but for the sake of this argument I'm appealing to conservative debate tactics, which say he didn't (when co-opted). If the president says he didn't and objective reality says he did then objective reality is a traitor to this country and should be invaded by the FOX Newsvanguard.Maybe the CIA gave him bad intel on the incident, and he actually said what he thought was true... :D

1) You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.



2) You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand -in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.



3) You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who

can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.



4) You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and

doctors are overpaid.



5) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans

are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.



6) You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by

cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.



7) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay

is natural.



8) You have to believe that businesses create oppression and

governments create prosperity.



9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but

pasty-faced, fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.



10) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than

actually doing something to earn it.



11) You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.



12) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start

wars.



13) You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels

can't deliver the programming quality PBS does.



14) You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for

certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.



15) You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too

high.



16) You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria

Steinman are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Alva Edison.



17) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial

quotas and set-asides aren't.



18) You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than

HIV.



19) You have to believe that conservatives are racists but black people couldn't make it without your help.



20) You have to believe that the only reason democratic socialism

hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.



And for any “gun control nuts” out there, a Definition:



Gun Control -- The theory that a woman lying in a alley, naked,

raped, beaten and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police why the attacker has a fatal bullet wound.



That's great :D

Domici,
This is a bit off-topic, but I'm too lazy to go in and do this by telegram. you are the kind of nation that I would like for a Region such as mine. I'm the founder of Area Fifty One, a Region for socially progressive, forward thinking nations like yourself. Come check us out!

We're in need of some new blood in the Region.

2. No, i'm in favor of getting more money. I believe I said this was one of my inportant issues. But how do I get more money when Bush policies encourage offshoring of jobs, and the general lowering of wages, across the board? and before you say wages have gone up...YES...NOMINAL wages HAVE gone up, you are right...but ACTUAL BUYING POWER has gone way down, because the prices of everything going up is by far outstripping what meager wage increases we get. If the economy is so fucking good, then why am I sitting here, typing this now, and waiting for the fucking phone to ring in response to the 25 or so resumes I bomb out each and every week, hoping against hope? Why am I not, instead ACTUALLY WORKING AT A PAYING JOB?? No, i'm not lazy, either. I FUCKING WANT TO WORK!.


Clinton pursued the same policies in international trade as Bush, and had the same outsourcing issues. His growth in real wages in his first term was 0.64%; this was post recession.

Bush entered office at the beginning of a recession, and his growth in real wages is 0.72%, stronger than Clinton's at this point in time.

All of the Clinton-era wage gains were made during the dot-com bubble and are nothing more than paper wealth that dissolved when the bubble burst. Much of his strongest job growth also occured during this period. Now, I like Clintonand he's my favorite president, but I also like to keep the facts straight. If you can send out 25 resumes a week, then obviously the job market has a lot of open positions and isn't doing too badly.

Real Wages 1964-2004:
http://www.laborresearch.org/charts.php?id=8

:) 1) You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.



2) You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand -in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.



3) You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who

can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.



4) You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and

doctors are overpaid.



5) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans

are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.



6) You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by

cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.



7) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay

is natural.



8) You have to believe that businesses create oppression and

governments create prosperity.



9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but

pasty-faced, fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.



10) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than

actually doing something to earn it.



11) You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.



12) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start

wars.



13) You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels

can't deliver the programming quality PBS does.



14) You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for

certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.



15) You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too

high.



16) You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria

Steinman are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Alva Edison.



17) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial

quotas and set-asides aren't.



18) You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than

HIV.



19) You have to believe that conservatives are racists but black people couldn't make it without your help.



20) You have to believe that the only reason democratic socialism

hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.



And for any “gun control nuts” out there, a Definition:



Gun Control -- The theory that a woman lying in a alley, naked,

raped, beaten and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police why the attacker has a fatal bullet wound.

1. Secured, my ass! SCARED, more like it. Tom Ridge, anyone? Remember, he even ADMITTED the Terror code was used to boost Bush's poll numbers! Any time bush's numbers were down, the terror code went up! Anyone for more duct tape and plastic sheeting?

Why haven't we had an attack on our soil? Why did Bush decide to actually go after our enemies and not pussy foot?

2. No, i'm in favor of getting more money. I believe I said this was one of my inportant issues.

You did so did you support Bush's tax cuts?

But how do I get more money when Bush policies encourage offshoring of jobs, and the general lowering of wages, across the board? and before you say wages have gone up...YES...NOMINAL wages HAVE gone up, you are right...but ACTUAL BUYING POWER has gone way down, because the prices of everything going up is by far outstripping what meager wage increases we get.

Can I see proof of this please? Everything I'm seeing is apparently not the same as what you are seeing so can I see actual proof from reliable sources please?

If the economy is so fucking good, then why am I sitting here, typing this now, and waiting for the fucking phone to ring in response to the 25 or so resumes I bomb out each and every week, hoping against hope? Why am I not, instead ACTUALLY WORKING AT A PAYING JOB?? No, i'm not lazy, either. I FUCKING WANT TO WORK!!

Are you marketable? Did you get job retraining as you were offered? These things factor into you getting a job. If you don't have the skills to do a job, you don't get hired. Simple as that. Right now, I'm marketable in several areas and when I graduate, I'm going to go get a job with the government, hopefully the State Department if I can.

3. I can't even make myself THINK from the side of hatred, bigotry and prejudice. Whenever I see Republican, the instant connection is made in my mind, more bigotry, intolerance, hatred, prejudice. DOMA, anyone? Refusing to pass ENDA, anyone? Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, anyone? No, until the Republicans quit their stinkin' thinkin' I can't see things from their side.

DOMA: Passed under the Clinton Administration and signed by Bill Clinton! Oops! Did I say that outloud? That's right Lyric. I did say that. If it was as bad as all that, Bill Clinton wouldn't have signed it into law.

ENDA: In reality, a violation of privacy laws since you really have to ask if they are homosexual in nature. Its another form of affirmative action in reality. So do you support affirmative action which is in reality reverse discrimination?

