Nati Ice Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 oh, and see ya rummy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coy Bacon Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 The Democratic Party = the OTHER right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='381817' date='Nov 8 2006, 03:59 PM']<sarcasm> Wait that article says you can be a democrat and a social conservitive??? Shocking </sarcasm>[/quote] LMAO, Jamie. For years I have been swimming upstream against the nuttier parts of the Dem party apparatus. In Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Kentucky. I used to say to folks, "You don't [i]have[/i] to be gay and kill babies to be in the Democratic Party." My wish is that the Dem party would adopt a new motto: "It's about the General Welfare, stupid." But just because we had some success yesterday does not mean that'll be the case. I'm not quite as cynical as Coy, but I do understand where he is coming from. The Dems could blow it, and just might. I'll do what little I can to keep that from happening, but sometimes I feel like that character Denzel Washington played in that Civil War movie about the 54th Mass--"I ran for President....didn't win, though." Oh, and for whomever thinks that Joe Lieberman represents some sort of savior for the Dems, listen to this: I've had some dealings with him and his office. I know a little about the guy and his backers. Be careful what you wish for. He's the Dem version of a neo-con, and like many pols of all stripes, he could be the subject of that old Carly Simon tune, "You're So Vain." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooky Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 I see two positives: 1. The whole country will realize what idiots Pelosi, Reid, and the like are. Though most should know that already. 2. At least the media will have nothing but bright and cheerful news about the state of the nation now so their party looks good. Even though the economy is already booming and their party will do absolutely nothing for the next 2 years. But they'll take credit for the economy and everything else that's going well. The economy could be in the same state in two months and the media will report that the economy is booming and the democrats are already turning things around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooky Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [quote name='Lawman' post='381671' date='Nov 8 2006, 11:56 AM']hooky, If you have read through other threads and seen what I have been posting, you should be surpirised. Look again at the "British Believes Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong Il" thread. You will notice the International Newsweek covers are different from the US cover. Why is that?[/quote] I just hate the "designate a whipping boy" mentality. The dems are still pissed off about the Clinton impeachment and losing the close 2000 race and therefore have been blaming Bush for every negative thing that happens in any level of government. And I'm not saying that the Reps didn't do the same thing to Clinton when he was president. And they're damned if they do/don't. Like with North Korea, some are saying, "Why aren't we doing anything about N. Korea?" Then if Bush or the next pres sent troops over there, "What the hell are we doing in N. Korea?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Henrys Dealer Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [quote name='Hooky' post='382134' date='Nov 9 2006, 08:05 AM']2. At least the media will have nothing but bright and cheerful news about the state of the nation now so their party looks good. Even though the economy is already booming and their party will do absolutely nothing for the next 2 years. But they'll take credit for the economy and everything else that's going well. The economy could be in the same state in two months and the media will report that the economy is booming and the democrats are already turning things around.[/quote] I'm not sure I'd characterise the US economy as booming. Especially after the 3rd quarter GDP figure that the US just reported. Which was below consensus, by a pretty wide margin. The economic figures that have come out for the last couple of months if anything show a weaking economy in terms of job creation / unsold inventories. One advantage that the Repub's might have is that regardless of party, tax increases will have to come somewhere down the line to combat the effects of the massive increase in the deficit that has occurred under this current administration. The situation is becoming more critical as China is moving to diversify it's Foreign exchange reserves, which just hit a trillion and are not expected to be net buyers of US treasuries for a while. So in the absence of a revenue source, taxes will probably have to be increased. In that sense the repub's might be able to spin the tax increases as the democrats doing what they do best. Even though, the cause of the actions is this admin, which in terms of fiscal conservatism is the polar opposite of what the historical Re-publican Platform would be. (hence a reason I think they lost a lot of votes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 hooky, I made a mistake and left a word in the phrase "If you have read through other threads and seen what I have been posting, you should [i]not[/i] be surpirised." I believe you picked up on it though. [quote]I just hate the "designate a whipping boy" mentality. The dems are still pissed off about the Clinton impeachment and losing the close 2000 race and therefore have been blaming Bush for every negative thing that happens in any level of government. And I'm not saying that the Reps didn't do the same thing to Clinton when he was president.