What do democrats/liberals do now?

[Ovi]

11

[jelloshotsrule]

haha. anti americanism is a central principle of "liberals".

you people and your desire to label people. amusing.

[Ovi]

11

[jelloshotsrule]

then it was a jackass move to use the article to start up a conversation. amazing.

[Ovi]

11

[jelloshotsrule]

"your people". hahaha. how did you know that i only associate myself with liberals????


your short/narrow sigtedness amazes me still. how everyone has to be clumped together in some category or another. one gang or another.

here's something for you.... i'm pro life, and i voted for the green party. odd combo don't you think?

but no, there's no grey area. no one can be a person first and a political affiliation second.

when you sleep do you put on headphones with people chanting "liberals are bad. they're anti-american. they want to hurt you. liberals are bad."?

you seem to have this telescope that enables you to focus in on one person based purely on a belief or two of theirs (e.g., don't want immediate war with iraq, don't want the difference b/w rich and poor to be so extreme, etc) and label them and probably even determine their entire life story.

after all, you knew so well that alex was still depressed about senator wellstone's death.. truly amazing psychic abilities.



as for how i can think the "liberals" need to get elected (since that's ever so important to you... winning), i actually have no hope for the political system to be honest with you. i don't put enough faith in the current state of humanity to change drastically for the good in my time..

that said, i'm not nearly depressed about it. i just look at people and laugh. hence why it's so easy for me to laugh at this entire thread.

[jefhatfield]

ovi, when you make an arguement, i enjoy it because it is serious and well thought out...you back your points and defend your ideas and are fair expecting good answers

if a liberal gives a good answer, you are always polite and give credit to that person...even if it is something you may not agree with

but that nazi crap that souza is expousing does not deserve a serious answer...it borders on rush/dr laura garbage (wanna hear good conservative commentary then robert novak or george f will are the guys)

souza is the same person who believes there are differnces in race when it comes to intelligence...he believes asians, like him (and me) are inherently the smartest and blacks are of the lowest intelligence

then why did bush appoint colin powell and condoleeza rice? they are black and very republican

i would like to see souza's answer to that one

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Ovi
so you are not a liberal. i stand corrected. don't care much about the political system. fine. you voted green. fine. you don't have any advise for democrats. fine.

that's the funny thing... i'm a vegetarian, i don't think that smoking pot is the worst thing someone could do (though i do no drugs, nor drink, etc). i don't think we should drill in alaska. suv's make me want to vomit... etc.. so by all those things, i would probably fit more into the "liberal" mould as it were... but my point is just that, that people aren't just "liberal" or "conservative" and therefore shouldn't be talked about as such. if you want to say "the liberal viewpoint" or whatever, that's at least a bit more reasonable.

as for not caring about the political system, it's not that. it's just that i don't see much hope for it... i do care, i voted. i want to see it changed dramatically, i just don't foresee that happening.

and i don't have advice for democrats because i think it will take a change in humanity to not be driven to just make money, to just buy suvs, to just eat meat and not think about the factory farm system, to not care about the environment, etc....

i don't like politics in the fact that they are politics. but i do care in that i want to see change for the better, and obviously the way to achieve that is through governmental change....

ok

[Ovi]

11

[macktheknife]

I count myself as a die-hard economic conservative: free market, low taxes, sensible regulation, etc. I am a graduate of UC Berkeley, and while I had a great time in college, I utterly despise the "progressive" political agenda and overall permissiveness of the city that has turned Berkeley into haven for crime and homelessness. The rights of businesses and students are utterly ignored, while the interests of junvinile delinquents and the homeless are constantly championed.

That said, I really hate it when other conservatives can label anyone who questions American policies as "anti-American." If you don't like SUVs, America's right to bomb other nations at will, etc., you're just a nothin' but a dirty commie! Remember folks, dissent is not un-American. The liberal left, despite their idealism/naivete, have raised some genuine concerns about the wisdom another adventure into Iraq.

And about fiscal responsibility: remember that the Republicans are just as guilty of being free spenders as Democrats. And about the recent tax cut our president pushed through that will primarily benefit those in the higher income brackets? What about the repeal of the inheritence tax? Even Warren Buffett, America's most successful entrepreur and richest man, urged Bush not to repeal the inheritence tax on the grounds of basic social equality.

[Ovi]

11

[macktheknife]

Originally posted by Ovi


you contradict yourself on taxes, but that is not important. what do the democrats have to do next?

Not necessarily--I should have said low *and* sensible taxes. :) Anyhow, the Democrats should just wait for the political pendulum to swing the other way and wait for the mood of the country to change. Remember that it took more than a decade for the Republicans to finally take back Congress after the rout of 1932 and 1934. If the economy keeps sputtering along, the Republicans will have a difficult time keeping their majority.

Take a look at the current Democrat-Republican map and you will see what policies each side may have to say to make some gains. The Democrats are very weak in the Deep South and parts of the Midwest: it will have to start standing up for issues important to those folks in those Republican bastions while keeping their predominantly urban constituents happy.

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[macktheknife]

Originally posted by Ovi
if the economy keeps puttering along, i don't see it as a problem yet. huge deficits and gdp numbers are irrelevant for the average consumer.

We are in for a double-dip recession, folks. The average consumer is tapped out: what money he didn't lose in the stock market has either gone to pay for his new home or fuel his shopping sprees. Personal household debt is at an all-time high. Corporate spending is still in the toilet. The latest 3Q02 GDP and employment numbers show that while July was a good month for the economy, August and September were extremely weak. Hence the 50 basis points cut by Chairman Greenspan.

While the "huge deficits and gdp numbers are irrelevant for the average consumer," the economic reality will start making its presence felt for the average Joe's pocketbook and paycheck. Our current President's father lost his re-election bid despite having record-high approval ratings from the Gulf War due to the worst US economic recession since the Great Depression.

Bush senior paid the price for the problems that began under his predecessor, while the same thing might happen to Bush junior. So yes, unless the economy starts to turn around and barring another terrorist attack that will make Americans associate patriotism to incumbency, I think the Democrats will have a good 2004 election.

[Ovi]

11

[macktheknife]

Originally posted by Ovi


if the average consumer is tapped out than why did they vote for republicans who according to polls are not given as much faith in fixing the so called bad economy?

the overall economy is not as healthy. i agree. but that did not help democrats.

double-dip recession is possible, but look at how quickly negative gdp was turned into positive gdp. household debt is cause by stupid economic personal decisions not a party or president. those people are both democrats and republicans.

Polls say many things. Perhaps Americans are reluctant to think badly of the party in power during this "War on Terrorism." Perhaps they still realize that the excesses from the late 1990s under a Democratic administration are responsible for their current plight (despite a Republican-controlled legislature). Who knows?

The GDP gains from the first half of 2002 proved to be unsustainable, and as I said, the 3Q GDP figures were somewhat deceptive, given the strong numbers in July. Even weak GDP growth of 1%-2% is not necessarily a good thing.

[Ovi]

11

[alex_ant]

God damn it! I was so busy in the other thread that I missed this one!

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Ovi
nice try. we are talking about liberals and conservatives in the political arena. i am both liberal and conservative in personal life.

you lean much more liberal as you admit. given that you don't have any advise for you friends on the democratic side they are in worst shape than i thought

nice try at what?

how exactly do "personal life" and the "political arena" differ? how i feel in my personal life effects how i vote, ie, the political arena.

i hate the democrats and the republicans. so how are they my friends?

i voted green wherever i could and spread the rest of the votes for the smaller elections.

as for the democrats being in trouble... that's what people thought about the republicans before... history's shown that things sway back and forth... joe voter votes democratic.... things don't get better. he votes republican. things don't get better. he votes democrat.. things don't get better... etc. ad nauseam. there are plenty of those that stick to their guns and keep with either party. but obviously the key is those people on the fence.

[diorio]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


i hate the democrats and the republicans. so how are they my friends?

.

You realize that most people in America are either Democrats or Republicans?

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by diorio
You realize that most people in America are either Democrats or Republicans?

hmm. you don't say? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


i don't look at joe candidate and say "he's a republican, he's out" or "he's a democrat, he's out"... i take em on a case by case thing... for instance, john mccain i find to be quite intelligent and while not perfect, he's got some good ideas. that said, there are few other republicans i feel the same about. same for democrats..

it's not that i hate them for what their chosen party is. i hate the organization that is the reps and dems... the politcal parties themselves. because as a whole they are crooked and all about buying their way to power. there are always exceptions to the rule.

kinda like how not all conservatives spit on the poor and how not all liberals hug trees.

