Bashing republican\democrats thread

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Mar 24, 2003.

  1. static76 The Man, The Myth, The Legend Registered Senior Member

    I actually agree with much of this. I had the same problem with protestors of this movie, just like I had with Christians protestors of other movies and tv shows.

    IMO, both parties are being led by vocal minorities that don't reflect their party's base as a whole.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Muhlenberg Registered Senior Member

    Will it ever dawn on liberals that the "he's stoopid" line makes them look like idiots?

    Republicans have gained seats in the last three elections. Democrats have been devastated in states they ran since Reconstruction--Texas, Florida and Georgia.

    Yet a "stoopid" person did it to them.

    By the way, liberals always use the "stoopid" line. They called Eisenhower a "blockhead" and Reagan an "amiable dunce."
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Karmashock The Doomslayer Registered Senior Member

    those people were both very active in politics for years and were at their time of election more politicians then actors... if there is indeed a difference.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Muhlenberg Registered Senior Member

    static76...The Democratic party is led by a vocal minority--mostly government union members and the victim class.

    GOP isn't. For a year 1.4 million unpaid volunteers worked to re-elect Bush.

    Democratic party relied on billionaires such as Soros, Bing, Lewis and the Sandlers to hire people to get out the vote for Kerry.

    GOP is the majority party. It is not led by some extreme fringe. There are no Soros, Lear or Michael Moore types pushing the GOP. No conservative counterpart to the communists in A.N.S.W.E.R.

    IT is a grassroots party. While Republicans did not like Bush actions such as the education bill, tariffs and no spending restraint, they accepted that was the best which could be had.
  8. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    That's it? This thread is a big deal why? All people that voted for Bush are scared and backwards and misinformed? That's it? Geez, the people on this board only kept saying that over and over again before the election. I wonder why people in NYC decided to vote for Bush (Something like 36%). I have a hard time believing that NYC is backwards.

    Yes, let us thank those backwards people from all the backwards states and even the people from the backwards states that voted Kerry and were somehow informed. Remember, if you vote Repulican, your backwards. No one agrees with Bush, and the people who do are misinformed.
  9. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

  10. static76 The Man, The Myth, The Legend Registered Senior Member

    Turn off the FOX Propaganda Channel my friend. Are you saying that the Christian Fundamentalist sect of the Republican party represent the views of the base?

    LOL, surely you know Bush was backed by corporate money and his share of the rich.

    50% is hardly a majority. Moore isn't even a Democrat so I don't know why you name him. Further, you seem to have forgot about 90% of talk radio, FOX "News", Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanon, etc.

    Neither party is grassroots. MILLIONS of dollars were spent on the elections, don't fool yourself. Fake swift boat ads did more to elect Bush than those volunteers ever did.
  11. static76 The Man, The Myth, The Legend Registered Senior Member

    Can I use this as my signature CC?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Seriously though, Bush was a drunk and druggie, who was handed everything but still failed. Through name alone he got elected as governor of Texas, and through name alone he got "elected" president.

    Bush's story is like a bad Adam Sandler comedy movie. Tell me you don't see the similarities between Bush and "Billy Madison".... :m:
  12. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    That's a joke, right?

    Which nobody listens to anymore.

    Fox news? Try out CNN or the New York Times for the liberal end of things. In the mean time: Jerry Falwell is a moron, and Pat Buchanon, ask someone if they know who that is and have a follow-up question: "Do you know who Michael Moore is?" nine times out of ten you get a yes to the Michael Moore question. None of the liberals I know can remember who Pat Buchanon is, but they all know Michael Moore.

    lol internet.

    While were on the subject of people being scared into voting for Bush, can we for one minute remember the word "draft"? Did that fall out our vocabualry? When I talked to my college bound friends they were all afraid of the draft and were going to vote Kerry. I guess Bush makes people afraind of homosexuals and Kerry makes college students afraid of a draft... To bad I haven't heard any new news on that draft yet.
  13. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    So Bush was a drunk before he was ever governor of Texas, and Clinton sexually harassed women while he was governor of Arkansas... what's your point?

    Note: You can be handed everything and still fail. Everyone sucks at something and then they find something they're good at.
  14. static76 The Man, The Myth, The Legend Registered Senior Member

    Moore is an independent, and has criticized Democrats plenty of times in the past. Not liking Bush doesn't make you a Democrat.

    According to whom?

    Come on CC, you can't equate CNN with FOX "News". CNN for the most part is a generic boring network that had no problem covering every detail of Clinton's scandal. FOX "News" spins everything to make republicans look good. They are the very definition of what propaganda is. People know Michael Moore because he makes thought provoking films, but his influence is know greater than preachers like Falwell who speak to millions of followers.

    Not that I believe there would be a draft, but the conditions for such a thing could STILL happen. If we attack Iran, a draft could become a reality.

