Okay then... NOW I'm pissed off!

[Outsydr]

On other threads, I had been posting about my frustration over the filth that has been passed around by certain individuals wanted to force an association between Barack Obama and radical Islamists.

I posted a link to the debunking of this connection by a reporter for CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/index.html)

I then found a picture of Mitt Romney with one of his supporters putting a connection between Obama and Osama bin Laden. Romney poses with his supporter, smiling and even taking the sign in hand (http://www.tmz.com/2007/07/21/mitt-catches-s-t-over-hillary-bashing-sign/).

Now there's another link, this time showing Romney being confronted (by what many conservatives have deemed a "liberal plant") with the question of how can he play party to an effort to compare an American citizen to Osama bin Laden. Mr. Romney's answer?

"Lighten up." (http://www.tmz.com/2007/07/23/romney-on-osama-sign-lighten-up/)

You know, whether this was a 'plant' or an 'ambush' question, the question is valid. And it speaks to the character of a man when he declines to take responsibility for his actions.

[Kaeos]

See and what makes it worse is, if it had been Obama or Hillary holding a sign deptcing Fallwell / Hannity / Bush cavorting with Satan, it would have been "See!! See!!! Those America Hating Liberals! Look at how they degrade and demean!!!" and no way would "lighten up." be an accetable answer.

The double standard from the so called "victims of the Liberal Media" on the right is amazing.

[Outsydr]

Agreed! Comparrisons of Bush to Hitler for instance. I have always rejected them. Bush is no Hitler. Hitler was a sick hatemonger, but had uncanny ability to motivate the masses. Bush is just stupid, and has little charisma. But moreover, I would have a very hard time seeing Bush as a facist dictator (regarless of how evidential that becomes each day...) Why then should I (or anyone else) "lighten up" about such being done to Sen. Obama?

Mr. Romney has developed a history of being soft on personal opinions and morals. If he wants to be taken seriously as a candidate, he'b better come up with a more substantial response than "lighten up".

[Al-Dog]

Outsydr, you knew they where going to start gunning for Obama once they thought he had a chance of wining. These attaches just prove to me that they are starting to take him as a serious contender and are getting a little nervous.

I find it interesting that the best they’ve got is to make fun of his name and to try and find something sinister about where he went to grade school.

[Still Crazy]

Aw rich Mormon men hardly ever take responsiblity for their actions. All I can say is....
typical.

[Outsydr]

I find it interesting that the best they’ve got is to make fun of his name and to try and find something sinister about where he went to grade school.

I find that interesting, too! But also very discouraging. There are some really SIMPLE MINDED folks in this country that would take that kind of poking as a strong reason not to support a candidate. It just seems a shame that a guy can't get a fair chance because of such piffle. But then, anyone that would buy into these things is probably looking for an excuse to hate anyway.

I'm just really disgusted by certain people questioning other people's patriotism.

[Outsydr]

Aw rich Mormon men hardly ever take responsiblity for their actions. All I can say is....
typical.

I'm fascinated by this statement. What do you mean when you say they hardly ever take responsibility for their actions.

[Kaeos]

I'm fascinated by this statement. What do you mean when you say they hardly ever take responsibility for their actions.

It is a bit of a gross generalization there Still Crazy. I am friends with a lot of Mormons, my in-laws and a lot of people I know follow that church. And while they certainly aren't perfect, who is? There is nothing specific about "mormon" men that pre-disposes them to any type of behavior. I'm not offended by your comment, just kind of shaking my head.

I half expect you to finish that statement with "...and Catholics are Lazy, Muslims are violent and Jews are cheap." Not a very well thought out post.

Romney's issue has NOTHING to do with being a Mormon.

Romney's issue have EVERYTHING to do with being a Moron.

[Gentlemen Death]

Aw rich Mormon men hardly ever take responsiblity for their actions. All I can say is....
typical.

:mad: I think that is a fucked up thing to say, man! Instead of judging people because of there religion, you should find out more about them...And even then, it is not because of their religion, so I think you should back off...:mad:

[Kaeos]

:mad: I think that is a fucked up thing to say, man! Instead of judging people because of there religion, you should find out more about them...And even then, it is not because of their religion, so I think you should back off...:mad:


Easy Stallion, we're all freinds here. :lol:

[Queen Mae]

Just a friendly reminder:

Please avoid making sweeping generalizations about followers of religions, people of certain ethnic or cultural backgrounds, and people of certain political viewpoints.