[Ovi]

11

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
…
kinda like how not all conservatives spit on the poor and how not all liberals hug trees.

WHAT?!?!?!?

You mean, I can't put everyone and everything into a little box with a label on it, so that things always meet my preconceived notions?!?!?

What kind of a world would that be?!?!? :rolleyes:

[jelloshotsrule]

sorry row boz, left out the "j/k".... of course you can do all that. and nicely i might add. everything seems to fit perfectly.

you fat nerd.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
sorry row boz, left out the "j/k".... of course you can do all that. and nicely i might add. everything seems to fit perfectly.

you fat nerd.

*whew* You scared me there for a second, j-dog. I thought I was going to have to be open-minded or something.

Glad the crisis has been averted, you limp-wristed lush.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Ovi
i know poor who vote republican and i know rich who vote republican and the other way around.

true how you feel does effect how you vote. but to say that you stand for most of what liberals stand for and then say that you don't care for democrats does not sound right.

you are liberal who votes green. democrats are liberal who vote democrats.

well communists/socialists are liberal. and i doubt most of them approve of the highly capitalistic view of the democrats..... so it's not that hard to be a liberal person and not love the democratic party.

as i've said, i don't approve of the 2 party system as it is now and the fact that you have to be able to buy your own election in order to have any chance.

because of that, only richass independents will really ever have a shot at president... (see perot).

i admit that most of my views are liberal. what i'm saying (again and again and again) is that i don't vote along party lines. sure, more democrats are agreeable to my ideals than republicans, but i can't think of a democrat that i'd go out on a limb to vote for/support. whereas mccain (as i've said) strikes me as such a person.

i mainly vote green to support the possibility (very very slight one at that) of more parties gaining funding and such... ie, more equality. the greens are also the closest to my beliefs across the board. though as i said, i'm pro life...haven't found too many other pro life greens...... ha

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
*whew* You scared me there for a second, j-dog. I thought I was going to have to be open-minded or something.

Glad the crisis has been averted, you limp-wristed lush.

on the nose brah, on the nose... now go hang ten dumbass cali boy.

[jefhatfield]

ovi,

you do pose a good challenge for the dems to come up with a plan...i thought you were serious with the article..you scared me ;)

i have to admit i actually do not know if the dems should hold their moderate pro business stance or try to get back some of their liberal base and move SLIGHTLY to the left of where they are

but that is just a guess right now

perhaps the dems need to move slightly to the right to capture independents who will not go with bush if the war goes badly or the economy stays sluggish

at least, by some numbers i have seen, things are improving a tiny little, but not something worthy of bragging about

[wdlove]

The hope is that they continue doing what thet are doing now. Till Teddy Kennedy et al are gone, don't think a change is on the horizon. Rep Ford from TN is the future when the warhorses are gone!

[alex_ant]

I've got a plan for the Dems. "Stop being so damned corrupt like the Republicans." Maybe more people would vote for them if they weren't such rotten cheeseballs. I don't think a major ideological shift on their part would have much of an effect.

[Ovi]

11

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Ovi
so far folks I am not impressed.

most of you argue liberal views but suddenly become confused about what to do.

but it appears the confusion plays a big part in the overall democratic scheme.

here is some food for thought.

a perfect example is McAuliff vs. Rosco. observe how they respond to questions.

democrats love to paint republicans as mean spirited but come across that way themselvs.

they need to make a hard right on national defense. the opportunity arouse several times when Bush appeared to be unsure about certain foreign policys decisions. they need to come out and critize Bush for not moving fast enough on the war on terror.

no matter how hard they try to cater to minorities the republicans outwit them by catering to more whites.

they need to stop playing the race card it only works for about 24 hours when it comes to elections and timing is everything with this strategy.

and finally they need to do what Clinton did. call themselvs democrats but actually promote republican agendas. they don't have principles so they won't feel guilty if it actually works.:D

Your posts have been equally unimpressive.

You only started this thread to rile up a flamewar. Seems like no-one feels like playing your game and you're just trying to fan the flames some more.

[Ovi]

11

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Ovi
I see you don't have any great ideas for your party either. what a surprise

At least I'm not just regurgitating tired propaganda. :rolleyes:

[Ovi]

11

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Ovi
oh I forgot your propaganda is not tiering.

What propaganda? I haven't posted anything one way or the other. I'm just pointing out how closed-minded you are being.

[wdlove]

For the time being the Democrats/liberals don't really have a national voice.

[jelloshotsrule]

i understand that the republicans have the majority of the congress and everything, and while that holds a good deal of power of course, it's not like they have 80% or anything... it's more like 55%.. i don't see how it's such a huge deal. someone always has the majority, it's just a bigger deal when it's the same party as the pres.... even still, it's happened before, plenty.

[diorio]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


What propaganda? I haven't posted anything one way or the other. I'm just pointing out how closed-minded you are being.

This is coming from the person who judges the entire republican party on Rush Limbah.:rolleyes:

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by diorio


This is coming from the person who judges the entire republican party on Rush Limbah.:rolleyes:

damn you are blind.

take a look at the other sarcastic posts made by rower regarding labeling groups of people with such generalizations... or is sarcasm too much to fathom...

edit: see the first post on the second page of this very thread... doesn't hurt to read before making assumptions.

[Ovi]

11

[jelloshotsrule]

hmm. plenty of other people seem to be making sense of what i say... but ahh well. i'll sleep alright i think

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Ovi
fine we will take all the labeling and sarcastic posts away and the two of you still make very little sense.:rolleyes:

As opposed to the fountain of knowledge that spews forth from your every post.

Maybe we just need to use smaller words, jello? Can you say "monosyllabic"?

[diorio]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


damn you are blind.

take a look at the other sarcastic posts made by rower regarding labeling groups of people with such generalizations... or is sarcasm too much to fathom...

edit: see the first post on the second page of this very thread... doesn't hurt to read before making assumptions.

damn brah, that hurts, I guess sarcasm is a little too much for you to fathom too brah, or is the little roll eyes thing something else brah, on the nose j-dog

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by diorio


damn brah, that hurts, I guess sarcasm is a little too much for you to fathom too brah, or is the little roll eyes thing something else brah, on the nose j-dog

haha. apparently you know me better than i know myself... nay, i was the blind one..

touche indeed.

word.

[wdlove]

Try listening to Laura Ingraham, Conservative Talk Showhost. You can listen to her via Westwood One on you local radio station nationwide. Her radio show is availabe out of Washington, DC @ 7 - 10pm EST. She's the antidiote for lemming mentality.

Check her out on the web.
http://www.lauraingraham.com/public/http://

[diorio]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


haha. apparently you know me better than i know myself... nay, i was the blind one..

touche indeed.

word.

It was partly my fault. I didn't see what Rower was trying to say.

Touche.

[wdlove]

According to a syndicated columnist in the Washington Times, there are 58 members of Congress that are card carrying members of the "American Socialists Party." Nancy Pelosi, D CA the next Minority Leader of the House is member of the Executive Committee of the "American Socialists Party" part of the "International Socialists/Communists Party"