[/quote] I'm glad you see it. You have been hearing Pelosi say "Impeachment is off the table". Look at this: “Secretary Rumsfeld is exhibit ‘A' of the president's failed Iraq policy. It now appears that he has decided to ‘cut and run' [b]instead of facing a new Congress to whom the administration must answer on what went wrong in Iraq.[/b]† Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. A couple things here, what went wrong in Iraq was the failure to understand the Cultural imbalance of that Country (Sunni, Shitte, Kurd, Iranian/Syrian influence, al-Qaida etc.....). I believe they did/do have a grasp of this problem and are navigating through this (contrary to what you hear, Rumsfield did /does understand this when he remarked "a hard long slog"). The message was difficult to present. In a democracy like ours and especially during this day and age "war-weariness" creeps into a society at an accelerated pace. I think of George Washington with his 5,000 ill equiped troops, consisting of old men and young boys facing a 25, 000 well equiped seasoned forces. What a quagmire Look at this: USA/Today [u]Still, some of those waging the insurgency in Iraq reacted with glee to Rumsfeld's ouster[/u]. [b]"We hope that Bush will go next, after this butcher, who's responsible for killing tens of thousands of civilian people in Iraq and Afghanistan," Abu al-Zubeir Dulami, a member of the Mujaheddin Shura Council, an umbrella organization for al-Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni insurgent groups, said by telephone from Ramadi. [u]"We consider it a big accomplishment for the people of al-Qaeda in Iraq[/u]."[/b] [i][u]Our own media [/u] in communication with our enemy. How are you able to present your case of progress when you are battling your own MSM. They (MSM) are a monopoly and control what is being presented on Iraq. Is Iraq a mess, YES at the same time it is improving, but you do not hear that. The killings going on everyday (which should be reported) takes precedents; therefore Iraq is a mess is what resonates.[/i] [i]No matter what Nancy Pelosi says, her base is going to force her to go after Bush. It may not be a straight on frontal attack, but more as a collective with varying accusations of awarding of Halliburton contracts, etc.. [/i] [i]They will set up an 9/11 type commission (wasting tax-payers dollars) for a pre-Iraq invasion. Ok, I have been a staunch supporter for this very reason: They, the Clinton administration had the same evidence and were saying the same things that the Bush Admin presented. Bill Clinton in 1998 stated that "there needed to be regime change in Iraq". Former CIA Director George Tenent was the Director during the Clinton term; he is the one that stated "it's slam dunk" in reference to WMD. [/i] [i]Rewind back to Gates (the newly appointed SecDef) to when he was the CIA Director in the late 80's and look at what he was trying to do (clean up the dysfunctional culture of the CIA) see the Rumsfield thread.[/i] Nancy Pelosi voted for intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti, but not Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [quote name='Homer_Rice' post='382088' date='Nov 9 2006, 12:23 AM']LMAO, Jamie. For years I have been swimming upstream against the nuttier parts of the Dem party apparatus. In Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Kentucky. I used to say to folks, "You don't [i]have[/i] to be gay and kill babies to be in the Democratic Party." My wish is that the Dem party would adopt a new motto: "It's about the General Welfare, stupid." But just because we had some success yesterday does not mean that'll be the case. I'm not quite as cynical as Coy, but I do understand where he is coming from. The Dems could blow it, and just might. I'll do what little I can to keep that from happening, but sometimes I feel like that character Denzel Washington played in that Civil War movie about the 54th Mass--"I ran for President....didn't win, though." Oh, and for whomever thinks that Joe Lieberman represents some sort of savior for the Dems, listen to this: I've had some dealings with him and his office. I know a little about the guy and his backers. Be careful what you wish for. He's the Dem version of a neo-con, and like many pols of all stripes, he could be the subject of that old Carly Simon tune, "You're So Vain."[/quote] Good stuff, seems like inroads in this social consertive democrat thing are being made, but your right its going to take more than one election for people to believe that "you dont have to be gay and kill babies to be in the democratic party" Seems to me that if they can get a foothold on the good ideas of the party and get some of those "nuttier" ones to tone down their retoric, you might see a real shift in power that is based in good ideas for the country and not just in an angry vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Enon Bengal Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 We have the best form of government in the world but our politics suck. I'd like to see our elected officials do what is best for the coutnry andf quit towing the party line. Where are those candidates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [quote name='Enon Bengal' post='382221' date='Nov 9 2006, 12:48 PM']We have the best form of government in the world but our politics suck. I'd like to see our elected officials do what is best for the coutnry andf quit towing the party line. Where are those candidates?