/reminder

[Lavoruis]

The term is "Mud Slinging"
why over react?

[Outsydr]

Because THIS kind of mudslinging could carry a very high cost! In a time when something like the Patriot Act could land you in JAIL simply because of possible or even suspected terrorist affilation, it has to be taken seriously.

[spammityspam]

I think the only reason it was said is because Mormons are generally viewed, at least from what I've seen, as a little crazy. It's kind of an insult to get thrown in along with rich/white/Republican/what have you. I really doubt Still Crazy is the type of kid to run around screaming GODDAMNED MORMONS KILL 'EM ALL or anything like that. Delete the 'Mormon' part and I think most of us would agree with that sentence, you know?

[Outsydr]

That's what I figured. That's why I simply asked. I'm interested to know the reason behind it because I've found Mormon men to be quite the opposite of irresponsible.

[Gentlemen Death]

The reason why I jumped out was for the fact that my brother is mormon and that 'religion' is so full of stereotypes it is not even funny...But with that said, so are a lot of other religions. But I apologize for the rudeness of my post, and I just please ask to refrain from steretypical statements untill you fully understand what it is about, and what it is NOT about...Kind of like how black people like the Fugees....:D

[Intelligent_Design]

The reason why I jumped out was for the fact that my brother is mormon and that 'religion' is so full of stereotypes it is not even funny...But with that said, so are a lot of other religions. But I apologize for the rudeness of my post, and I just please ask to refrain from steretypical statements untill you fully understand what it is about, and what it is NOT about...Kind of like how black people like the Fugees....:D

Do Mormons still believe black people don't go to heaven?

[Woodwraith]

Did I read that link right? It was one of Hillary's people that was inventing that info about where Obama's grade schooling took place right? I'm referring to him being linked to radical Muslim fundamentalist indoctrinations.

[Al-Dog]

Did I read that link right? It was one of Hillary's people that was inventing that info about where Obama's grade schooling took place right? I'm referring to him being linked to radical Muslim fundamentalist indoctrinations.Yes, you read it right.

I had heard a while back from various sources that the initial reports that tried to link Obama to radical Islamic schools had initiated from the Clinton camp.

You do not want to be on the Clintons enemy list.

[Outsydr]

You READ it correctly, but it is true? Not according to MediaMatters.org (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701200003). Since this thing is by-and-large being recognized as a hoax, perpetuated by a "news source" that is run by the... venerable Rev. Sun Myung Moon... I don't put ANY credence into it. Just seems like another political snot-job to me.

[Outsydr]

Do Mormons still believe black people don't go to heaven?

Have a look at the LDS website (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/121/story_12108_1.html) for a story about their Black History month. Appearently, there are some black Mormons out there. And apparently there've been efforts by the church to recant statments made by their most revered leaders Brigham Young and Joe Smith. Have a look at this on ReligiousTolerance.org ("http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_race.htm)

I had NO idea there were black Mormons.

[spammityspam]

I've actually heard that Clinton and Obama are being nice to each other, since they're both aware they may end up on the same ticket in the long run and don't want that "but you hated each other last year!" thing to hang over their heads.

Isn't it weird to think that the election isn't for over a year? I wish we could start a little later, you know. I'm already sick of the coverage.

[Gentlemen Death]

Do Mormons still believe black people don't go to heaven?

Thankfully, my bro is not the crazy ass mormon is banishes you from heaven because you smoke, drink and have sex before marriage...But even then according to him and the church everyone goes to heaven....That is nice:D ....

To answer your question though....From what I understand they do not believe that...the majority of them that is...See, with religion of all types you are going to get that one individiual who takes it to far, and reads what is in between the lines when there is NOTHING there...

The mormans I have known and met have all been cool to me...I even light up a cig in front of them and known of them say a damn thing to me, just keep on talking while they drink water.....:cool:

[kah]

The dancing chewie is on the perfect rhythm for "Under Pressure". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdaHCLlBkWU)

[Space Tycoon]

You READ it correctly, but it is true? Not according to MediaMatters.org (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701200003). Since this thing is by-and-large being recognized as a hoax, perpetuated by a "news source" that is run by the... venerable Rev. Sun Myung Moon... I don't put ANY credence into it. Just seems like another political snot-job to me.