"Putting Pelosi's cards on the table" Washington Times

Balint Vazsonyi

_____A few days ago the New York Times reported in the lead position, above the fold, that Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, had the votes to become the next minority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives.
_____Much is discussed about the congresswoman, but without a single mention of her executive position in the Progressive Caucus, and the latter's ties to the Socialist International.
_____Question: If an international organization existed to carry the torch for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, and if a person running for minority leader had past or present ties to such an organization, what are the chances the New York Times would find it irrelevant to the matter at hand?
_____None. Zero. Nada.
_____Double standards: Do you remember the Austrian nationalist Joerg Haider? He had no such affiliation. Yet the mere possibility that he might harbor sympathies for National Socialist ideas sufficed to make him, and the country in which he holds office, an international pariah.
_____The Socialist International carries the torch for Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Josef Stalin. Pay no attention to the desperate attempts by socialists to distance themselves from Stalin. For our purposes, it suffices to observe that every single tenet of the Socialist International is the exact opposite of the principles upon which America was founded, and which define the U.S. Constitution.
_____For our purposes, it suffices also to observe that members of the U.S. Congress are required to furnish an oath whereby they will preserve, protect, and defend said Constitution.
_____DSA/USA, the "Democratic Socialists of America" are the U.S. arm of the Socialist International. They share the symbol of the fist holding the rose, and they share the tasks to be accomplished — in our case, an altogether different America.
_____Some time ago — the date is missing from the descriptions — 58 members of the U.S. House of Representatives formed a subdivision of the Democratic Socialists of America and called it the Progressive Caucus. Their statement of purpose, as well as their membership list, formed an integral part of the dsausa Web site (www.dsausa.org). The membership list appeared on the screen with the continuous background of the fist holding the rose, should anyone have missed the connection with the Socialist International.
_____Following the exposure in this newspaper of the Progressive Caucus (Nov. 10-11, 1998), action was taken to hide the true nature of the organization, and its membership list was eventually taken off the dsausa Web site. In fact, the only listing to be found right now is a web site maintained by Rep. Bernie Sanders, Vermont Independent, the only member professing to be a socialist. But interested parties can type "Progressive Caucus" in a search engine, such as Google, and find the dsausa link right up front. The link brings up a screen saying "the page cannot be displayed," but the listing confirms its prior existence.
_____Rep. Nancy Pelosi has long been, and is now, a member of the executive committee of the Progressive Caucus. Her election as minority leader would firmly establish the link between the Democratic Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Socialist International.
_____The U.S. Constitution places no restrictions on political creeds. There is no earthly reason why socialists could not be elected to Congress if the people so choose. There is a question of honesty, though. Candidates for office ought to put their cards on the table.
_____The Democratic Party has been the permanent or temporary home for an awesome line-up of great Americans, from Thomas Jefferson to Ronald Reagan. The political philosophy known as Socialism was devised to combat and prevail over Anglo-American principles, law, economics. Every version of socialism, from Nazism and Bolshevism to the mildest form of Social Democracy is fundamentally opposed to Anglo-American attitudes.
_____If the moment has come when the Democratic Party sees no other way "to be different" except by embracing socialism, that is a sad day for all Americans.
_____I would not presume to make recommendations to a venerable institution, either in the path it might follow, or with regard to the leader it should or should not elect. But there are standards. These include not only tangible standards, but appearance standards as well. If perchance Mrs. Pelosi has been the innocent victim of a socialist conspiracy, drawn into a political maze she had not comprehended, there is still the matter of being a prominent officeholder in an organization spawned by the Socialist International. No such person could possibly be desirable as minority leader in the United States House of Representatives.
_____Exactly 40 years ago, the "Manchurian Candidate" was a movie. Could it be that Thursday it will become reality?

Hopefully this will wakeup Americans to current Democrat Party!!! :(

[alex_ant]

TERRIFIC ARTICLE! Brilliant political satire, comrade!

I don't know about you... but I think we've gone too long without an autocratic dictator at the helm! Enough of this democracy crap. It's time to start executing our minorities.

[wdlove]

The article hopefully will wake Americans up before its too late. I personally don't want to live under a Socialist/Communist dictatorship in the former USA, per Hillary Clinton et al.

[jelloshotsrule]

how does being a socialist make you pro-dictatorship?

[job]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
how does being a socialist make you pro-dictatorship?

It does not.

However, a socialist agenda makes it far easier for a dictator to seize power; the system is easily manipulated, more so than a democracy or a republic.

[jelloshotsrule]

that's a bit more fair. but let's not be so hasty to assume people are trying to set up a dictatorship because they belong to the socialist party.

at the core, it's not socialism that was such a bad thing, believe it or not.

[job]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
at the core, it's not socialism that was such a bad thing, believe it or not.

Very true.

However, I still believe that socialism itself, as a system, although not "bad," nevertheless remains susceptable to the very human flaws of our nature.

Which type of socialism are you discussing? Fabian? Utopian? Any generic socialism? I was just curious...

[jelloshotsrule]

no specific socialism really.. i haven't studied the various types or anything....

the core principle behind it (people being equal and effectively working all towards the common goal of survival and such) is basically what i'd support.. i'd have to study up more on the types and which types the people mentioned in the article support. though i think given that it's not even mentioned, just suggested that socialism=evil the argument holds no water.

[Durandal7]

Socialism at it's core is a good idea. The problem is that socialism does not account for the willingness of many people to take advantage of the system.

Humans are lazy when you get right down to it, and that is why socialism tends to work badly.

[job]

Originally posted by Durandal7
Humans are lazy when you get right down to it, and that is why socialism tends to work badly.

Same thing with communism...

Everyone gets the same pay; then people start asking themselves: "Why work harder than the other guy...?"

[jelloshotsrule]

yeah i agree...

to some extent you need incentive for people to pick themselves up and aim high.

but if we could have a higher mininum level of equality type of thing... that would be a great step.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by hitman

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
how does being a socialist make you pro-dictatorship?

It does not.

However, a socialist agenda makes it far easier for a dictator to seize power; the system is easily manipulated, more so than a democracy or a republic.

Which is exactly why so many people are worried about W's secrecy with everything from national security to public policy. His tax cut can be perceived as a play to further entrench a "ruling class" and distance that "ruling class" from the majority it rules. He uses emotional frases such as evil doers and axis of evil, and tries to create government agencies like "department of homeland security." He belongs to a party that Ovi described as one that caters to whites in order to maintain its power. All this in a society that does include many programs that are socialistic in nature... and thus, as hitman suggests, is easily manipulated to lead to a dictatorship.

My point is only that we, as citizens must always remain vigilent. It is our duty to question our leaders (republican, democrat, independent, green, whatever), they are our employees.

[mcrain]

You know, there has been a lot of name calling in here. Democrats are socialists. Republicans are dictators.

I think that's all wrong. Democrats aren't socialists, they merely tend to stand for programs and policies that at their core say that if I have a little extra, I'm willing to help out my fellow man, while the Republicans aren't dictators, they merely stand for programs and policies that at their core say that the only way for me to be able to help my fellow man is if the government allows me the freedom to get a little extra.

It seems to me that the Republicans' views on the surface appear very selfish and designed to help those who have something already, while the Democrats' views on the surface appear designed to help those who don't have something already.

As we all know, you can't read a book by its cover, and both parties are full of equally good, and bad, people.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mcrain


As we all know, you can't read a book by its cover, and both parties are full of equally good, and bad, people.



this is so true and many pure believers of one side or another must think that the opposite party grows horns on their head

...obviously, this is not true, but we did once have a president with horns...oops, i stand corrected...i mean we had a horny president ;)

but i hope W is getting some since i find his wife quite attractive...prettier than that other mrs. bush:eek: :D ;)

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
but i hope W is getting some since i find his wife quite attractive...prettier than that other mrs. bush:eek: :D ;)

yikes... showing your age here....

she's an attractive mom.... not in the sense that she's attracting me to her. but in the sense that i'm not repulsed....

but then again, i'm not 85 or whatever either. haha! ;)

[mcrain]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
...obviously, this is not true, but we did once have a president with horns...oops, i stand corrected...i mean we had a horny president ;)

but i hope W is getting some since i find his wife quite attractive...prettier than that other mrs. bush:eek: :D ;)

Personally, I want to get the two Bush daughters all hopped up on whatever drugs and alcohol they use and try them both on for size. :)

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by mcrain


Personally, I want to get the two Bush daughters all hopped up on whatever drugs and alcohol they use and try them both on for size. :)

i couldn't bring myself to swap DNA with any of the bush offspring...that gene pool's water is a little stanky for my taste.

but the overall concept of twins and stimulants...not too shabby:D

[diorio]

Originally posted by 3rdpath


i couldn't bring myself to swap DNA with any of the bush offspring...that gene pool's water is a little stanky for my taste.



Okay, I thought we had gotton away from:

Bush sucks!
No Gore sucks!
you suck!
**** you ******!
No **** you!
:rolleyes:

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by diorio


Okay, I thought we had gotton away from:

Bush sucks!
No Gore sucks!
you suck!
**** you ******!
No **** you!
:rolleyes:



i think you're grasping there partner...

but to assuage your sensitivities, i'd say the same thing about clinton... ;)

[SPG]

Knock up both of the Bush twins (preferably by a non white liberal) and see how fast daddy sticks with his anti abortion views!
I'll volunteer if nobody here objects.