FMA (Federal Marriage amendment): Even I was opposed to this and was glad when it failed utterly. This should be done at the state level and it has been done on the state level (overwelming majority approving of state amendments to recognize marriage as one man and one woman)

Why haven't we had an attack on our soil? Why did Bush decide to actually go after our enemies and not pussy foot?Going after their enemies certainly protected the Spanish and British.
I'll tell you why there's been no further attack on the American mainland: a mixture of successes in the intelligence department and SHEER DUMB LUCK!

Going after their enemies certainly protected the Spanish and British.
I'll tell you why there's been no further attack on the American mainland: a mixture of successes in the intelligence department and SHEER DUMB LUCK!

Which is surprising given the lack of intelligence in intelligence :D

I would vote for a democrat if I felt they could do a better job in the realms of National Security and on military matters but so far, none have been able to grab my attention. Those are my 2 main issues. If a democrat can come along and promise me better security and a strong military and not cave to the debating society known as the UN and not destroy our intelligence agencies then I would vote for them.

2) If you bothered to read the war resolution, you can see what it was about.
a) Human Rights
b) Ending the reign of an oppressive dictator
c) Enforcing UN Resolutions
d) Weapons of Mass Destruction though this turned out to be false.

If the UN is nothing but a debating society, then why are their resolutions worth enforcing?

Also, not that I am endorsing Clinton, but he ignored the UN when he felt like it, but he's surely no hero to you.

that Clinton started the recession, even though 26 Million jobs were created during his term?
Are you praising neoliberal economics?

I think it's time that you just got back the sort of partisan hackery that seems to be your sole means of communication.

Clinton did NOT cheat on his wife. He said so. You may disagree with the way Clinton did things, but he was your president and you had to support him. It was because of conservative attack dogs like you that Osama Bin Laden got away. He tried to go after the people behind 9/11 before it ever happened, and Republicans kept crying "no war for Monica." You republicans are treasonous America haters. It's because of you that the twin towers fell.

Ha-ha. You begin your post by accusing Corneliu of partisan hackery, and then write a paragraph of, well, pure partisan hackery!

Clinton pursued the same policies in international trade as Bush, and had the same outsourcing issues. His growth in real wages in his first term was 0.64%; this was post recession.

Bush entered office at the beginning of a recession, and his growth in real wages is 0.72%, stronger than Clinton's at this point in time.

All of the Clinton-era wage gains were made during the dot-com bubble and are nothing more than paper wealth that dissolved when the bubble burst. Much of his strongest job growth also occured during this period. Now, I like Clintonand he's my favorite president, but I also like to keep the facts straight. If you can send out 25 resumes a week, then obviously the job market has a lot of open positions and isn't doing too badly.

Real Wages 1964-2004:
http://www.laborresearch.org/charts.php?id=8
Thank you for your voice of reason!

Which is surprising given the lack of intelligence in intelligence :DHence I spelled the major part of the equation in caps. Honestly, being in Iraq has done nothing to stop islamic terror from reaching us. It's the fact that we've managed to pick up a few people behind the scenes and the fact that not many attacks were planned to strike the mainland in the past, in fact, there probably weren't any. (But I don't work for either the intelligence department or the terrorists, so I have no real clue how many planned attacks have been foiled or scrapped)

1. You did so did you support Bush's tax cuts?

2. Are you marketable? Did you get job retraining as you were offered?

3. DOMA: Passed under the Clinton Administration and signed by Bill Clinton! Oops! Did I say that outloud? That's right Lyric. I did say that. If it was as bad as all that, Bill Clinton wouldn't have signed it into law.

4. ENDA: In reality, a violation of privacy laws since you really have to ask if they are homosexual in nature. Its another form of affirmative action in reality. So do you support affirmative action which is in reality reverse discrimination?

5. FMA (Federal Marriage amendment): Even I was opposed to this and was glad when it failed utterly. This should be done at the state level and it has been done on the state level (overwelming majority approving of state amendments to recognize marriage as one man and one woman)

1. No, I don't support Bush's tax cuts. I got jack shit from them, it all went to the already-wealthy.

2. I was offered no such re-training. How many fucking times do I have to tell you that?

3. Did I ever say Clinton was so great on anything other than the economy? nope....don't think so. Have I not said before that I am more ANTI-Republican than I am PRO-Democrat? I support the Democrats only because I know they are the only group with a legitimate chance of keeping the Republicans, who I hate more, out of power.

4. You don't have to ask if one is homosexual. ENDA is not about "special rights." It's about not using one's actual OR PERCIEVED sexual orientation or gender identity as a basis for making employment-related decisions, i.e. hiring, firing, raises, promotions. Please note that it bars making decisions (both positive or negative) based on these characteristics. So it is not Affirmative Action, either. All it says is that, since sexual orientation and gender identity are not bona-fide occupational qualifications, one cannot use those characteristics in making employment related decisions (either positiove or negative employment related decisions, incidentally!!)

5. I'm for government, of all types, staying the fuck out of the bedroom. If a gay couple wants to marry...and reap the benefits (as well as assume the responsibilities) of marriage, IN A LEGAL SENSE...then they damn as hell ought to be allowed to. They are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, too. Remember there was a little tea party on Boston Harbor about 230 years ago over taxation without representation. Now, if YOU, personally...or YOUR CHURCH does not want to recognize that couple as married, guess what??? YOU DON'T FUCKING HAVE TO!! And no one is trying to force your church into perfoming cereminies it objects to. Why would we? Plenty of accepting churches are out there, and we already belong to those churches, anyway. since your churches don't want to recognize our human dignity, and our rights, existence, freedoms, and rights to happiness...why in HELL would we recognize YOUR church's authority, anyway? And since we wouldn't recognize your church's authority, why the hell would we want to be married in it...when we don't recognize that church's authority? Makes no goddamned sense, does it?