    That said, I could counter with "global test", swift boat, etc. Don't fall for these political games CC, surely you can see that most of this is propaganda on both sides.
  15. static76 The Man, The Myth, The Legend Registered Senior Member

    Clinton was an accomplished professional, Bush was a family disgrace. If Bush's father didn't have money, what would Bush have done with his life? My guess is he would have been a frequent guest on the Jerry Springer show.
  16. Muhlenberg Registered Senior Member

    William S. Burroughs wrote to Jack Kerouac in 1950 :

    "I fear the U.S. is headed for socialism, which means, of course, ever increasing interference in the business of each citizen. Whatever happened to the glorious frontier, of minding one's own business? The word liberal has come to stand for the most damnable tyranny, a snivelling, mealymouthed tyranny of bureaucrats, social workers, psychologists and union officials. The world of 1984 is not even 30 years away."
  17. Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Damn it, I started this thread to get ideas with what I could do with a high-school Liberal Club. That's it. But then everyone just had to get into a drawn-out, inane political debate.

    There are 785 other threads where ya can get into a political debate. Give me ideas here, and debate somewhere else. Got it?
  18. Brutus1964 We are not alone! Registered Senior Member


    I was thinking of the song Conciousness Raising as A Social Tool, but that is not a silly song so I did't think that was the one you were meaning.

    Here is my take on that song.

    So many liberals do not appreciate the blessing they have. We live in such a care free society that people make up problems that do not exist. They make up bogy-men like "global warming" and "urban sprawl". They "know" thier ideas are right even though they have never been demonstrated to work in the real world. If their ideas don't work they either say it was because they were not implemented correctly or the right people were not in charge, or that some how Republicans sabotaged it. They can never admit that their reasoning was faulty to begin with.

    In the song the girl leaves her family and everything behind that should be important to her to pursue what she thinks will "fulfill" her. She hooks up with others that she thinks have all the answers, but in reality they are just as lost as she is.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2005
  19. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Ok its getting almost as bad as in the election so i am resurecting this thread

    From now on this thread is where all the threads that are only bashing bush, the republicans or the democrats will end up. If its just a few posts in a thread then i will just delete them (sorry i dont have unlimited time to split a thread, select a few posts and then merge it with this one). If thats the only point of your thread then PLEASE do me a favor a just post it here
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    I suppose it depends, then, on how one defines a silly song. I think it is silly; it's a pop song, after all. That doesn't preclude it from being decent or even good, but it certainly is a simplistic look at the situation.

    This is an anticipated sleight: you're targeting "liberals" for a problem that is "human" within the society.

    You're too condemning and presumptuous at the outset.

    Problems that do not exist: Social Security crisis, a fear-inspiring "gay agenda", WMD in Iraq. Not liberals.

    Global warming? Urban sprawl? Where do you think they get those notions? Perhaps it's by paying attention to their community, what people tell them and how they're educated?

    Typically, the ideas are communicated and received according to a specific necessity that is both relevant and contemporary to the issue considered. The idea of putting ideas forth without a history of success is called taking a risk. And it sure as hell beats the conservative version, which is to constantly propose ideas that are shown to be harmful, ineffective, and even offensive to human dignity. And why should they do this? Tradition. Indoctrination. Intolerance.

    Most human beings look for solutions to problems that do not exist. It's part of what we do, and sometimes we even find a legitimate problem that way.

    Show me a pure test. Take a look at the failure of Communism; the history Americans learn is vastly different from recorded history. Most Americans don't realize the U.S. has invaded Russia before. Many people have this strange notion that one day a bunch of Russians woke up and decided to be Communists with the specific purpose of agitating Americans.

    Like I said: "'She left her husband and she left her family ....' It need not be so dramatic, but politics divides any family dinner."

    With politics, there is a perceived moral attachment; these senses of moral obligation create conflict when family is seen to have crossed a line.

    My father used to resent my excoriations of American economic priorities. He felt I was including him, even though I spoke to him in third, not second person. And then one day he learned why he shouldn't. And in there somewhere, a lesson he'd forgotten even by the time he taught his children, poked its head up. Stand up straight, carry yourself properly, behave: you represent your school, your town, your parents--you should not embarrass them with your misconduct. Enough of the fellow businessmen he counted himself among proved corrupt that he got the point. What guilt does he feel? I don't ask; I was surprised when he brought it up one day.

    By your suggestion of liberalism, I should have leapt with joy. But I didn't. I was sad he had to figure it out in a way that upset him so deeply, but I have no idea how else to get from A to B in that case.

    If I dwell on all the things that went wrong, or "the years we could have had", I might go crazy. There's nothing to be done to change the past, but we certainly can pause for a moment to consider the impact of politics on family.

    It goes a little bit beyond that: again you're focusing on a human problem and attributing it to liberals.

    The intensity of the moral cause, though, that sense of justification that fuels the fire, can exploit changing definitions and boundaries. There comes a point when the "traditional" value of family cohesion becomes sinful and scandalous. Then again, my generation learned a certain principle of accountability, and it may well have something to do with why what happened to crooked executives around the country should trouble the small businessman's morals so greatly. The question becomes: "I have been taught that what I see is wrong; what now?"