[job]

Originally posted by SPG
Knock up both of the Bush twins (preferably by a non white liberal) and see how fast daddy sticks with his anti abortion views!
I'll volunteer if nobody here objects.

wheee....more partisan politics....

in all honesty, I think chelsea clinton is butt-UGLY...

you could not pay me to **** her...

[jefhatfield]

chelsea is prettier than when she lived in the white house...but she's way too young for someone my age

laura bush is pretty for her age...mrs. bush sr looked like she was 100:)

[job]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
mrs. bush sr looked like she was 100:)

yeah, no kidding...

**shudder**

all those wrinkles...

nasty..

[diorio]

Originally posted by hitman


yeah, no kidding...

**shudder**

all those wrinkles...

nasty..

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by hitman


yeah, no kidding...

**shudder**

all those wrinkles...

nasty..

when i was relatively close to your age, 19, i was hanging out with this 28 year old woman but she looked so old to me so i never made her my girlfriend

now that i am 39, a 28 year old woman almost looks like a kid to me

i guess that's why laura bush doesn't look so old to me and one day i will be wrinkled like the elder mrs. bush:p

[mcrain]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
when i was relatively close to your age, 19, i was hanging out with this 28 year old woman but she looked so old to me so i never made her my girlfriend

now that i am 39, a 28 year old woman almost looks like a kid to me

i guess that's why laura bush doesn't look so old to me and one day i will be wrinkled like the elder mrs. bush:p

I got married young, and now that I'm suddenly thrown back into the single life again, the types of girls I used to find attractive aren't so attractive anymore, while lots of women I didn't consider before are suddenly getting 2, 3, and even more looks.

Speaking of 2, 3, and more looks, does anyone really think that the weapons inspectors are going to find anything, and if they don't, does anyone think that we're going to think that means they don't have weapons of mass distruction?

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mcrain


I got married young, and now that I'm suddenly thrown back into the single life again, the types of girls I used to find attractive aren't so attractive anymore, while lots of women I didn't consider before are suddenly getting 2, 3, and even more looks.

Speaking of 2, 3, and more looks, does anyone really think that the weapons inspectors are going to find anything, and if they don't, does anyone think that we're going to think that means they don't have weapons of mass distruction?

i don't think that iraq could easily manufacture weapons of mass destruction in a way that a tom clancy movie makes it look possible

i knew bush put the fear of military force behind saddam to scare him and if there are weapons, then they will be destroyed

i don't forsee another gulf war situation this time, at least

did anyone see "sum of all fears"? i thought i would like the movie but it seemed too unbelievable to me

but one who watches a movie like this and happens to be ignorant could get some unrealistic ideas about iraq

don't read this next section if you have not seen this sorry movie...

a nuclear bomb falling from the sky in a destroyed jet and the bomb is still functional?

the bomb, which wouldn't go nuclear from falling out of the sky, wouldn't go radioactive unless it blew up so why did one person who got near the bomb die of radiation poisoning?

and how did the bomb, a small nuke, blow up a section of baltimore and not kill many of the people with radiation (that's when the bomb is radioactive in lethal amounts)?

a hospital is blown up in the fierce windstorm of the blast with the hero's girlfriend doctor in it like a sandcastle in front of a wave, yet she ends up ok with a few scratches on her at most

i usually like the stories tom clancy writes, but by the time they make it to a ninety minute/two hour big screen blockbuster, the bad guys always inexplicably come up with master plans and weapons of mass destruction

bin laden got lucky and used airliners, but if weapons of mass destruction were that easy to get a hold of or develop, he would have nuked a city in the us or elsewhere

overall, i am glad that iraq backed down and "experts on foreign policy never had a major doubt on that move" (abc news)

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
when i was relatively close to your age, 19, i was hanging out with this 28 year old woman but she looked so old to me so i never made her my girlfriend

hahahahaha. "i never made her my girlfriend'.... ahhhh

there are plenty of 28 year old women that i find attractive, at age 21. figure that most supermodels/actresses are near that if not older....

so yeah

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


hahahahaha. "i never made her my girlfriend'.... ahhhh

there are plenty of 28 year old women that i find attractive, at age 21. figure that most supermodels/actresses are near that if not older....

so yeah

but many of those supermodels are young enough to be your kid sister:p

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


but many of those supermodels are young enough to be your kid sister:p

not much younger though....

name a few that are younger than 21....?

even the "young" hot actresses are not that young... katie holmes and the like..

[mcrain]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
hahahahaha. "i never made her my girlfriend'.... ahhhh


I saw that too, but decided to let 'ol Jef have his fantasies.

[wdlove]

With Nancy Pelosi , D, CA sworn in as the first female in leadership, and a member of the Execuitive Boad of the National Socialist Party. That shows the direction that she's headed.

The Democratic National Convention 2004 will be in Boston, MA a liberal bastian of Teddy Kennedy. It also shows the direction of the nominee & party. To be nominarted, running in the primaries are mainly voters of the far left!

[SPG]

Originally posted by wdlove
With Nancy Pelosi , D, CA sworn in as the first female in leadership, and a member of the Execuitive Boad of the National Socialist Party. That shows the direction that she's headed.

The Democratic National Convention 2004 will be in Boston, MA a liberal bastian of Teddy Kennedy. It also shows the direction of the nominee & party. To be nominarted, running in the primaries are mainly voters of the far left!

What's wrong with that? dubya is a member of the Republican Party which I find a hell of a lot scarier than even the comunist party these days!

[job]

Originally posted by SPG
What's wrong with that? dubya is a member of the Republican Party which I find a hell of a lot scarier than even the comunist party these days!

The elections on Nov. 5th prompted many liberals to go even more left/extreme, just because they selfishly believe that their "message was not promoted enough."

Have they even thought that their message is no longer appealing to the American public?

The main issue here is not what party you associate yourself with, it's how extreme your ideals/policies are. And after the Democrats debacle during the most recent elections, many of them, as a reaction, have become even more liberal.

[wdlove]

Chelsea seems to be a party girl, the limb doesn't fall far from the tree!

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by wdlove
Chelsea seems to be a party girl, the limb doesn't fall far from the tree!

Meanwhile, the Bush girls run rampant in clubs...

Someone needs to cut that tree off at the roots. :rolleyes:

[SPG]

Just my opinion, but I think the democrats shouldn't water down their liberal idealogy to be "not as republican", but really fight for the issues that count. Social reforms that benefit the people, not just the rich people. Maybe they'll get raise some votes that way, or at least raise some real debate with the current conservative government.

wdlove, what is that Chelsea partying comment about? I haven't heard anything about that, not that I was looking, but isn't it dubya's daughters who keep getting caught drinking with fake ID's? Wasn't it Dubya himself who got busted for DUI in Kennebunkport in the 1970's? Do you know how hard it is to do that? I have a group of friends who used to work and party heavily there at that time and it was well known that the cops were pushovers about it since it was a party town.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by SPG
Just my opinion, but I think the democrats shouldn't water down their liberal idealogy to be "not as republican", but really fight for the issues that count. Social reforms that benefit the people, not just the rich people. Maybe they'll get raise some votes that way, or at least raise some real debate with the current conservative government.




there are a lot of democrat centrists like me, but i know that there are as many on the left of center in the party...but i don't know if they go out and vote in as large of numbers as the centrists in the democratic party

to win elections, the democrats need to play the centrist game since they can and have swayed republicans in the past (1976, 1992, and 1996)

nancy pelosi will play the center since she knows the political game on all sides and will not try and push a left of center agenda if she knows it will lose...it's not about pursuing one's beliefs in the political game...it's about winning

dick cheney played the right of center wing of the republican party while he was in wyoming because, at that time, he knew it would work

but now that he is in washington dc, he is really playing the centrist game of the george w bush administration

what does cheney really believe? what does nancy pelosi really believe? i don't think anyone will really know because at the highest reigns of power they hold in this country, they have to play party politics and court the center

[wdlove]

We don't hear much about Chelsea because the Liberal media bias protects her, at the request of Bill & Hillary. Can't remember the source, but it said that Chelsea dose alot of partying. The Liberal media follows the twins so they can embarrass our president.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by wdlove
The Liberal media follows the twins so they can embarrass our president.

like those twins need any help embarrassing the president...

:rolleyes:

[SPG]

Like Dubya needs any help embarassing the presidency.