Jesus Christ, when will people stop being so intrusive on other people's lives...and just live and let live?? That is all any of the people like me REALLY want. To live and let live...and be left the hell alone to do it as best we can, in the manner we see fit. What's so unreasonable about wanting that?

1. No, I don't support Bush's tax cuts. I got jack shit from them, it all went to the already-wealthy.

Then you just destroyed your whole arguement. BTW: My parents aren't wealthy and not only did Bush give us a pay raise, we also got more of that money back.

2. I was offered no such re-training. How many fucking times do I have to tell you that?

Ok! Then I guess I misread one of your earlier posts and I'm not going to go digging for it. BTW: The economy is still growing and jobs are being created.

3. Did I ever say Clinton was so great on anything other than the economy? nope....don't think so. Have I not said before that I am more ANTI-Republican than I am PRO-Democrat? I support the Democrats only because I know they are the only group with a legitimate chance of keeping the Republicans, who I hate more, out of power.

And it is that hatred that blinds you to anything that might be just as important, maybe more so, that comes from the republican party.

4. You don't have to ask if one is homosexual. ENDA is not about "special rights." It's about not using one's actual OR PERCIEVED sexual orientation or gender identity as a basis for making employment-related decisions, i.e. hiring, firing, raises, promotions.

That implies that you have to ask if they are homosexual or not. If someone fires you because your gay and nothing else, there's a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Please note that it bars making decisions (both positive or negative) based on these characteristics. So it is not Affirmative Action, either. All it says is that, since sexual orientation and gender identity are not bona-fide occupational qualifications, one cannot use those characteristics in making employment related decisions (either positiove or negative employment related decisions, incidentally!!)

So do you support Affirmative Action?

5. I'm for government, of all types, staying the fuck out of the bedroom. If a gay couple wants to marry...and reap the benefits (as well as assume the responsibilities) of marriage, IN A LEGAL SENSE...then they damn as hell ought to be allowed to. They are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, too. Remember there was a little tea party on Boston Harbor about 230 years ago over taxation without representation. Now, if YOU, personally...or YOUR CHURCH does not want to recognize that couple as married, guess what??? YOU DON'T FUCKING HAVE TO!! And no one is trying to force your church into perfoming cereminies it objects to. Why would we? Plenty of accepting churches are out there, and we already belong to those churches, anyway. since your churches don't want to recognize our human dignity, and our rights, existence, freedoms, and rights to happiness...why in HELL would we recognize YOUR church's authority, anyway? And since we wouldn't recognize your church's authority, why the hell would we want to be married in it...when we don't recognize that church's authority? Makes no goddamned sense, does it?

Nice rant. I guess you missed the points that I support Civil Unions and opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment?

Jesus Christ,

Now now, no taking the Lord's name in vain now :p

when will people stop being so intrusive on other people's lives...and just live and let live??

Sounds like a good question to ask to both political parties. You ask it to the Dem's and I'll ask it to the GOP.

That is all any of the people like me REALLY want. To live and let live...and be left the hell alone to do it as best we can, in the manner we see fit. What's so unreasonable about wanting that?

Absolutely nothing.

Why haven't we had an attack on our soil? Why did Bush decide to actually go after our enemies and not pussy foot?

You truly are an ignoramus. However much you conservatives would like to claim otherwise, NYC is part of America no matter how many liberals live there.

NYC British Consulate Bombing. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/05/uk.consulate/)

Unless of course by "attack on our soil" you literally only care about bare dirt rather than the parts that are covered by cement and asphalt.

The Democrats, or at least most of them, also oppose worker's rights, privacy, and peace. This "socialist liberal" image is entirely invented...

...Oh man, you're as bad as Corneliu! You're a Democratic dog!

Well, if you put the two together you see that our views on the Democratic party aren't entierly different Swimingpool. I said that there was only a 1F degree difference between the parties. But the image of the Dems is not entierly without merit, it's just not nearly true enough. But that's an inherent weakness of the two party system. If we switched to the Australian ballot system we'd have politicians with a much greater power to vote with their demographic.

I've already voiced my problems with the Democrats and the two party system here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9050632&highlight=hitler+ghost#post9050632)
This hardly makes me as big a Democratic attack dog as Corny is a Republican one. Unless of course by "dog" you just meant that we're ugly.

You can't be for something and vote against it. If you vote for the people who are against gay rights, against helping the poor, against teaching children, pretend to be against abortion but are for policies that result in more abortions... Well then, get what? You're against gay rights, helping the poor, and everything else that the Republican party is against.
*sighs* Once again, ignorance is shown and misinformation is spread. Sad when I have to defend a party I'm not really part of. First of all, there is no such thing as gay rights, there is only the right of the individual to be left alone in his personal matters as long as they do not hurt another. Secondly, republicans have no problem helping the poor and in fact tend to do so more often on their own than democrats. They just don't believe in the government choosing to help the poor for you. Against teaching children? No. Against promoting a highly inefficient system and continually throwing money at it? Yes. If the public school system could be solved with money, Washington DC would have some of the best schools in the nation. Instead they have some of the worse. Most private schools that are not the ultra preppy type manage to do much more with less money than public schools. As for abortion, it's going to largely become a moot point in the next 15-30 years as contraceptives become more effective and cheaper. Several male contraceptives should be coming out as well.

THINGS YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO BE A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him , a bad guy when Bush's
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and
a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
with China & Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all of mankind
without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary
Clinton.

The best way to improve the military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health
care to all Americans is socialism.

HMO's and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at
heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable
offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George
Bush's cocaine conviction in none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers
for your recovery.

You support states' rights, which means former Attorney General John
Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the
right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the 80's is irrelevant.


REMEMBER: Friends don't let friends vote Republican!!

um...so you're saying I'm not a Conservative Republican?

*points at compass score in sig*

I think you're confused, buddy...