Well, it's just like the way Ron Paul's fellow Republicans smeared him as an anti-Semite, conspiracy theorist, terrorist sympathizer, etc., thanks to him not spouting the party line.






.

[Al-Dog]

I've actually heard that Clinton and Obama are being nice to each other, since they're both aware they may end up on the same ticket in the long run and don't want that "but you hated each other last year!" thing to hang over their heads. If we have a Clinton/Obama ticket, would they have a better chance with Barack as president and Hillary as vice president or the other way around?

And what about Bill? Do you think he’d be content being first-husband or would he ask for/get a more sustainable role, like secretary of state?

[rappites]

Those are really hard questions.

But, Hillary should be President with Obama as Vice Pres.


Bill should be allowed to pick what he would like to do. How about Press Secretary?

[spammityspam]

I think it's more likely to run Obama as president and Hillary as VP -- people get so weird about her. They might be much more comfortable with her out of direct power, and even if Obama's black, he's still a guy, and I think as a country we're readier for a black president than a female one, especially if that president is Hillary. If she could be how she is today in about 30 years I'd think it would be the other way around. I think Obama's also the more moderate candidate, and it's easier to elect a moderate.

As for Bill, I don't see him getting a job anywhere in the White House. People would scream nepotism, myself probably included. I think he'll have enough of a job staying out of editorial cartoons as the emasculated First Husband (or Vice Husband, or royal consort, or whatever) without taking public eye. If he's got half a brain he'll stick to the backwaters for the next four to eight.

[Trazalca]

As for Bill, I don't see him getting a job anywhere in the White House. People would scream nepotism, myself probably included. I think he'll have enough of a job staying out of editorial cartoons as the emasculated First Husband (or Vice Husband, or royal consort, or whatever) without taking public eye....

I think he'd be called the First Gentleman, unless I'm mistaken. :headscratch:

[Gentlemen Death]

The thought of Obama or Clinton in office makes me laugh.......I find that the Democrats have ran out of options so they push forward with whatever ammo they have left........A black man and a women....Am I the only one who feels like that?:headscratch:

[Al-Dog]

The thought of Obama or Clinton in office makes me laugh.......I find that the Democrats have ran out of options so they push forward with whatever ammo they have left........A black man and a women....Am I the only one who feels like that?:headscratch:So you’re saying that the Democrats are so desperate that they are scrapping the bottom of the barrel, and the best they can come up with are a black man and a woman?

And I suppose you think the Republicans are so desperate the best they can do is run an Italian or a Mormon.

Is this what this country has come down to; we can’t even find a qualified white Anglo Christian to run for President? :shakehead:

[rappites]

I hope you all are joking with those remarks.


Because I would think that the people on these boards have a more open mind than most people.

We should not discriminate based on their genitals, color of their skin, religion etc....

Wow!!! I am truly disapointed.

[Al-Dog]

For the record, I was being sarcastic.

When it comes time for me to vote it will not be based on the individual’s race, gender, religion or party affiliation. I plan to vote for who I think is the most qualified person for the job.

[kah]

I, for one, am all for discriminating based on genitals.

I request that all the candidates drop trou' and let us have a look.

[rappites]

:Tongue:

[Gentlemen Death]

It is all in good fun...I am not discriminating either, and meant no harm in what I said...It just always seems it is about how bad Replubicans and Bush are...It gets REALLY OLD after awhile...:cool:

[spammityspam]

I think it's mainly because they're the ones in office screwing things up. When the Democrats start in a term or so you'll hear nothing but bitching from conservatives. Fear not! America's whining can never be smothered.

[Kaeos]

Do Mormons still believe black people don't go to heaven?


No. I know several.

[Outsydr]

The thought of Obama or Clinton in office makes me laugh.......I find that the Democrats have ran out of options so they push forward with whatever ammo they have left........A black man and a women....Am I the only one who feels like that?:headscratch:


No, you're not alone. I'm sure there are thousands of Klansmen and Nazis that agree with you 100%. If you want to share your concerns with them, just head over to Google and type "fucking idiots" and see what groups you get.

[Outsydr]

I, for one, am all for discriminating based on genitals.

I request that all the candidates drop trou' and let us have a look.