[diorio]

Originally posted by SPG
Like Dubya needs any help embarassing the presidency.

Like you damn closed minded liberals need any help being asses.:rolleyes:

[SPG]

Originally posted by diorio


Like you damn closed minded liberals need any help being asses.:rolleyes:
I know you are but what am I?
I'm rubber, you're glue...

Seriously though, I think the guy is an embarassment to the office. And before you even say it I think Clinton's affair in the White House was too.
I'm losing a lot of faith in our government. The election fiasco in Florida, the witch hunt against Clinton because he wasn't a Republican (even though he voted like one), the erosion of our civil rights, the padding of the bank accounts of the ultra rich and the corporations, and the general lack of consideration for the ideals our country was founded on....ahhhh, we've heard this rant before.

[jelloshotsrule]

the class that nader would have brought to the presidency would have been nearly unprecedented. certainly in my lifetime.....

[3rdpath]

no matter what your party...this is pretty darn funny.


http://www.bushorchimp.com/:D

[wdlove]

The Senate plans to bring Hillary Clinton into a leadership role in January. It will be preparation for her presidential run in 2008. She will have to walk a tight rope since she will have to support the Democrat nominee in 2004. Her agenda is to run for an open seat in 2008, dosen't want to wait till 2012. So she really wants President Bush to win in 2004, open seat 2008. Not sure enough of herself to run in 2004, only 50% chance, wants a higher %! Dosen't really want to run against a popular President.

[wwworry]

wdlove is an idiot troll or a persistent prankster. I'm hoping it's the later.

[SPG]

Originally posted by wwworry
wdlove is an idiot troll or a persistent prankster. I'm hoping it's the later.
Or a 54 year old former Army nurse who likes dogs?

[wdlove]

"Democrats seek gains with health care issue" Boston Globe 11/22/02 The world comes to the US to seek health care. Citizens of Canada & England also come to the US, they have to wait 3 months for most procedures. Clinton & Kennedy want the US to model after Canada & England. Oregon had a vote on Universal Health care on November 5th, it was defeated ~70%. The cost according to estimates would have been ~$12b equal to their state budget. Imagine the amount of taxes needed!

When health care costs go up >inflation, profit is going to owners & investors.

Kennedy wants us to join the rest of the industrial world in fundametal rights. I don't think Americans would stand for the increase cost, taxes, & longer waits.

Their has to be a fair way to control costs!

[wdlove]

"194 schools lag in state’s rating list, Evaluations let some parents transfer children" Boston Globe 11/26/02

Teacher Unions "Your not spending enough (taxpayers, us) on schools" "Kids are failing because the MCAS Exam is not reliable" Liberals are against anything having to do with merit, they feel bad because it discriminates against those that don't know the answer. To them the sports page is bad because it lists scores, those that lost are hurting boo hoo!

1630 schools that recieved ratings, 194 "need improvement" but is down from 259 schools 2 years ago. 1/2 of the schools were placed on the list for a 2nd time, triggering a new Federal Law that parents may transfer children from underperforming schools, starting in January.

Schools are measured against goals:

English 83% on or above goal
11% no change or improved below goal
7% declined

Math 55% on or above goal
26% no change or improved below goal
20% declined

"School ratings bring confusion"

[SPG]

wdlove, your post about healthcare? anecdotal. To save you a trip to the dictionary, it means that a small number of people have done what you describe, coming here to have a procedure done, yet someone takes that to mean that all the ambulances from London drive direct to New York City.
Reality: A Canadian or a Briton gets in an accident and they know they will be taken care of and not become a pauper from it. Yes they have to pay more in taxes for the privelege, but we pay more in taxes for the privelege of having the world's largest standing army.
Reality: Millions of americans don't have health coverage. Insurance companies in the US fight any reform of the system since it would effectively cut out their multi billion dollar business.
Anecdotal: My friend took a fall down some stairs and hit his head. Since he got married that month, his family medical insurance no longer covered him and now he owes the hospital $80,000. True story.

[wdlove]

The problem with government healthcare is that the taxpayer pays, his own insurance, and for those uninsured. Government healthcare would be inefficient like the $100 toilet seat from DOD, prior to reforms.

The British and Canadian system is bogged down, people wait months for care. That's why the British and Canadians come here.

The one payer system means government and is paid for by taxpayers.

There needs to be reform, just don't know how to stop greed. The stock market of the 90's was built on greed, as soon as reality hit the bubble burst.
Profit of a company >inflation is greed. Starting with the golden rule would help. Neighbor helping neighbor, healthcare used to work. Its gotten out of hand since the bottom line is always profit for the stockholder.

The government would be helpful for catastrophic illness, like that which happened to your family. I'm sorry!

There needs to be a nonpartisan commission to come up with suggestions to do a total reform of our healthcare system. Its currently broken.

[SPG]

wdlove, sometimes I have a hard time trying to get what you really mean out of your posts. Do you want government to completely take over healthcare, or to cover the uninsured, or to stay out of it completely?
Canadians and others who have state sponsored healthcare do not have to wait months for most services. That is not the norm. I have very good healthcare coverage and yet when I broke my finger last year, I got such a runaround over a referal to the hand specialist that I wound up never seeing one. The only appointment I could get was 6 weeks away, which was pointless.
We are not Canada, we are not England. We are the United States of America, the richest most powerful country on the planet. Why can't we of all people have a decent healthcare system?

[wdlove]

I'm against government take over of our healthcare system, ineffiency.

A place to start rising costs of prescription drugs. Drug companies have deals with doctors, pharmacies, & hospitals, they are not designed to help the public. TV ad's are used to increase public demand for their product, not just to educate, but to increase profits.

Researchers are consultants for drug companies, not clear as to their allegiance. Drug companies pay for alot of research, biased. Government sponsored research paid for by taxpayers, research is done & we see no return on our investment. The NIH & Universities are doing great research on our behalf.

Drug companies pressure doctors, suppose to be agents of education. Have blurred the process when trying to be their friends & entertainment. Pay for expensive gifts & trips.

Drugs such as Prilosec are about to go generic then they bring out Nexium.
When a patent is about to run out they make a small change in an ingredient of a drug and then get a new patent, stopping generics.

Generic drugs are 10% the cost of brand names and just effective. Over the last 10 years drug companies have had the highest return on their investment of any other company in this country. So says Dr. Michael Grodin fo Boston University School of Public health.

The problem is how to reform the drug companies, profit in America is still a good thing.

[SPG]

wdlove, I've figured out how to decipher your posts. I just read them using a Yoda voice and I can cut through the lack of syntax and figure out your cryptic messages.

Soooo, you say that we need to reform the private sector drug companies that are run for profit, but you don't want the government involved.
The government is inefficient, but the huge profits that you pointed out are helping keep costs down how?

[wdlove]

I don't want government healthcare, higher cost, and would be paid for by us in addition to paying our own health insurnace.

The drug companies profit/return on investment is higher than almost any other company.

I know that Liberal Democrat ideas would make it worse!

[alex_ant]

Saying Canadians want to come to the US for their health care is only telling half the story. In fact, it's well-off Canadians who want to come to the US for health care, because they're the only ones who can afford US health care. Poor Americans would love Canadian health care - better to have to wait a while then not to be able to afford health care period.

Whether or not government-controlled health care would necessarily cost more is debatable. It could end up costing more. It also could end up costing less if implemented properly.

One thing is for sure - costs are not all that great now, under our private system of federally-sanctioned corporate monopolies. I think both liberals and conservatives will agree that our current system is screwy. For one thing, I would like to see an elimination of drug patents and a shift in pharmaceutical R&D into the public domain (e.g. universities). We'd pay more in taxes, but we'd pay less in medical costs and insurance which would theoretically cancel this out (if not have us paying less overall).

Drug companies aren't in it to save lives or do good for humanity - they're in it for the money. That's why we're seeing extensive research into drugs that allow geriatric rich men to have stiffies once again while AIDS and cancer (and the common cold, and hepatitis C, and diabetes, and... and...) still have no cure (and only extremely expensive, perpetually ineffectual "treatments"). If they would devote the resources, it would be easy for Pfizer or whoever to cure AIDS. But if they did that, then they couldn't sell their $thousands/month "cocktail" drugs to the rich AIDS patients who take 15 years to die. My point is that while competition does promote profit, it doesn't promote the well-being of humans. There are some things privatization works very very well for, and some things it doesn't. Either the health care industry needs to start competing on different levels, or it needs to be put under the control of a government that will ensure that it meets certain standards of progress, cost, and efficiency.