I'm Bush like. The Republican party is a big tent. We may be 80% white christian, but that leaves a whole other uh uh ummmmm ... (lets see one two) 20% of uh um not white christians. Sadam was a bad guy, with lots and lots of percious "earl", shit, I mean uh uh ummmmmm ... oppressed people, who, who were being oppressed. They had "nucler" weapons and uh um... "earl", damn it i wasn't supposed to say that, oppression on oppressed people. Its a bad "group of folks". Thats why were in Iraq so all you "laberals" who being uh um ... "laberals" can just go be "laberals".

1. Then you just destroyed your whole arguement. BTW: My parents aren't wealthy and not only did Bush give us a pay raise, we also got more of that money back.

2. And it is that hatred that blinds you to anything that might be just as important, maybe more so, that comes from the republican party.

3. That implies that you have to ask if they are homosexual or not. If someone fires you because your gay and nothing else, there's a wrongful termination lawsuit.

4. So do you support Affirmative Action?

5. Nice rant. I guess you missed the points that I support Civil Unions and opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment?

6. Absolutely nothing.

1. Well goody-goody gumdrops for you. I got jack-shit from the Bush tax cuts. Not a fucking red cent. But I saw plenty of wealthy assholes get huge truckloads of cash out of it.

2. How many times do I have to tell you that, for me, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT TO ME than the economy and Civil Rights? MY WALLET...MY BELLY...those things come first. Fuck everything and everyone else. Fuck defense. Fuck foriegn policy. I care about the bread-and-butter issues. You know, the ones the GOP always ignore?

3. You think an employer has to ASK?? An employer knows. Who calls for you at work? Who comes to pick you up when your car fails? Whose pictures do you have on your desk? They don't have to ask, most employers are bright enough to figure it all out on their own. And in MY case, they don't even NEED to ask. All they have to do is run a credit report on me (common pre-employment action, incidentally) and all they need is to see my former name on it...and my current name. They can put two and two together and come up with four. You figure it out. I've given you enough clues.

4. Yes, to a point, I support Affirmative Action. I do NOT support hiring unqualified people just to fill a quota. But I also believe women and minorities would not be considered for higher-level, higher-paying jobs they are fully qualified for...if not for Affirmative Action. It would always go to the white boy, if not for Affirmative Action. If there is an equally qualified woman or minority, who is also up for the position, they, too, should have a fair chance at it. Only white men look at Affirmative Action as reverse-discrimination. And, by the way...if you do...well, then, answer me this: How does it FEEL to be discriminated against?? It SUCKS, doesn't it!! Now walk a mile in MY pumps, buddy boy, if you want to REALLY know discrimination.

5. Bully for you. I support Civil Unions ONLY if heteros are also ONLY given Civil Unions by the government. Let marriage be a ritual ONLY of the churches. And then United couples can decide for themselves if they want the ritual...and where to obtain it. and the churches can decide for themselves to which couples they will grant the ritual. Otherwise, I do not support Civil Unions. Separate but equal has never worked in our society.

6. Glad we agree on one thing, anyway...that all I really want isn't so unreasonable, after all. I just think that the GOP is never gonna give me anything I want...in fact, they are working to create the EXACT REVERSE of what I want. Is it any wonder I hate them so badly, when they work towards ends that are inimical to my interests?

*sighs* Once again, ignorance is shown and misinformation is spread. Sad when I have to defend a party I'm not really part of. First of all, there is no such thing as gay rights, there is only the right of the individual to be left alone in his personal matters as long as they do not hurt another.

But the issue of "gay rights" becomes a real issue when Republicans oppose the right to be left alone for fear that people will be gay. And they claim to be the party of personal liberty and small government. Yet in the arena of "the right of the individual to be left alone" they oppose it specificly when it comes to homosexuality. ergo they oppose gay rights.

Secondly, republicans have no problem helping the poor and in fact tend to do so more often on their own than democrats.

The Republicans constantly oppose welfare initiatives and minimum wage standards. They say that it's either to conserve government funds or a cost of keeping the roll of the federal government small, yet they constantly increase spending on corporate socialist initiatives (energy bill anyone) and when NY wanted to raise its minimum wage they argued that it was the role of the Federal government to establish minimum wage laws, even though living wage standards vary considerably from one part of the country to another.

Ergo, they oppose neither increased Federal authority nor increased Federal spending, only helping the poor.


They just don't believe in the government choosing to help the poor for you.

Really? Then why are we in Iraq? I keep hearing the humanitarian argument, since all the other's have fizzled.

The Republicans don't oppose the government helping people, they oppose people being helped. They run some organizations that nominaly help people, but organizations like Pat Robertson's super churches don't exist to help, they exist to brainwash. They love republicans not helping people because it creates and expanded ignorant impoverished mass to extend their powerbase.

Believing that people deserve to be helped but the government shouldn't do it is rank hypocrisy. If the government can give billions to Exxon Mobil, it can give a few more million away in food stamps and subsidised housing.


Against teaching children? No. Against promoting a highly inefficient system and continually throwing money at it? Yes. If the public school system could be solved with money, Washington DC would have some of the best schools in the nation. Instead they have some of the worse. Most private schools that are not the ultra preppy type manage to do much more with less money than public schools.

Most private schools in places that have a fairly well funded education system are quite preppy. Most of the private schools in "Middle America" are simply there so that parents either don't have to send their kids to school with minorities or places that will teach them about sex and evolution.

There have been several studies indicating that the education recieved in private schools is actually worse than that recieved in comprably funded public schools.

Money alone won't fix schools, but it is a minimum necessity. You will never fix them by taking money away. As for the inefficiency... No Child Left Behind act? How are you making things more efficient by adding another layer of inefficient bureucracy?

As for abortion, it's going to largely become a moot point in the next 15-30 years as contraceptives become more effective and cheaper. Several male contraceptives should be coming out as well.

But Republicans are speaking out more and more in favor of pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control. If you live in a metropolitan area you may simply say "so go to another pharmacy" but there are many parts of the country where those are few and far between. And sometimes they don't just refuse to fill the prescription, they hold the prescription hostage. Not simply refusing to give it to you, but activly working to prevent you getting it from anyone.