Great! What office are you running for?:popcorn:

[fastcar]

Jumping in late, but I hate Romney for other reasons.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html

[kah]

I want to be Queen.

[neglet]

Screw queen. I want to be EMPRESS!

[spammityspam]

Shit, I'll just pour the coffee. Then I can write a book about the secrets of whoever's administration and make a mint.

[kah]

You can be Empress if I get to be an Imperial Princess, but we are not showing Outy our goods.

[Outsydr]

That's fine. And the jury's still out on whether or not you have the right to refer to your genitals as "goods" anyway. :Smirk:

[Space Tycoon]

Jumping in late, but I hate Romney for other reasons.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html

What an idiot. :shakehead:






.

[Al-Dog]

No, you're not alone. I'm sure there are thousands of Klansmen and Nazis that agree with you 100%. If you want to share your concerns with them, just head over to Google and type "fucking idiots" and see what groups you get.A couple of weeks ago I was goggling for something and accidentally landed on one of those KKK/Neo-Nazi/skin head sites. They had their panties in a wad because some town in Ireland had elected a black person as major.

It would be interesting if Obama was elected to watch their racist heads explode.

[Intelligent_Design]

Thankfully, my bro is not the crazy ass mormon is banishes you from heaven because you smoke, drink and have sex before marriage...But even then according to him and the church everyone goes to heaven....That is nice:D ....

To answer your question though....From what I understand they do not believe that...the majority of them that is...See, with religion of all types you are going to get that one individiual who takes it to far, and reads what is in between the lines when there is NOTHING there...

The mormans I have known and met have all been cool to me...I even light up a cig in front of them and known of them say a damn thing to me, just keep on talking while they drink water.....:cool:

Cool, I know there are Fanatics in every religion. Thankfully its not the norm.

[Outsydr]

Sigh... (http://www.tmz.com/2007/08/07/lindsey-bashes-hillary/)

This is some foul shit. Seriously foul. Especially coming from this fucker, who stood on his Baptist legs to take the moral highground during the Clinton impeachment but is himself a... confirmed bachelor (to be kind) that supports the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy while SERVING in the military!?!

[Kaeos]

Are you actually suprised by the actions of Reublicans at all these days?

This nonsense doesn't surprise me in the least. Pretty much what I have come to expect from the Repulican party.:mad:

[Outsydr]

You're dead on right. The hypocracy is now getting thick enough to choke a horse. I'll freely admit to being politically biased, but this is just ridiculous. We're PAYING these people, when for 1/4 of the money, we could get the same from a bunch of 3rd graders.

[kah]

I keep telling you people, we need anarchy. What do we need politicians for anyways? If we've got mayors, governors, cops, and state assemblys, what do we need the big hoohaa in Washington for?

[Outsydr]

Because....


Because...


...

Oh, shut up.

[spammityspam]

'Cause of the crazies. Everyone needs to be accountable.

[Space Tycoon]

I keep telling you people, we need anarchy. What do we need politicians for anyways? If we've got mayors, governors, cops, and state assemblys, what do we need the big hoohaa in Washington for?

That's not a state of anarchy. A state of anarchy would be one in which there was no leadership whatsoever. And it would soon lead to a dictatorship.

What you're talking about a decentralized federalism, which is what the Founding Fathers really intended. And only one candidate (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)is preaching a return to the principles.

Strangely enough, despite his popularity, he is all but ignored by the media/governmental elites, be they "liberal" or "conservative."

Funny, that. :headscratch:





.

[Space Tycoon]

Are you actually suprised by the actions of Reublicans at all these days?

This nonsense doesn't surprise me in the least. Pretty much what I have come to expect from the Repulican party.:mad:


Well, lest we forget, Obama's biggest pain in the neck these days is coming from Hilary Clinton, not any of the Republicans.

Case in point: the recent spat over foreign policy. Obama made some reasonable, if poorly-worded, statements about meeting with foreign leaders if he were President-- even those who are supposedly "enemies" of the US.

Clinton immediately derided these statements as "irresponsible" and "naive," implicitly endorsing the neocon line that we don't negotiate with people we don't like, or bother with little niceties such as diplomacy. She would later go on to reiterate her position that the use of nuclear weapons against said enemies is still "on the table." The Truman-worshipping right wing of the Democratic Party agreed.