I also want to get something straight: "Liberals" and "Democrats" are not the same. I agree with wdlove that Democrats probably actually would make the current system even worse. But it's wrong to equate all liberals with bureaucratic bloat and inefficiency. Most independent liberals despise it just as much as conservatives do.

Happy Thanksgiving :)

[wdlove]

I agree with alex-ant, a very thoughtful discertation.

The problem with reforming healthcare is with proper implementation.

[wdlove]

Lie of the Day:

Former Vice President Snore has joined Gridlock Tom Daschle in bawl-babying over what he is hilariously alleging as a conservative media bias. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh—there’s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media, charged grumpy Al Gore in an interview with the New York Observer.

The truth:

I thought the conspiracy theorists were all supposed to be right wingers? Fox is conservative and owned by Rupert Murdoch who is conservative for sure. But is Viacom conservative? (Viacom syndicates my show, O'Reilly, Imus, Liddy.) Is ABC conservative? (it syndicates Hannity.)

Laura Ingraham

[SPG]

Sorry wdyoda, but the "liberal media" is a thing of the past. The mainstream media bias these days is very heavily conservative.

[wdlove]

I wish they were conservative, see no evidence. CBS, NBC, ABC, NY Times, & Boston Globe all carry the Democrat Party line. The Boston Globe was the newsletter for the Shannon O'Brien, D Treasurer MA's governor campaign.

[wdlove]

Laura's Weekly E-Blast!
http://www.LauraIngraham.com

'Tis the Season to Hope for the Worst

The Dow's up near 9,000 again. Wal-Mart reported record day-after
Thanksgiving sales of $1.43 billion. Ramzi bin al Shibh is ratting out his
friends. Bob Woodward thinks President Bush is one smart cookie. Al Gore's
new books are headed for the remainder table. So if you're a Democrat and
were hoping for some political cheer this holiday season, you're out of
luck.

The better things get, the more frustrated they are. The more frustrated
they are, the more they reach backward, to familiar territory.

It was painful to watch Sen. John Kerry on NBC's Meet the Press,
announcing the formation of his exploratory committee, the precursor for a
presidential run in 2004. "On almost every issue facing the country, I
believe there is a better choice for this nation," he intoned. Two-thirds
of the country, who still approve of the way the President is doing his
job, disagree.

Listening to Kerry, one can't help but believe that he is betting, indeed
even hoping, that something will go wrong, badly wrong, on the domestic or
foreign policy front. Then all those Wal-Mart shoppers who have been
tricked into supporting President Bush will finally come to their senses
and clamor for a Democrat rescue.

A decorated Vietnam veteran who returned home to become an anti-war
spokesman, Kerry is most poignant when he speaks about his time in
uniform, of the bond that only fellow soldiers can fully understand. Kerry
knows that President Bush doesn't have similar stories to share. But then
Kerry moves on to urge "no new tax cuts," and scaremonger about toxic
waste dumps, and one is reminded that he's really just a better-looking
Ted Kennedy, a richer Michael Dukakis.

Yet for a party betting on the leadership of Paleozoic liberals like San
Fran Nan, what should one expect? Bold, new thinking and an optimistic
outlook?

So it's back to the past, to an ideology that has been gradually eroding
for more than two decades. Democrats promise they're cooking up their own
version of the Contract with America, but so far one senses that they are
doing little more than silently, maybe even subconsciously cheerleading
against American successes at home and abroad. If the economic turnaround
doesn't happen, if a U.S. invasion of Iraq causes more problems than it
solves, and if Bin Laden pulls off another big one, if<sum>.

But even if the Democrats hit that trifecta, it's still not clear that the
Bush juggernaut would be stopped. Let's not forget that Republicans won
big in the mid-term election despite the economic slowdown, despite Enron,
despite being told another attack is a certainty, and despite being
somewhat divided on a war in Iraq.

Silly voters.

Jim Carville was wrong. It's not just about the economy, stupid. Clinton's
impeachment-era defenders were wrong. Character and trust do matter. The
New York Times was wrong. President Bush is sharp, engaged, and tenacious.
But this same crew may have a point when they collectively insist that the
President's sustained popularity, and the recent election results, do not
signal a major ideological shift in America. The conservative shift
actually began in 1980 with Ronald Reagan.

During his two terms in office, Bill Clinton pledged to reinvigorate the
Democrat party, which would then reorient the country politically.
Instead, he left his party on life support and energized the country's
conservative core. Even what Clinton claims as his notable accomplishments
sound more like Republican ones--a balanced budget, a thriving business
sector, NAFTA. For eight years, liberals were wrapped in duct tape.

This reality puts Democrats in an untenable position. The party's hard
core left wants out of the ice box. They want to be unleashed on President
Bush. But liberalism isn't selling. So they need a crisis. Yet in recent
times of crisis, the country has rallied behind President Bush. So which
way to turn?

The UN, the Ivy League and international conferences come to mind. Ho, ho,
ho.

WORD OF THE WEEK

Magniloquent, adj. Lofty and extravagant in speech.

As in--

John Kerry's magniloquent interchange with Tim Russert served only to
remind us of why we like George Bush's plainspoken approach.

http://www.LauraIngraham.com

[alex_ant]

I agreed with her until she called Bush "sharp"... although granted, "sharpness" is relative. Maybe if you put him up against a rubber mallet or something...

[jelloshotsrule]

good post about pharmaceutical companies.... my bro used to work at merck. and he's seen it firsthand. now he's in law school...

not too pleased with the state of drug companies.

[etoiles]

yay, these must be signs that the economy is going strong again, I mean, man, people are spending money before christmas...wow. Thank you GWB !
:rolleyes:

[BenderBot1138]

Rumor has it he's goosestepped off to conquer Poland after advising "the Democrats" how to behave ;)

I have only one suggestion for Democrats: Use more Apple Computer Products. :D

I hear Bill Gates is a member of the Rebuplican party! A friend of mine saw him shaking George Bush's hand and kissing his wife...

:cool:

[diorio]

Originally posted by etoiles
yay, these must be signs that the economy is going strong again, I mean, man, people are spending money before christmas...wow. Thank you GWB !
:rolleyes:

The leading indicators are relatively stagnant right now, this christmas season will determine if the market will be propelled upward or remain stagnant. The economy is not likely to make any sharp downturns during the holiday season, and compared to a year ago, the economy/stock market/consumer spending, are all doing much better.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by BenderBot1138
I hear Bill Gates is a member of the Rebuplican party! A friend of mine saw him shaking George Bush's hand and kissing his wife...

:cool:

Knowing slick Willy I'm sure he sucks up to whoever is president. What a whore.

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[etoiles]

Originally posted by Ovi


I have learned to ignore the insults and instead talk to those who actually make foreign and demoestic policies instead of chatting about how bad republicans are.:D

Oh, you must mean your friends at the 1st Cavalry...

[Ovi]

11

[etoiles]

Originally posted by Ovi

Please spend some time with a German family and you will get a earfull about the high taxes and unempoyment rates not seen in decades due to socialized health care and every thing else the good motherland gives them. And that converstion will be repeated in most countries of Europe.

Unemployment is not the same all accross Europe. In Germany, it is 7.7% in the former West German part, vs. 16.9% in former East Germany. So former West Germany (on an industrial level similar to the US) is not THAT much higher than the US (around 6%, I think ?).

And just some figures from some other European countries (May 2002): Luxembourg 2.3%, Netherlands 2.6%, Austria 4.1%, Denmark 4.2%, Portugal 4.3%, Ireland 4.4%, Sweden 5.1%...I know, these are small countries, but some of them are VERY social...it still seems to work.

[alex_ant]

Ovi is a Green Party troll :)

[SPG]

Getting to watch kids play with multi million dollar toys is fun, I never really understood the impressiveness of armor until I was in the middle of a bunch of moving tanks. Loud isn't it? And our tanks are better than anyone else's and we have some of the best soldiers to ever put on uniforms. But don't delude yourself. Nazi Germany had the best tanks too, and some of the best soldiers of the time, but in the end did they win?
I'm not saying the US militairy won't win in Iraq, but it is foolish to believe that it is a given. If we end up invading Iraq, I hope that it is quick and results in low casualties for BOTH sides. USMC retired Gen VanRiper kicked the ass of the US militairy during the joint wargames intended to test out the Iraq tactics this past summer. It is possible that the US could suffer very heavy casualties, and so I have to ask..for what?