Aside from that, when it comes to opposing human rights moot points are still important ones. If a politician announces that he supports child molestation, but it doesn't matter because there's no way he can get support for pro-child molestation legislation he's still a politician I don't want to vote for. Same deal with the supposedly moot point of abortion.

Why haven't we had an attack on our soil?
You have had two attacks on your soil. The first was in 1993 at the WTC, and the 2nd one was 2001 at the WTC. About 8 years apart. If you can slough it off, why is the Homeland Security Advisory System stuck on:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/images/threat/elevated.jpg

If an attack occurs before 2009, then Homeland Security is a failure and so is the "War on Terrorism"?

Why did Bush decide to actually go after our enemies and not pussy foot?
He went after the enemies in Afghanistan and didn't finish the job to rush off to Iraq to CREATE more enemies.

Can I see proof of this please?
The typical Corny response. Always wants others to provide proof, but provides none himself. :eek:

Everything I'm seeing is apparently not the same as what you are seeing so can I see actual proof from reliable sources please?
Not only does Corny want proof, he wants it from reliable sources. If you are not "seeing", perhaps you are looking in the wrong place? Or, more likely, not looking at all and relying on Corny logic? To remind you:

But how do I get more money when Bush policies encourage offshoring of jobs, and the general lowering of wages, across the board? and before you say wages have gone up...YES...NOMINAL wages HAVE gone up, you are right...but ACTUAL BUYING POWER has gone way down, because the prices of everything going up is by far outstripping what meager wage increases we get.
Perhaps this will help you Corny?

Consumer Price Index (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt)

Bonus:

President Clinton's Record on the Economy (http://bogota.usembassy.gov/wwwsbc01.shtml)



Right now, I'm marketable in several areas and when I graduate, I'm going to go get a job with the government, hopefully the State Department if I can.
Specializing in apology and propaganda, with a side of smear tactics?

From this thread I have concluded that if all republicans were killed somehow, the world would be a better place.

1. Well goody-goody gumdrops for you. I got jack-shit from the Bush tax cuts. Not a fucking red cent. But I saw plenty of wealthy assholes get huge truckloads of cash out of it.

The tax cuts are based on how much income you get from a *gasp* job. So, how much do you make? If you are below a certain amount, you don't pay taxes. I'm in the middle class and we did get our taxcut. Hell, it helped pay for my books at the University.

2. How many times do I have to tell you that, for me, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT TO ME than the economy and Civil Rights? MY WALLET...MY BELLY...those things come first. Fuck everything and everyone else. Fuck defense. Fuck foriegn policy. I care about the bread-and-butter issues. You know, the ones the GOP always ignore?

Good. Now I know why the Republicans have been winning. They care about Foriegn Policy, Defense, and national security. Also, no we dont ignore Civil Rights nor do we ignore the economy. Why is the economy going on all cyclinders? Why are jobs being created in major industries and High Tech jobs? The GDP is also growing at about 3.5% (roughly). OOPS! I guess that destroys the whole economic arguement. Now what about my civil rights to spread the word of God outside of a church. WHy can't I do it at school? Why can't I do it where I want too? That is a violation of my civil right because I can't and I can thank that Democrats for that! Also, why did the Democrats oppose Civil Rights legislation? Oops! Another arguement debunked.

3. You think an employer has to ASK?? An employer knows. Who calls for you at work? Who comes to pick you up when your car fails? Whose pictures do you have on your desk? They don't have to ask, most employers are bright enough to figure it all out on their own. And in MY case, they don't even NEED to ask. All they have to do is run a credit report on me (common pre-employment action, incidentally) and all they need is to see my former name on it...and my current name. They can put two and two together and come up with four. You figure it out. I've given you enough clues.

Oh Grow up and stop being so naive will you?

4. Yes, to a point, I support Affirmative Action. I do NOT support hiring unqualified people just to fill a quota. But I also believe women and minorities would not be considered for higher-level, higher-paying jobs they are fully qualified for...if not for Affirmative Action. It would always go to the white boy, if not for Affirmative Action. If there is an equally qualified woman or minority, who is also up for the position, they, too, should have a fair chance at it. Only white men look at Affirmative Action as reverse-discrimination. And, by the way...if you do...well, then, answer me this: How does it FEEL to be discriminated against?? It SUCKS, doesn't it!! Now walk a mile in MY pumps, buddy boy, if you want to REALLY know discrimination.

I haven't been discriminated against at all. However, if I find out that a black boy gets a job over me and is unqualified, I will of course sue. However, Affirmative action is no longer necessary and more and more people are trying to pull themselves away from it. I wish I can say the same for University of Michigan. That's the worst case of Affirmative Action that I can think of at the moment. You really need to take a look at the wider world. You'll see that afffirmative action doesn't work at all. It is high time that we dismantle it and move on.

5. Bully for you. I support Civil Unions ONLY if heteros are also ONLY given Civil Unions by the government. Let marriage be a ritual ONLY of the churches. And then United couples can decide for themselves if they want the ritual...and where to obtain it. and the churches can decide for themselves to which couples they will grant the ritual. Otherwise, I do not support Civil Unions. Separate but equal has never worked in our society.

Your right it hasn't. That is why those that believe in God are having a hard time lately because of groups like the ACLU and the Democratic Party who are doing their best to eliminate traditions that have been around for decades.

6. Glad we agree on one thing, anyway...that all I really want isn't so unreasonable, after all. I just think that the GOP is never gonna give me anything I want...in fact, they are working to create the EXACT REVERSE of what I want. Is it any wonder I hate them so badly, when they work towards ends that are inimical to my interests?

I don't like the Democratic Party but at least I listen to them. Yes there are a few I won't but that is because they gave me reasons not too. I listen to everyone that speaks especially during an election year and I vote based on who I think can do a better job. Try listening to the Republicans once in awhile and I'm not talking Party big wigs either. Ask a regular republican what they think. I have many democrat friends. We all get along. Some don't like republicans but they at least listen to what I have to say and we actually have intelligent debates. Even my Liberal professors listen to me and acknowledge when I made points. I have even agreed with them on occassion. Try listening to an average republican. An on the street on as it was WITHOUT preconception if at all possible. You just might be surprised.