Pressured into some sort of response, Obama then made an alarming comment about being prepared to send in American troops to invade Pakistan--a fractious, nuclear-armed powderkeg and America's key ally in south Asia-- with or without Musharraf's permission! This would be just as stupid as anything Bush has done.

What would lead an intelligent candidate for the highest office in the land to make such a crazy declaration? Was he serious? Who knows. Clearly, Hillary's remarks cut Obama pretty deeply. You can just see his handlers scrambling around for some kind of response, to make him look "tough," and "Presidential," and strong on foreign policy.

The big winner is Clinton, who managed to make Obama look indecisive, inconsistent, and easily goaded. Clinton, of course, looks all the more like the opportunistic, back-stabbing, rebranded "NeoCon Lite" many of us have always taken her for.

Don't be fooled: A vote for Clinton is a vote for more war, more chaos, more hatred against America leading to more bloody terrorist reprisals.

Whereas a vote for Obama is a vote for..... who knows, at this point?

The Republican far right is an easy target, no doubt. There's some serious inbreeding there. But I wish that the Democrats on this board would spare at least some criticism for the sleaze within their own ranks, which is ample.





.

[kah]

I know that's not anarchy. Real anarchy is a bad idea, but getting a lot closer to it wouldn't be.

[Outsydr]

The Republican far right is an easy target, no doubt. There's some serious inbreeding there. But I wish that the Democrats on this board would spare at least some criticism for the sleaze within their own ranks, which is ample.
.

I'll freely admit to being partisan, man. I'm a Democrat and I will defend my beliefs jealously and without respite.

But you've made the mistake in assuming that this is about politics. It's not. It's about integrity and patriotism and the almost GENETIC tendency of Republicans to label anyone that doesn't agree with them as a traitor to the nation. I'm fucking SICK TO DEATH of it! Granted, it the tables were turned and Obama had questioned Romney, I might not have erected a thread about it. But I would definately disagree publicly with him. The point is he didn't, and I highly doubt he would.

Romney is a creep. And if his explanation for why his sons choose to 'serve America' by 'working on this campaign for President' instead of inlisting in the military doesn't prove that, I don't know what will.

[Space Tycoon]

Romney is a creep. And if his explanation for why his sons choose to 'serve America' by 'working on this campaign for President' instead of inlisting in the military doesn't prove that, I don't know what will.

Oh, believe me, I have no use for the "Rudy McRompson" quartet of groupthinkers. But I refuse to believe the Democrats are a credible alternative. They are not. The Democratic mainstream leadership is simply too concerned with getting and holding power, that they sound very much like a "me-too" party, to me anyway.

At the risk of sounding cruel, I think Republicans are basically stronger people than Democrats. Stronger willed, stronger stomachs. Even when they say or do things that are very wrong, they never do them meekly or half-assed. You just have to look at the people who usually vote Republican--police officers, soliders, farmers, contractors, entrepreneurs. Do-ers.

If a strong conservative leader like Hagel or a libertarian like Paul can bring Republicans back to their senses, they will have done the country a service.

And if not, as seems likely, then it is time for a third alternative--one that people of various political leanings can stand behind. These parties were never meant to be eternal dynasties lasting century after century.

IMO.





.

[spammityspam]

I don't know -- part of what makes me shy away from the Republican party is that strength of character. I don't see it as strength, really, but I have different ideas about what makes a character strong, one of those ideas being admitting when they're wrong and the ability to change their minds when new information is presented. There's value in sticking to one path, there's a lot more in really thinking about where that path is headed, you know?

Democrats are the lesser of two evils for me. Yes, we're a bunch of yellow-bellied whiners who roll over when the Republicans tell us we hate freedom. But we are a party of harder thinkers than Republicans are, and I feel a lot safer with a party that dithers rather than will charge in any old direction. Democrats have become, since the Civil War, the party that goes into power to fix things locally rather than make sweeping moves about everything, and that's what I like in a party. But I'm a bleeding heart, and I like welfare and social programs and taxes, which is clearly not everyone's cup of tea. Republicans have always been the party to stir things up with bold initiatives. I've just had it up to here with bold initiatives at this point.