Ovi, not everyone is born with a silver spoon up their rectum. Do you know what rent costs? (not even talking about a mortgage) A new car? Any car since we're so dependent on them? Food?
How much do you pay for healthcare insurance? How much do you earn in a year?
How much healthcare insurance would you be able to afford if you were earning the minimum wage?
How much could you afford if you were supporting yourself as a student?

[jelloshotsrule]

i love how powerful and important it makes some people feel because "our military can beat up your military"

as though that should be something to be so proud of, and to hang your hat on

most people don't get a thrill off war. but it's great to see that some do.

go play a video game. take out your agression.


the government has been working on a defecit you say? let's cut taxes! oh wait, no, that would only increase the deficit... go bush!

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi



it takes a few years for the benefits of tax cuts to kick in. they were too small and delayed too long. we need to accelerate and make them permenant. if Bush can not get this done, but yet keeps us safe i can live with that.

i hope the benefits of tax cuts do help even though i don't think they will

ovi, from the topic of this thread...pretend for a second that i am the national chairman of the democratic party and you a hired gun like morris, reed, or carville and i am paying you ten million to get the party back on track

what would you tell me, daschle, and pelosi?

i trust your logic as well as bttm as you two point out the gop message clearly

but hypothetically, i don't have 10 mil, but for fun, what would you do to get back on track and do one or more of three things

1) regain the house majority
2) regain the senate majority
3) regain the white house in 2004 or 2008

and bttm, i am 90% percent sure you are gop, too...so i would like to hear your plan, too for the dems

yikes, i would be out 20 mil in consulting fees:p ;)

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

ovi,

well said

i agree with you on everything you say...but it is a class warfare between the rich republicans and working class dems...sure, there are some other examples but i am talking in general

if the dems took your path to the center, they would certainly win back one or more of those three estates

i will play devils advocate for a second...here it goes>>>>>


THE DEMOCRAT'S NANCY PELOSI AGNEDA TO MOVE TO THE LEFT (hypothetical)

the democrats can get back some of the working class voters they lost to the republicans and to the reform party, and mostly to indifference and not voting

by having a working class and middle class economic agenda which squarely puts the tax burden on the rich and the corporaions, then the working class and middle class will have more to spend

having more to spend will stimulate the economy overall for everybody, including the rich

the democrats have been accused of being the republican "light" party as in something akin to bud light

some liberals think the democrats have actually sold themselves out and become a second republican party

so in order to get those votes back, traditional liberal stances which got three relatively recent democratic presidents elected (jfk '60, lbj '64, and carter '76) need to be re-stated

not to mention that those liberal stances won the senate sometimes, but overwhelmingly won over the house of representatives

that is what i think the liberals under pelosi might try...personally, i don't think it will work for the long run but maybe for the short run if bush's economy goes to heck in a handbasket

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


Liberals have a hard time learning from history. So I decided to teach you folks a little lesson.

Take a look at this article and compare it to my quote above written a month ago. I will continue to amaze you folks with my political insight.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20021218-363082.htm

are you implying the ultra wealthy in the usa vote democrat?

it would be funny to see someone on crossfire say that:p

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi
That I don't know for a fact. There are super wealthy on both sides of the isle. It is a fallacy however to assume that the republicans cater to the rich via the tax cut. As liberals keep attempting to create a class warfare via the tax cut, Bush will come out stronger each time.

as a democrat, i know that having my party launch an all out class war won't work

the rich more likely control tv stations, newspapers, banks, the stock market, corporations, and small businesses

it would be stupid since the liberals have some stronghold in education, unions, small college newspapers, and some radio talk show hosts

the only way that the democrats can gain a foothold is to work with the republicans and be moderate and work within the center

they will get more votes as a republican type party right now than as a far left protest party

there is nothing major to protest like in the past like vietnam and watergate

now if times change, let's say a decade or decades from now and we have a republican president like nixon with a huge scandal and he is sitting on top of a losing, long term war, the democrats could enjoy a huge gain in congress and control it the way it was back in the days of the 70s and 80s

right now, these years, from jan 2001 onward for the next few years will be a republican time in the sun

the democrats enjoyed 8 years in the white house and in the last part of that, they suffered a decline which resulted in gore barely losing an election, but it was most likely due to a nation wanting change, as they did after 12 years of republican rule, more than it was anybody really hating al gore

[wwworry]

How do the current tax cuts differ from ones proposed, hypothetically, by very wealthy people and designed to solely benefit themselves?

How do the current proposed environmetal rule changes differ from ones hypothetically proposed by oil industry lobbiests/executives?

Govt. for the Oil Executives, By The Oil Executives, Of the Oil Executives

[wwworry]

Trickle Up Works, Trickle Down is A Trick

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by wwworry
How do the current tax cuts differ from ones proposed, hypothetically, by very wealthy people and designed to solely benefit themselves?

How do the current proposed environmetal rule changes differ from ones hypothetically proposed by oil industry lobbiests/executives?

Govt. for the Oil Executives, By The Oil Executives, Of the Oil Executives

tell me about it

thank god i have computers for a hobby...i don't have to fuel up at the pump like my friends who have cars as their hobby

[wwworry]

If it is not class warfare then how come all the tax cuts go to just one class?

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by wwworry
If it is not class warfare then how come all the tax cuts go to just one class?

i think bush thinks this will get him favors among many of the rich and fund his re-election

he knows a second term while sitting on a recession is not an easy thing to do

carter could not do it in 1980, and neither could george hw bush in 1992

...especially since he has not caught osama bin laden and that the war in iraq this time is not as clear cut as the first war we had with them

[wwworry]

Where's Osama?

[wwworry]

My Other War Is A Korean

[wwworry]

http://jhon.com/features/bushmonkey.jpg

[wwworry]

http://www.steelrat.com/ddforums/attachment.php?s=&postid=1575

oddly enough the "bad" parts of the globe are hidden from the big dollar eyeball.
What it's looking at is us!

And why not this too?:

http://www.changingtheclimate.com/

[Ovi]

11

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Ovi
Having said that, liberals are in deep trouble. Sure than can count on that 30% to be loyal and vote for their tax increase and spending policies promoted by their canditates. However they need to persuade another 20% to vote for them as well. That my liberal friends is a challenge which will not be overcome by liberals for a very long time.

Who said anything about liberals. By your standards most of the people who voted in the last presidential election are those dreaded liberals. It's closer than you think, my friend, if we are to look at this like a sport. Bush v.1 had a 90% approval rating at one point right after a military action. Then he puked on the Japanese Prime Minister.
Besides Clinton had aproval numbers upwards of 60% even after Lewinsky. Approval numbers mean nothing now.


We will continue to have tax cuts and policies that benefit people not the gov. and those in power.


This is completely backwards. The people in power are getting all the breaks with these tax cuts. Compare, for instance, how much the Bush cabinet will save under the Bush tax cuts vs. what the same number of regular people save. I have heard the cabinet makes as much as $100 million dollars. These tax cuts benefit the people in power, in government, obviously.

[Ovi]

11

[wwworry]

There was a neighborhood in Brooklyn that I used to visit where they called everyone who wasn't born in that neighborhood "liberals".

I brought up Clinton and Bush v.1 as presidents who had high approval numbers that did not mean much in the end. Even if Clinton were eligible to run again would never in a million years win.

You keep saying the voters did not trust the "liberals" in 2000 but they did (if all democrats are "liberals") get more votes. So you are wrong there.

What is the Senate at now, 52 to 49 (including Cheesy)? Wow, what a huge majority.

Maybe in talk-radio land "the liberals don't get it", but in the real world some people are liberal about some things and not about others. It is pointless to go on about this as sport because the game never ends.

The last election was about security. Everyone knows that. If people really cared to look at tax policies they would vote with their wallet. Obviously you care about things other than tax policy because you seem to also approve of policies that shift a greater portion of the national debt onto you! You want to pay a bigger share of the national debt! Ha Ha.

I guess that's the price you want to pay for liberal bashing.

By the way, it'll run you in the thousands.

[trebblekicked]

the true beauty of america revealed!

rich or poor
black or white
coservative or liberal

boarders fall and we unite to make fun of presidential daughters.