Please, allow me some rebuttal. We are, after all, interested in the spirit of debate. I have left some out; these are too deeply mired in American culture for me to deal with.

1) You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

Or, possibly, that no disease is curable without money to find a cure, and that AIDS, being unresponsive to every standard treatment tried so far, may need quite a bit of money. As to why AIDS instead of malaria, for example? Selfishness, pure and simple. But that's not a Democrat thing. That's just a people thing.

2) You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand -in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

Foetus isn't a human being. Ball's in your court.

(Note: This isn't so much a rebuttal as a reminder not to make patronising assumptions where debate is both ongoing and unresolvable)

3) You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

Is the alternative to let people whose only qualification for being a parent that they've had sex once or more better? Why not let those who've been told the right things to say in documentation by the experts do it?

5) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

So the only Americans with guns are law-abiding? And the "Red" Chinese instinctively hate America/ns, and would therefore want to use those weapons?

So America can be trusted with nuclear weapons, can it? Don't you wonder what the Chinese think about that...?

Ad hominem. Simply.

6) You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

I'm not even going to start with this one. The corpus of evidence is against skeptics. The burden of proof lies with you and your straw man. It's not yuppies in SUVs, but every one of the fuel-burning power stations in the world, of which there are more than you can count. But we can't get rid of them yet. So what can we change? How about making cars more fuel-efficient, instead of creating status-symbol monstrosities with almost as much room as a minibus? That'd be fucking cheaper for you, too! And if you're gonna own one - why not show some American neighbourly friendliness and take your neighbours' kids to school, too?

7) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

One's biology. The other's anthropology. Your ball.

8) You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

I sense generalisation and misinterpretation here, but again, this is beyond the scope of my knowledge about American culture.

9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty-faced, fey activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

My, my, I do hope that's not an overgeneralised ad hominem attack there? I imagine I could find a hunter who just wants a drunken weekend with his mates and to shoot something, and I imagine I could find a Seattlian (?) who'd done conservation all around the world. Don't do that. Especially when the points you're answering, in the first post, are not about populace but about the Administration, its policy and specific people.

10) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

Flipside: You have to believe depression is not a pathological disorder. But have I missed a point there?

12) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

...do I even need to provide a rebuttal to this one, or are you going to move to impeach the President here? ;)

13) You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the programming quality PBS does.

It didn't the last time I saw Friends... or, well, most new American series.

14) You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

Would you like me to reverse that statement for you, and would you like to see just how strong it is then? It'd be, oh, exactly the same.

16) You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinman are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Alva Edison.

Is this about some kind of sinister agenda in what is taught to kids in order to distort their perceptions of the world? Well, history's about two things: the changes that events bring about, and their relevance to the present day. If you can't spend fifteen years educating children in your country's past and fit in the best Presidents and the most powerful/relevant social reformers of recent history you're definitely doing something wrong. Not covering enough ground, I'd say. We managed it pretty damn well. Try focusing on the wars and social conflicts, what caused them and what they caused - they tend to be information-rich and so useful for learning.

18) You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

That's a very silly claim, since the two are so far apart as to be incomparable. Straw man.

And for any “gun control nuts” out there, a Definition:

Gun Control -- The theory that a woman lying in a alley, naked, raped, beaten and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police why the attacker has a fatal bullet wound.

Gun Control -- The theory that if someone wants to buy a weapon capable of killing someone else, they must be instantly assumed to be a responsible and mature person, irrespective of what any evidence may show about them, based on a 200-year-old document (revered almost as Scriptural) detailing how distrustful provinces were to stop other distrustful provinces from invading them.

*snip*.

Now try going back and reading the rest of the thread.

From this thread I have concluded that if all republicans were killed somehow, the world would be a better place.


Anyone who knows my politics will be surprised to hear me say this, but the French tried that out once, and it didn't work all that well. After WWII they got rid of the fascists and those who supported them. I'm talking actual fascists, not mere conservatives, but the conservatives (as we would define them) favored the Fascists over the socialists.

Baisicly anyone on the Right wing of French politics, except for those who favored De Gaulle, were barred from the French political process. There were a lot of improvements for French people yes, more vacation time, better wages, etc. but the government wasn't very effective.

Then De Gualle came in and he was baisicly what Bush's supporters think that Bush is (but Bush isn't). He was a pro-military strength, nationalist, right-wing capitalist. He was the right choice for rebuilding a war ravaged France, and he was quite the authoritarian. But the people went right back to socialism as soon as De Gaulle straightened the place out, and the back and forth dynamic has worked pretty well for them ever since. Swing left to protect the people, swing right to protect the state.

That said, there are certain Republicans (and a few DINO's) that should be removed. Baisicly, sit down and list all of what it means to be a conservative. Anyone who doesn't faithfully adhere to the list and pretends to be a conservative... get rid of them. The dynamic worked well for France specifically because they got rid of all the fake conservatives who went pro-Petain. Baisicly, any Republican who says "Bush is a travesty and I will never forgive the GOP for picking him over McCain, especially the way they picked him over McCain," is alright in my book.

Conservative politics are as essential to a functioning country as liberal politics, unfortunatly in America, conservative politics are, 9 times out of 10, just an excuse to be a homophobic, racist, selfish, xenophobic, beligerant, asshole.

Domici,
This is a bit off-topic, but I'm too lazy to go in and do this by telegram. you are the kind of nation that I would like for a Region such as mine. I'm the founder of Area Fifty One, a Region for socially progressive, forward thinking nations like yourself. Come check us out!

We're in need of some new blood in the Region.

That's good, because I'm too lazy to ever check my telegrams. I'll check it out.

Ha-ha. You begin your post by accusing Corneliu of partisan hackery, and then write a paragraph of, well, pure partisan hackery!