[Outsydr]

Oh, believe me, I have no use for the "Rudy McRompson" quartet of groupthinkers. But I refuse to believe the Democrats are a credible alternative. They are not. The Democratic mainstream leadership is simply too concerned with getting and holding power, that they sound very much like a "me-too" party, to me anyway.

At the risk of sounding cruel, I think Republicans are basically stronger people than Democrats. Stronger willed, stronger stomachs. Even when they say or do things that are very wrong, they never do them meekly or half-assed. You just have to look at the people who usually vote Republican--police officers, soliders, farmers, contractors, entrepreneurs. Do-ers.

If a strong conservative leader like Hagel or a libertarian like Paul can bring Republicans back to their senses, they will have done the country a service.

And if not, as seems likely, then it is time for a third alternative--one that people of various political leanings can stand behind. These parties were never meant to be eternal dynasties lasting century after century.

IMO.





.

Okay. AGAIN, you're making this about politics... Republican vs. Democrat... and it's NOT. As I said, it's about patriotism. It's about character. It's about borderline slander. You think Republicans are stronger? Fine. That's your problem. I'm only interested in the truth.

[Space Tycoon]

Okay. AGAIN, you're making this about politics... Republican vs. Democrat... and it's NOT. As I said, it's about patriotism. It's about character. It's about borderline slander. You think Republicans are stronger? Fine. That's your problem. I'm only interested in the truth.

Oh I see.

Well perhaps you could explain this apparent contradiction in terms for me then:

But you've made the mistake in assuming that this is about politics. It's not. It's about integrity and patriotism and the almost GENETIC tendency of Republicans to label anyone that doesn't agree with them as a traitor to the nation.


It's almost like you're saying, "It's not about politics, except where those darned Republicans are concerned."

I dunno, I'm easily confused these days, must be all this sun. :headscratch:




.

[Space Tycoon]

But we are a party of harder thinkers than Republicans are, and I feel a lot safer with a party that dithers rather than will charge in any old direction.

You need to set higher standards. These are not the times for dithering.

The Democratic Congress had a wonderful opportunity to halt this failed war in it's tracks; instead they voted to authorize more funding. They had another opportunity to block the Administration's plans to bomb Iran and who knows who else; instead they recently voted to give Bush the authorization to do just that, as in 2002.

If Bush is indeed a "dry drunk" on a rampage, then the Democrats have been, and continue to be, the enabler.

Democrats have become, since the Civil War, the party that goes into power to fix things locally rather than make sweeping moves about everything, and that's what I like in a party.

Not necessarily. They brought in the Socialist New Deal, which went way beyond basic relief, towards moving the country closer to socialism. Indeed many of Roosevelt's and Truman's inner circle were admirers of fascist and Bolshevik central economic planning.

Kennedy and Johnson continued this trend with the New Frontier/Great Society crusades, which produced nothing but the beginnings of a European-style welfare state, and a disaster for American society and culture.

Aaaand, don't forget they gave us American involvement in Europe's wars, Korea and Vietnam, all of which were "Democrat wars," to use Dole's blunt talk.

Guns and Butter. Militarism and socialism. Bad enough on their own, even worse when combined.


But I'm a bleeding heart, and I like welfare and social programs and taxes, which is clearly not everyone's cup of tea. When you eventually have to pay for it, you will feel a little differently. Especially when you see where it is going and whom it is going to.

If you're as smart as I think you are. ;)


Republicans have always been the party to stir things up with bold initiatives. I've just had it up to here with bold initiatives at this point.

Again, you're talking about today's Republican party, which is almost totally divorced from the Republican Party of the pre-Nixon era. In fact, they're pretty much divorced from reality as we know it.






.

[Kaeos]

Dude, I respect a lot of what you say because in my eyes, your one of the smartest mo-fo's I knows.

But on this topic I have to say your bouncing around your point like Rush Limbaugh and your double talking yourself into an incomprehensible oxymoron.

In one sentence you say that the Democrats are responsible for not stopping Bush's war when they had the chance and to prove your point you site a vote in 2002.....when they had no power.

I'm not necessarily saying your wrong on all of these points, and again, I tend to like your viewpoint as a non American because it can often be a refreshing change of pace from the stark partisanship we're entrenched in here.