BTW, if i win the powerball, i'm donating the whole kitten caboodle to the Green Party.

[wdlove]

UNIVERSITIES THROWING CHRISTIANS TO THE LIONS

For months after the attacks against America, groups such as the ACLU
warned that there could be a backlash against Muslims in the United
States. College administrators moved quickly to quell any such concerns
of their Muslim students. Across the country, universities sponsored
forums, workshops and teach-ins on religious tolerance and the true
meaning of Islam.

But as most Muslims have been made to feel comfortable and welcome on
college campuses, Christians increasingly aren't. At two of our nation's
most prominent universities, Christian student groups are being told, in
effect, to change their beliefs or else.

At UNC-Chapel Hill, the same campus that required freshmen to read a book
called "Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations," a university
administrator put the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship on notice last
month. The Univerisity claimed that the organization was in violation of
university requirements that all student groups allow "openness to full
membership and participation without regard to race, color, religion,
national origin, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, or
gender." Translation: change your charter's language urging members to
follow Christian doctrines or lose official recognition, which includes
funding, and other campus privileges.

After the story blew up in the press at the end of December, Dean L.
Bresciani, the UNC-Chapel Hill vice chancellor for student affairs, backed
down, telling the Associated Press that he would work with InterVarsity to
resolve the issue. "We have no intention of kicking the group off campus,
and we're prepared to work very hard to avoid that scenario," he said.
Bresciani claims that there is a "legal hurdle" to clear first, referring
to the University's "non-discrimination" policy.

Administrators at Rutgers University were the trailblazers of this
anti-Christian path. They kicked InterVarsity off its New Brunswick
campus altogether and froze its $1200 in university funding after it
refused to sign on to the university's policy mandating inclusion of all
religious faiths. Yes, this means that Christian Bible study should open
itself up to atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Jews, and Muslims.

Rutgers has gone as far as to claim that InterVarsity may not exclude
non-believers from its leadership. InterVarsity requires its officers to
sign a statement affirming their Christian beliefs. Sounds eminently
logical, but of course not to the liberal college elites. InterVarsity's
religious beliefs are not acceptable in the left-leaning campus
environment, where the closest thing to a pure state of grace is a
candlelight vigil for oppressed migrant berry pickers in Northern
California.

Students are drilled to value "diversity," but intellectual diversity
doesn't really count. Today a cardinal sin on campus is being
"judgmental" or "intolerant." Unless, however, one is bashing President
Bush's "racist and imperialist" foreign policy.

For its little foray into religious discrimination, Rutgers is being sued.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is representing
InterVarsity and may eventually intervene in UNC-Chapel Hill incident as
well. Attorneys for Rutgers and UNC apparently are not familiar with the
Supreme Court's 1995 Rosenberger decision, where the Court ruled in favor
of a campus religious group. (The University of Virginia could not refuse
to fund a Christian student newspaper when it funded other student
publications.)

Will the p.c. police at Rutgers and UNC-Chapel Hill investigate reports
that Muslim student groups have only Muslim leaders and members? That
there are no openly heterosexual leaders of its Gay Students Association?
Don't hold your breath. One can only imagine if a group of devout
Christians tried to join a Rutger's lesbian student group. The Christian
students would probably be brought up on disciplinary charges, accused of
violating Rutgers' "principle of community."

At secular institutions where Bible study and just the mention of
abstinence brings guffaws, groups like InterVarsity will always be
considered un-cool. They're used to that. But they have a First
Amendment right to be there and to organize according to their religious
beliefs. Perhaps if it changed its name to InterVarsity Students for
Intramural Sex, it would not be bothered by intolerant campus bureaucrats.

Laura Ingraham

[jefhatfield]

i was a member of intervarsity in college and we were always open to everybody to share the point of view of christianity

and since we were non-denominational, we had a lot of points of view and the last thing we were was intolerant

the school administrations should worry about important issues like lowering tuition and their own inflated salaries

[Zion Grail]

The Dems need a lot of things right now.

First is to get some balls and secure some air time on major networks to start some propaganda (nasty word, yes, but all parties do it).

Second is to get better organized and efficient.

Third and possibly most important is that they need someone to be a figurehead. To fight Bush, they need his antithesis. Someone who is young, with a sense of modern style. Someone who can get on stage and speak strongly and debate with such ferocity and tactical beilliance to make Bush seem even dumber than normal. Someone who can speak with the fire to strike terror into the hearts of his enemies, yet make the democrats feel they have a strong, compassionate, and charismatic leader so that they will unite behind him (or her, for that matter) and actually get people to vote.

People know Bush. They don't recognize people from the democrats right now (outside of Gore). Thus, they need a new leader to turn people's heads.

They need me. :D

OK, so I'm 20 years shy of being able to run for President. Who cares? :D ;) Yeah, I'm kidding, I'm kidding. But the three main points I'm making still hold.

[Ovi]

11

[wdlove]

Democrats are the momie, they say yes! They believe that what you earn belongs to them. Democrats feel and Republicans think! They survive by not giving all the facts, lie to get elected.

Its difficult for them to argue, feelings!

[Zion Grail]

Actually the more they talk to better Bush sounds. They don't need a new leader but a message that actually makes some sense.

I disagree. They need unification. Right now they are scattered and weak - their "message" is different each time you talk to a differnet person.

They need a strong figurehead to unify them and get one, solid, strong message to the voters.

Make no mistake. I'm quite liberal. But even I can see the problems with my party (just as easy as I see the problems with my country).

I saw a great bumber sticker that said VOTE DEMOCRATIC. and in small letters underneath, IT IS A LOT EASIER THAN THINKING.

Funny. The Republicans to the same damn thing. It's a common politcal practice to do this "dumb it down" technique.

Another curious thing is this "un-American" BS that Republicans are spouting about liberal ideas. Pardon me? Oh, I'm going to introduce new ways of thinking and doing. Innovation can be an awesome force. Plus, that's a fundemental idea this country was founded on, damnit. The ability to speak freely and have your voice heard.

"Don't question." That's a W quote referring to homeland security. WTF? Oh, I'm questioning you. I'm going to question you a lot. That's my duty as an American. That's right. The ability to question one's government is as American as it gets.

I remember once I went to a car dealership. They were generally nice, and then he tried to sell me a car with a manual transmission. I dismissed the car as a non-option because I don't know how to use one. He said, and I quote, "That's un-American." Wow. He just (tried) to insult me (and failed). Time to go into speach mode.

I counter-pointed him with a loud speach in the middle of the (large, crowded) dealership. (Yeah, I've got guts.)

Needless to say, he was unsuccessful in arguing agaisnt me. Largely because I pointed out that an overwhelming majority of Americans drive automativs and a majority of Americans dont' know how to use a stick-shift. A second reason was that I was a MUCH better public speaker - so no one sided with him. Given our inividual public speaking abilities, I don't think he would've won even IF the facts weren't on my side. (Which is why the democrats need a strong leader that can turn Bush into kibble just by speaking.)

I was then asked to leave the dealership. :D

Other than a few proffessors and some trial lawyers most democrats talk to people as if they are in kindergarten.

Again, same deal with Republicans. Don't worry, Mr. W will take care of Mr. big bad Osama (actually, he hasn't even SAID Osama's name in public since July 8th). You just keep as you were.

Right.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Ovi


i bet if you bought a pc you could have afforded insurance. who is paying for you fast internet connection? if you are than you sure as hell can afford medical insurance.

Quit the smug tone already, it's getting old.
I have health insurance through my employer (and only because the bosses wife is covered on the same plan).
My friend who got hurt was not as lucky. His job does not give health care insurance since they consider their workforce "independent contractors" to save money.
I know his financial level and know that if he had full coverage, he would have to get rid of his car and move to the ghetto. Without his car he wouldn't be able to work. And before you say "why doesn't he get a new job then, or get an education and find opportunity or work harder..." I just want to say why doesn't he just get reborn with a silver spoon up his ass like most of the republicans, then there would be no worries at all!

[Ovi]

11

[Zion Grail]

This is also off subject.

Safari does, in fact, rock. :D

[SPG]

Already running it and crashed it once, couldn't load two different videos, but otherwise I like it, especially the speed.
Back on topic, dubya's economic stimulus package is just another tax cut for the rich that will do little to stimulate the economy, especially compared to the alternatives.