I'm confused, you laugh, so maybe you get the joke, but the paragraph was deliberatly written to resemble conservative style hackery. The Democrats have their hacks, but they're not nearly as hacky as the Republican hacks.

e.g. The original posts. The anti-rep one points out the actual GOP platform and spells out the contradictions. The anti-deb one tries to do the same, but has to resort to mischaracterization to do it. (hence the guerraheim response to explain what it would look like if the libs did adopt the same strategies as the cons).

The hackery based irony there was entierly intentional.

The problem is there is really no party that truelly stands for what I believe in, I voted Republican in every election I've voted in, not because I liked the Republican so much better but because I hated the Democrat. If their were a real third option that was strong on nation defense, pro-gun, pro-choice, anti-big government, anti-tax, pro-rights for everybody( Gay marriage) thats who I would vote FOR. However no such party or canidate has existed in living memory (not with a snowball's chance of winning anyway). I also loathe were the Democratic party is going, it seems to be controlled by the likes of Michael Moore and the Limousine Liberals, where are the Democrates in favor of reducing taxes and a strong military like JFK and John Glenn? I'm following Obama out of Illinios he may be the last best hope of the Democratic party.


You can't be for something and vote against it. If you vote for the people who are against gay rights, against helping the poor, against teaching children, pretend to be against abortion but are for policies that result in more abortions... Well then, get what? You're against gay rights, helping the poor, and everything else that the Republican party is against.

Ironicly for an off the cuff remark it was excellent analysis.

Both parties have their good points and utterly stupid points...one more than the other. :headbang:

Either way, Republicans that bring their religion into politics are dumb shits that should have been aborted themselves and Democrats that oppose the disposal of irreformable criminals and pulling out of iraq and morons as well.

Actually for me, yes because then he would not have commited perjery and been impeached.


But I wonder...had the courts ruled that Clinton didn't have to talk about Monica Lewinsky...would you have considered THAT issue settled? Something tells me you wouldn't.

Responce in Red

You have had two attacks on your soil. The first was in 1993 at the WTC, and the 2nd one was 2001 at the WTC. About 8 years apart. If you can slough it off, why is the Homeland Security Advisory System stuck on:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/images/threat/elevated.jpg

If an attack occurs before 2009, then Homeland Security is a failure and so is the "War on Terrorism"?
Yes I agree
He went after the enemies in Afghanistan and didn't finish the job to rush off to Iraq to CREATE more enemies.
Honestly, I think that was the plan, to syphon away the men and assest from Islamic extremist by fighting them in Iraq . I personally believe the war in Iraq was started for that reason when Jihadists didn't start coming to Afghanistan in any real numbers. I believe Iraq was a "sacrificed" on the altar of US security.


Consumer Price Index (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt)

Bonus:
Clinton inherited a booming economy and taxed it to death.
President Clinton's Record on the Economy (http://bogota.usembassy.gov/wwwsbc01.shtml)


Specializing in apology and propaganda, with a side of smear tactics?This is the pot calling the kettle black, or were you being ironic?

snip...

Conservative politics are as essential to a functioning country as liberal politics, unfortunatly in America, conservative politics are, 9 times out of 10, just an excuse to be a homophobic, racist, selfish, xenophobic, beligerant, asshole.

And in the view of this black Christian Republican, liberal politics are just an excuse to be condescending, racist, sexist, intolerant, whiny gutless wimps. :sniper:

And in the view of this black Christian Republican, liberal politics are just an excuse to be condescending, racist, sexist, intolerant, whiny gutless wimps. :sniper:

How are liberal politics any of those things?

The southern strategy was an inherently racist GOP policy that exploited the racist rejection of the Democratic party by the south. It pretended to be pro-states rights, (if they were actually states rights they wouldn't have taken medical court cases and marijuana law out of the hands of the states) but it was just an excuse to be pro-racism. The DNC has no comprable policy of racism.

The only thing that liberals are intolerant of is intolerance, which is only a paradox of language, not of ethics. The GOP is intolerant of sexuality (the gay thing), gender (the only thing the GOP hates about Hillary is that she's a woman who does politics like a man), ethnicity (immigration), and race (the aforementnioned southern strategy).

You're going to have to provide a little backing for your position if you want it to be anything other than flamebait. Of course, the sniper smiley tells me you're probably OK with an ignorant and inflamatory opinion remaining flamebait.

The problem is there is really no party that truelly stands for what I believe in, I voted Republican in every election I've voted in, not because I liked the Republican so much better but because I hated the Democrat. If their were a real third option that was strong on nation defense, pro-gun, pro-choice, anti-big government, anti-tax, pro-rights for everybody( Gay marriage) thats who I would vote FOR. However no such party or canidate has existed in living memory (not with a snowball's chance of winning anyway). I also loathe were the Democratic party is going, it seems to be controlled by the likes of Michael Moore and the Limousine Liberals, where are the Democrates in favor of reducing taxes and a strong military like JFK and John Glenn? I'm following Obama out of Illinios he may be the last best hope of the Democratic party.
Then you have to get involved in the primaries. But I can tell you with certainty that everything that sounds reasonable and the Republicans support is a red herring.

They're not pro states rights, they're just pro business and racism. That's why they expand the role of the federal government if individual states are enacting policies that require businesses to re-invest in the state where they make their money, and in cases where terminally ill people want to use a medicine that grows out of the ground for free and works rather than one that costs $40 a bottle and doesn't.

Your aversion to the Democratic party because it has rich people in it is just absurd. They may have rich people with an active role, but that's just because they're the ones with the money to get their message out. Do you honestly think that the Republican party is not run by limosine conservatives? Richard Melon Scaffe, Anne Coulter, Pat Robertson (an international gold mining mogul for cryin' out loud). The Democratic party may also be of rich people, but the Republican party is exclusivly for rich people in all but rhetoric. And when you analyze that rhetoric it is universally hollow.

Then you have to get involved in the primaries. But I can tell you with certainty that everything that sounds reasonable and the Republicans support is a red herring.