[/quote] the problem is good people get into politics to change the system, and tehn the system changes them instead... power corrupts.... even good people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [quote]Seems to me that if they can get a foothold on the good ideas of the party and get some of those "nuttier" ones to tone down their retoric, you might see a real shift in power that is based in good ideas for the country and not just in an angry vote[/quote] I'am sitting on pins and needles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [quote name='Enon Bengal' post='382221' date='Nov 9 2006, 12:48 PM']We have the best form of government in the world but our politics suck. I'd like to see our elected officials do what is best for the coutnry andf quit towing the party line. Where are those candidates?[/quote] Those canidates dont get promoted because they dont tow the party line. Look how McCain has changed his retoric since the last election. One can not be too much of a Maverick and expect to get to the highest office. [quote name='Lawman' post='382226' date='Nov 9 2006, 12:51 PM']I'am sitting on pins and needles [/quote] Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 [quote name='Enon Bengal' post='382221' date='Nov 9 2006, 12:48 PM']We have the best form of government in the world but our politics suck. I'd like to see our elected officials do what is best for the coutnry andf quit towing the party line. Where are those candidates?[/quote] see Joe Lieberman, replaced by a George Sorros hand-puppet, then re-elected on Tuesday as an Independent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 In the early 90s, I met and discussed policy with Lieberman. Also with his staff. He's not what you think. But, in your case, maybe he is.... As I said before, he is the Dem version of a neo-con. And, as bad a Soros is, Joe's backers are just as bad, if not worse. You should have seen what Joe did to Lowell Weicker in order to gain his Senate seat. If you had, you might think that Lamont was pretty tame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coy Bacon Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 [quote name='Lawman' post='381671' date='Nov 8 2006, 11:56 AM']hooky, If you have read through other threads and seen what I have been posting, you should be surpirised. Look again at the "British Believes Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong Il" thread. You will notice the International Newsweek covers are different from the US cover. Why is that?[/quote] That is because the media is complicit in pulling the wool over the eyes of the American public, but knows that it can only get away with so much in the rest of the world where people aren't quite so gullible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coy Bacon Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 [quote name='Homer_Rice' post='382303' date='Nov 9 2006, 02:08 PM']In the early 90s, I met and discussed policy with Lieberman. Also with his staff. He's not what you think. But, in your case, maybe he is.... As I said before, he is the Dem version of a neo-con. And, as bad a Soros is, Joe's backers are just as bad, if not worse. You should have seen what Joe did to Lowell Weicker in order to gain his Senate seat. If you had, you might think that Lamont was pretty tame.[/quote] Lieberman and Soros are both satellites of Rothschild interests. Soros through his financial origins and Lieberman as a Zionist shill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coy Bacon Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 [quote name='Ben' post='381631' date='Nov 8 2006, 11:20 AM']America... America... America, FUCK YEAH! Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah, America, FUCK YEAH! Freedom is the only way yeah, Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too, America, FUCK YEAH! So lick my butt, and suck on my balls, America, FUCK YEAH! What you going to do when we come for you now, it’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow FUCK YEAH! McDonalds, FUCK YEAH! Wal-Mart, FUCK YEAH! The Gap, FUCK YEAH! Baseball, FUCK YEAH! NFL, FUCK, YEAH! Rock and roll, FUCK YEAH! The Internet, FUCK YEAH! Slavery, FUCK YEAH! FUCK YEAH! Starbucks, FUCK YEAH! Disney world, FUCK YEAH! Porno, FUCK YEAH! Valium, FUCK YEAH! Reeboks, FUCK YEAH! Fake Tits, FUCK YEAH! Sushi, FUCK YEAH! Taco Bell, FUCK YEAH! Rodeos, FUCK YEAH! Bed bath and beyond (Fuck yeah, Fuck yeah) Liberty, FUCK YEAH! White Slips, FUCK YEAH! The Alamo, FUCK YEAH! Band-aids, FUCK YEAH! Las Vegas, FUCK YEAH! Christmas, FUCK YEAH! Immigrants, FUCK YEAH! Popeye, FUCK YEAH! Demarcates, FUCK YEAH! dumbasss (dumbasss) (fuck yeah, fuck yeah) Sportsmanship Books[/quote] Ah the finer lights! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coy Bacon Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='381645' date='Nov 8 2006, 11:37 AM']precisely why this election isn't as bad as it seems imo... i am a conservative, not a rep-ublican... if i toe a party line, my party will leave me again...[/quote] So you're a proponent of aristocracy. Well, the Democrats won't make anything better measuring by all the high-falluting, noble sounding things that you'll claim to want to see, but they will support the ultimate aims of conservatism - promoting and defending aristocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 [quote name='Coy Bacon' post='382577' date='Nov 9 2006, 11:25 PM']So you're a proponent of aristocracy. Well, the Democrats won't make anything better measuring by all the high-falluting, noble sounding things that you'll claim to want to see, but they will support the ultimate aims of conservatism - promoting and defending aristocracy.[/quote] your distorted, prejudice opinion of what conservatism is, is not what i think it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coy Bacon Posted November 11, 2006 Report Share Posted November 11, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='382667' date='Nov 10 2006, 09:41 AM']your distorted, prejudice opinion of what conservatism is, is not what i think it is...[/quote] I don't think my opinion of conservatism is distorted or prejudiced. I think that it is discerning and informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coy Bacon Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 [b][color="#FF0000"] Like it or not, impeachment is off the table. The Bush administration and the rubber-stamp Congress have been wildly successful in advancing the dominant coalition's agenda. A cosmetic change to placate the restive populace, and switching out the neo-con operatives for the "pragmatist" managers, and the Bushite juggernaut will continue to roll while the Dems clean up the mess. The clean up involves wittingly or unwittingly feeding the illusion that all of this has been one horrible miscalculation. Bullshit. It's been calculated risks, calculated losses and calculated trade-offs. [/color][/b] Conyers Toes Party Line: No Impeachment Something Is Extremely 'Rotten In The State Of Denmark' Steve Watson Infowars.net Friday, November 10, 2006 The latest Democrat "saviour" to flip flop 180 degrees in light of their victory is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. Presumed to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January, Conyers today said that impeachment of President Bush "is off the table." [b]"In this campaign, there was an orchestrated right-wing effort to distort my position on impeachment,"[/b] Conyers said in a statement released by his Judiciary Committee spokesman. "[b]The incoming speaker (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."[/b] [b]Conyers seems to have forgotten that last December he laid out the grounds for impeachment in a 350 page long report called "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War" and later updated to add "illegal domestic surveillance."[/b] For a while Conyers was the darling of left leaning bloggers and readers everywhere: At this site, we are especially proud of the new Conyers Report, "The Constitution in Crisis." By purchasing this book, you have the opportunity to own a part of history and help the Congressman hold the Bush Administration accountable. Your assistance in helping Congressman Conyers become the next Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee will bring us one step closer to getting the American people the answers from this Administration that they deserve. - www.afterdowningstreet.org Conyers is so admirable. One of the very few in Congress who still has integrity and principles. It is too bad that he does not get more MSM coverage but why would they do that? He might upset the dumbass and Corporate plans for total control and could expose their nefarious doings. He is risking much by not following the official DNC program too, in addition to challenging the Bushies. - Huffington Post In december 2005, upon release of the report, Conyers stated: The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima facie evidence (evidence sufficiently strong to presume the allegations are true) that federal criminal laws have been violated. Legal violations span from false statements to Congress to whistleblower laws... The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct... In response to the Report, I have already taken a number of actions. First, I have introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) creating a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses. So [b]Conyers was already underway with setting up investigations into impeachable offences, but now he says that impeachment is off the table?