But to say Spam's standards are low because of her comment is just nuts man. That's like a quote from Ann Coulter 101. How can someone's standards be low because they are not advocating an all out global campaign to keep us bogged down in a theological war with no clear direction, no clear leadership and only the vaguest goal of "keeping us safe" (finish that sentence with from the people we're trying to get to be in a war with us)

Thumbs down on that one my brother. Having a different viewpoint and standing firm for it is what being American is about. Right or wrong.

[spammityspam]

I think he was saying my standards were low because I advocated a policy of anything that WASN'T theological warfare and all that jazz, which perhaps it is.

But anyway, hey, let's all be nice and remember we're friends, okay? Simmer down, kids.

[Outsydr]

Oh I see.

Well perhaps you could explain this apparent contradiction in terms for me then:




It's almost like you're saying, "It's not about politics, except where those darned Republicans are concerned."

I dunno, I'm easily confused these days, must be all this sun. :headscratch:




.
No, you're right. That's exactly what I said. And I can see how that can be confusing. I guess what I should have said was that I'm merely mentioning Republicans or their tendancies to explain... or, better yet, to ACKNOWLEDGE why you might think this a purely partisan thread.

[Al-Dog]

Choosing between the Democrats and the Republicans over who runs the country is like having to choose between the Crips or the Bloods over who runs you neighborhood.

Sure there are some superficial differences between the two, but for the most part they are mostly interested in “gang” loyalty and furthering their own agenda.

I believe (hope) that there are a few politicians in both parties who are interested in what’s best for the country, but the majority are only interested in staying in office, seeking higher office or doing favors for people who will keep them in office.

[Outsydr]

Yeah. And here's what I say to that:

So what?

That's what a politician does. After all, don't we all do whatever we need to to keep our jobs??? History has shown that (in politics) the nice guy truly finishes last. History shows that the most idealistic individual with purety of heart will NEVER obtain real power because they can't get funding without being someone's bitch. This is not new, and it's hardly a reason to start equating law-abiding citizens to street thugs.

So let's not be naive here. These guys will do what they need to to get funded and to say in power. What we HOPE they'll do is keep their promises after they've gotten our support. Until then, they must show us what makes them worthy.

So again, the point of the thread is this: A man that has not shown himself to be unworthy because of his patriotism is being made fun of and questioned by someone that HAS shown himself to be unworthy.

Simplified. Can you dig it?

[Space Tycoon]

Dude, I respect a lot of what you say because in my eyes, your one of the smartest mo-fo's I knows.

But on this topic I have to say your bouncing around your point like Rush Limbaugh and your double talking yourself into an incomprehensible oxymoron.

In one sentence you say that the Democrats are responsible for not stopping Bush's war when they had the chance and to prove your point you site a vote in 2002.....when they had no power.

I'm not necessarily saying your wrong on all of these points, and again, I tend to like your viewpoint as a non American because it can often be a refreshing change of pace from the stark partisanship we're entrenched in here.

But to say Spam's standards are low because of her comment is just nuts man. That's like a quote from Ann Coulter 101. How can someone's standards be low because they are not advocating an all out global campaign to keep us bogged down in a theological war with no clear direction, no clear leadership and only the vaguest goal of "keeping us safe" (finish that sentence with from the people we're trying to get to be in a war with us)

Thumbs down on that one my brother. Having a different viewpoint and standing firm for it is what being American is about. Right or wrong.





Maybe I'm not doing a good job of explaining my point of view.


It is rather easy at this point to denounce the current Republican mainstream, either in the White House, Congress, or the media as dangerous warmongers who need to be stopped. That's not exactly a controversial viewpoint on a board such as this one. And it's not new.

My point is simply this: how much of a right does the Democratic leadership have to claim the moral high ground in all of this? Have they earned our respect? Have they done all that they could do? Has Pelosi, Clinton, and the other leading Democrats really drawn a line in the sand and declared, "this aggression will not stand?" Or are they taking a moderate, dithering, safe path along the middle of the road to power.

In one sentence you say that the Democrats are responsible for not stopping Bush's war when they had the chance and to prove your point you site a vote in 2002.....when they had no power.

I never, never said they could have stopped this before it started. My reference was to the so-called "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Troop_Readiness%2C_Veterans%27_Care%2C_Katrin a_Recovery%2C_and_Iraq_Accountability_Appropriatio ns_Act%2C_2007) A typically wordy Congressional bill signed into law on May 24, 2007, which has allowed the war to be prolonged for who knows how long. The Dems had the power to defund the war but didn't have the stomach to deflect the inevitable charges of "treason" and "abandoning the troops" that would have been hurled by the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh.