I'm going to call bs in part here because apparently, you don't understand the fact that both sides say reasonable things and that both sides support are both red herrings. Neither side follows through with what they promise though a few do try and I give them credit for trying.

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are a matched Yin Yang set. Identical and polar opposite. You'll never convince me that the Democrats aren't do as I say not as I do kind of party aslong as the likes of Kennedy and Schumer are in leadership positions and Rosie O'donnel and Micheal Moore are it's mouthpieces. Like wise If I change the names I'm sure the same would be true with you of Republicans....The big differnce is I'm not trying to convice you otherwise...I'd like you to fix your party while I try to fix mine so that they both move to the middle. Democrats like John Glenn and Republicans like John McCain should be the rule not the exception recent history has seen both parties drift to the lunatic fringe and the need to be brought back to the fold. I'm not saying the Republican party is great or even good but for me it just sucks less.




Then you have to get involved in the primaries. But I can tell you with certainty that everything that sounds reasonable and the Republicans support is a red herring.

They're not pro states rights, they're just pro business and racism. That's why they expand the role of the federal government if individual states are enacting policies that require businesses to re-invest in the state where they make their money, and in cases where terminally ill people want to use a medicine that grows out of the ground for free and works rather than one that costs $40 a bottle and doesn't.

Your aversion to the Democratic party because it has rich people in it is just absurd. They may have rich people with an active role, but that's just because they're the ones with the money to get their message out. Do you honestly think that the Republican party is not run by limosine conservatives? Richard Melon Scaffe, Anne Coulter, Pat Robertson (an international gold mining mogul for cryin' out loud). The Democratic party may also be of rich people, but the Republican party is exclusivly for rich people in all but rhetoric. And when you analyze that rhetoric it is universally hollow.

Well, if you put the two together you see that our views on the Democratic party aren't entierly different Swimingpool.
Then why am I pouring scorn on you while you rabidly defend Democrats and attack Republicans? If you really believe them to be so similar I expect you should be criticising both parties almost equally.

I'm confused, you laugh, so maybe you get the joke, but the paragraph was deliberatly written to resemble conservative style hackery. The Democrats have their hacks, but they're not nearly as hacky as the Republican hacks.

The hackery based irony there was entierly intentional.
Sorry, I didn't notice!

THINGS YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO BE A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him , a bad guy when Bush's
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and
a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
with China & Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all of mankind
without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary
Clinton.

The best way to improve the military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health
care to all Americans is socialism.

HMO's and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at
heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable
offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George
Bush's cocaine conviction in none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers
for your recovery.

You support states' rights, which means former Attorney General John
Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the
right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the 80's is irrelevant.


REMEMBER: Friends don't let friends vote Republican!!

You forgot that sweat and tears transmit H.I.V. Thank you Senator Frist for your professional medical opinion. :) Oh wait thats right hes not a doctor...

You forgot that sweat and tears transmit H.I.V. Thank you Senator Frist for your professional medical opinion. :) Oh wait thats right hes not a doctor...

Actually, Frist is a doctor :rolleyes:

Actually, Frist is a doctor :rolleyes:

A doctor in which field? If it was reconstructive surgery, I wouldn't trust him with microbiology and I wouldn't trust a microbiologist in reconstructive surgery, etc, etc. Heck, he could have a doctorate in political science for all I know. Not that a doctorate of that kind would do any good in medical science. So like I said, a doctor in which field?

A doctor in which field? If it was reconstructive surgery, I wouldn't trust him with microbiology and I wouldn't trust a microbiologist in reconstructive surgery, etc, etc. Heck, he could have a doctorate in political science for all I know. Not that a doctorate of that kind would do any good in medical science. So like I said, a doctor in which field?

Reading his biography, apparently he's a transplant surgeon. Would you like the link?

You forgot that sweat and tears transmit H.I.V. Thank you Senator Frist for your professional medical opinion. :) Oh wait thats right hes not a doctor...

And you forgot that Senator Frist also proclaimed that Terri Schiavo responded to visual stimuli, except, wait...here it comes...TERRI SCHIAVO WAS FUCKING BLIND!! Ooooops!! Tee hee...

There have been several studies indicating that the education recieved in private schools is actually worse than that recieved in comprably funded public schools.
And there have been just as many if not more stating the exact opposite.

You're all bad, bad people.

Reading his biography, apparently he's a transplant surgeon. Would you like the link?

Getting an opinion on AIDS transmission from a transplant surgeon is like asking a chemical engineer to design a bridge. Not even in the same fucking ballpark.

:rolleyes:

Getting an opinion on AIDS transmission from a transplant surgeon is like asking a chemical engineer to design a bridge. Not even in the same fucking ballpark.

:rolleyes:

Actually, since he is a transplant surgeon, he does have to worry about that sort of thing.

Actually, since he is a transplant surgeon, he does have to worry about that sort of thing.

Aside from the idea that AIDS can be transmitted through tears and sweat is false, how does it help in the field of transplant surgery where the only ones who'd sweat and tear are the surgeons and assistants?

Aside from the idea that AIDS can be transmitted through tears and sweat is false, how does it help in the field of transplant surgery where the only ones who'd sweat and tear are the surgeons and assistants?

I think he's implying that, since AIDS is transmittable through bodily fluids (blood, for example) a transplant surgeon would be some kind of expert on AIDS transmission. Which is, of course, utter bullshit.

The one who WOULD then, be an expert on AIDS transmission would be a phlebotomist. As in, one of the guys who draws your blood, or does lab work on blood.

ANY surgeon encounters blood in the course of his work, so...being a transplant surgeon makes Frist no more an expert on AIDS transmission than any other surgeon, in actuality.

Reading his biography, apparently he's a transplant surgeon. Would you like the link?

Up to you, but unless I'm very much mistaken, a transplant surgeon has very little to do with Pathology and related fields in the study of AIDS beyond common medical levels. I wouldn't really rely on him for advice on AIDS.