[/b] Clearly he has been given orders to toe the party line or face the consequences. Despite the fact that 86% want to see the President impeached, leading Democrats have already ruled this out. [b]The same leading Democrats that voted for the war in Afghanistan, for the Patriot Act, for Homeland Security and against a bill that simply condemned torture of prisoners in Iraq. [/b] After Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, Conyers is the latest Democrat to show us their true colours once in power. Conyers and the other Democrats highlight precisely why we need to regroup, consolidate and redouble our efforts in light of the[u] [b]theatrical shift of power in Washington to the left. [/b] [/u] Because as soon as this happened, overnight, the truth movement lost a great deal of support from those that believe the job is now done. Taking note of many reader comments over the past few days I have noticed a startling uprise in the amount of negative and dismissive feedback from some readers. [b]Evidently those who expected us to be out dancing in the streets at the news of a Democrat landslide in Washington have been bitterly disappointed.[/b] [b]We have never once suggested that the solution to a corrupt and fascist Neocon leadership is a passive and capitulating Democrat sideshow leadership[/b], so why is it any surprise that we are continuing on the same course as before? Comments such as the following emphasize my point: "You can only have it one way. What the hell is up with you people. The whole time the Bush regime was in power you begged for change. Now you have it, but your still complaining." Yes we are seeking change, but not a simple change of personnel as we have witnessed this week. As we reported yesterday[size=3] [b]"There's no doubt about it, to see frothing Neo-Cons who have been strutting around like John Wayne for the past five years finally eat humble pie is a breath of fresh air, but let's not be so deluded as to think that the Neo-Con agenda, which took decades to craft, was simply brushed aside by the victory of a party that has supported Bush every step of the way on major issues."[/b][/size] Seeing Bush on TV admitting he'd took a hell of a beating was great, for about five minutes, then he started laughing and joking about it and talking about pushing forward to work closely with a new crowd. Is rolling over and going back to sleep going to get Bush impeached? Should we shut down the websites now and go save the whales or something else we'd all love to be doing if we didn't have to relentlessly keep fighting to stop our leaders killing our freedoms? Within hours the Democratic elite have shown us that they don't give a damn about holding the Bush administration up to scrutiny. With no effective opposition in the form of a political party it is up to the people to continue to demand justice and to continue to attempt to reign in those who have heinously abused their power. Thomas Jefferson described Congress as "a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything and yield nothing." In light of this how can any representative say something like impeachment is 'off the table? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 [quote name='Coy Bacon' post='383232' date='Nov 11 2006, 06:16 PM']I don't think my opinion of conservatism is distorted or prejudiced. I think that it is discerning and informed.[/quote] well then we must be talking about two different things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coy Bacon Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='385639' date='Nov 13 2006, 12:50 PM']well then we must be talking about two different things...[/quote] I agree. You're talking about the fantasy; I'm talking about the reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 [quote name='Coy Bacon' post='386022' date='Nov 13 2006, 08:19 PM']I agree. You're talking about the fantasy; I'm talking about the reality.[/quote] unfortinately, in the present you might be right... at least as far as "conservative leaders" go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coy Bacon Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='386292' date='Nov 14 2006, 10:15 AM']unfortinately, in the present you might be right... at least as far as "conservative leaders" go...[/quote] And that's really my point. But, "conservative leaders" of one type or the other are basically part of the set of the people that have constructed the paradigm by which you call yourself a conservative. In so doing, they manipulate the label to align your aspirations, whether legitimate or otherwise, with their own agenda, which they often disguise. What many in the US call "Conservatism" is really one variant of classical Liberalism, and what gets called "Liberalism" in the US tends to be mild to moderate Socialism, if not plain old confusion. I submit that under the neo-Liberal facade, Conservatism is today what it has always been - the movement to promote aristocracy. Aristocracy from its Greek derivation means rule by the "best". The "best", for purposes of defining the aristocracy, has traditionaly been defined in terms of heredity, but the concept is open to any attribute, such as wealth, that can come to be construed as making one person "better" than another. It is the anti-egalitarian bent that makes the conservative, regardless of what yardstick he uses to establish the pecking order. This is the common thread that bonds the "conservative leaders" and those among the hoi poloi that brand themselves "conservatives." The alienation that the lower-echelon may be coming to feel regarding "conservative leadership" appears to stem from the fact that the big dogs have gotten sloppy about hiding the fact that their "followers" are part of the lower orders that they presume themselves worthy to rule over by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.