Incidentally, why did you feel the need to compare me with those two characters?

A vote against authorizing war in 2002 might not have changed the outcome, but it would have been a stance of principle that people would have remembered. And a vote to refuse authorization of using force against Iran--which may yet happen-- would similarly have distinguished the Democrats in the eyes of the public.

But to say Spam's standards are low because of her comment is just nuts man. That's like a quote from Ann Coulter 101. How can someone's standards be low because they are not advocating an all out global campaign to keep us bogged down in a theological war with no clear direction, no clear leadership and only the vaguest goal of "keeping us safe"

How? Because they're not really advocating anything else.


In 1968, Richard Nixon ran--and won-- on a platform to "End the War in Vietnam," and bring, "Peace--with Honour." The war didn't end, nor was there much honour to be found. In fact it was expanded to include Cambodia.

I believe that folks who say, as many of you do, that a Democratic presidency will change our current situation in the Mideast are being set up for another such disappointment. Read the fine print.


I would rather place my support with those who were against empire-building from the start-- no dithering or doubletalk.





.

[Al-Dog]

Yeah. And here's what I say to that:

So what?

That's what a politician does. After all, don't we all do whatever we need to to keep our jobs??? History has shown that (in politics) the nice guy truly finishes last. History shows that the most idealistic individual with purety of heart will NEVER obtain real power because they can't get funding without being someone's bitch. This is not new, and it's hardly a reason to start equating law-abiding citizens to street thugs.

So let's not be naive here. These guys will do what they need to to get funded and to say in power. What we HOPE they'll do is keep their promises after they've gotten our support. Until then, they must show us what makes them worthy.

So again, the point of the thread is this: A man that has not shown himself to be unworthy because of his patriotism is being made fun of and questioned by someone that HAS shown himself to be unworthy.

Simplified. Can you dig it?In that case why be loyal to a party?

Pick and choose the best individual. Maybe if we started doing that we could actual get some people in office who would work towards the best long term interests of this country instead of their own short term agenda.

And maybe Obama is that individual. Maybe not.

But I do agree with you that making an issue of his name and upbringing is not the way to decide.

[Space Tycoon]

History has shown that (in politics) the nice guy truly finishes last. History shows that the most idealistic individual with purety of heart will NEVER obtain real power because they can't get funding without being someone's bitch.

History also demonstrates that every so often, an uncommon, incorruptible individual stands alone and through his or her example, changes the course of history.

I believe Ron Paul is one of those people.








.

[Outsydr]

History also demonstrates that every so often, an uncommon, incorruptible individual stands alone and through his or her example, changes the course of history.

I believe Ron Paul is one of those people.

.

And I don't. I respect him for his courage to stand his ground against his party. Reminds me of what John McCain used to be like. But that's about as far as I can go with him. He mostly just strikes me as being more open about his divergencies than the others, that's all. To me, he's simply more stubborn. I do all I can not to confuse being strong with being headstrong.

[Outsydr]

In that case why be loyal to a party?

Because (more than any other) that party's platform consistently agrees with my beliefs. And (more than any other) that party's representatives have had my respect. I judge everyone on their own merits, but if you can't win me over with even 30% of your arguments (as it is with the Republicans, Greens and Libertarians), then... sorry.

I have yet to see a candidate that is NOT Democrat that I would vote for. Doesn't mean I would never. I just haven't yet. Until then, I'm with them.

[kah]

That's why we need campaign finance reform. If every schmuck that ran for office had the same amount of money to work with, it would tend to even things out a bit. As is, voters tend to be overwhelmed by the politician with the most money and vote them into office (most of the time).

I also think the politicians who serve us in Washington should make the same pay as the average American. I should think that would be fair. They only work part time as it is. And while we're cutting their salaries, we should be installing video conferencing equipment in their homes so they don't have to get on a plane every weekend, charging it all to the public. Politicians can serve the people without turning into some kind of "American royalty", as many of these men and women have done. It's up to us to demand that change.

This isn't a recent article, but it bears reading anyway.

Sobering Budget News: "Spending Our Way to Financial Ruin" (http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207446.htm)