    For a liberal, there come many occasions when choosing family over principle seems to be a short-term exchange: reduce or eliminate the challenge of conscience by sublimating it to another form or delaying it to another future point.

    And when you reach the point that neither solution suffices, you may well be staring in the face something Christians have misunderstood for millennia, and which Communism recognizes much to traditionalists' dismay: The nuclear family is corrupting compared to human potential optimized. In other words, sentiment toward family causes inefficiency, or, in the case of Christian principle, sin. We say a kindly-disposed parent who smokes pot is cruel and criminal, but an unkind parent obsessed with money and status is a good parent doing their job. The unkind sentiments that seem to infect social problems as liberals see them start with individuals and grow from there. Unlike their neighbors who develop conservative political consciences, the liberal doesn't just ignore this conflict. And when they put their foot down, it's time for another chapter of Jesus, Karl, Fred, and Me.

    • • •​

    Anecdotal: Every once in a while, I make certain pointless demonstrations in front of my family. What happens is that I make an observation, and someone says, "Well, stop talking and do". So I do. And then everybody's horrified. And I look around and shrug, as if to say, "What?"

    What happens in those moments is that they're horrified by the produce of their expected conventions. They think on those occasions very conceptually, while forgetting what the concept looks like. It's a dog eat dog world, they say, but any time I bark they're simply offended. It isn't that I'm doing anything unusual: rather, they're upset whenever I throw aside pretense and act like "everybody else in the world".

    There is a basic discord between expectation and reality. As a liberal, I'm painfully aware of that separation. My conservative neighbors--and perhaps they don't realize it--seem to glorify and depend on that separation. Moral assertions are great rallying points, but have no practical value to conservatives.

    And if there's one thing the young have on the old, the children have on the adults, it's their ability to spot hypocrisy. People learn early on to live it or abhor it or merely tolerate it. Were we to make an unsupportable assertion about how people react to the appearance of hypocrisy, the superficial observation would be that liberals fall into the trap by blazing forward and falling into a new, unforeseen hole, while conservatives bathe in old hypocrisy like hot springs.

    In the end, people make certain mistakes because they're human. I try to be forgiving about this, and even get myself in trouble sometimes by finding that there's nothing to forgive. It is the problems that are specific, unique, or even intentional that present such challenges.

    But since many liberals develop their liberal values in close and instructive association with conservative values, right there we see part of the problem with conservatives. They've cried wolf and panic so many times that who knows, one day one or another conservative might accidentally have a good idea, and we'd never know it because he's not equipped to express the point.

    Presumption and condemnation: no simple recognition of human nature because it's too complicated to think in that many steps; it's easier to just get angry and yell about what's wrong with liberals.

    The reason liberals are pictured as elitist and conservatives as unfeeling is the result of conservative posturing. There is for most issues a level of discussion that will strike progress and compromise with liberals, but conservatives never want to have that discussion. They'd rather, as you've shown so clearly, bash on liberals and pretend they're being useful.

    Conservatives complain of elitism if we won't have the stupid discussion with them, and scream, "hypocrisy!" if we do.

    Through various devices, conservatives signal that they don't want to have the discussion at all, that they just want their way. Thank you, Brutus1964, for demonstrating that point.

    Look, I don't think you intended to prove my point when you stuck your nose in on this one. And I do thank you for what honest consideration you've given the issue. But what am I left with? A predictable assertion, an unwillingness to get specific, and then a, "Yeah, that's what I was gonna say, but ...."

    None of this is surprising. That's where it gets problematic. That's where liberals put on the contemptuous yawn and look at you as if you have rabid mice in your pants.

    It's like that old joke about Republicans: they'll tell you what's wrong with government, then they'll get elected and prove it.

    Republicans complain that liberals are elitist, out of touch, and unable to communicate with "middle America". Yet to actually look at the situation, we find the reality is that conservatives simply don't want to have any real discussion.

    So here's a hint: If conservatives really do have the proper vision for society, they ought to try not betraying it.

    Do Republicans teach their children to exploit one another? To cry and whine until the rules are changed for them? To refuse to participate unless everyone else goes forward on an unsupportable thesis? If not, whence comes that conservative contempt for the human endeavor?
  21. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Strangely enough, it's the neo-con tyranny of doublespeakers now who want to get in everyone's business.
  22. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    It's always tough to respond to one of your posts because they're so damn long, I'm always putting it off. Still, I generally enjoy engaging you in debate, although you love to throw in ridiculous assertions that basically imply that conservatives are a coalition of the evil and the stupid. I assure you, this is not the case. Regarding your question as to why it was US policy "back in the day" to prop up dictators so long as they were "our" dictators and now Bush says our policy is to eliminate tyrany. The answer is simple: The Cold War. The US was engaged in a fight for its life and could not turn away potential allies in the fight against communism because their human rights records were not up to par. We needed a stable, united free world to stand against communism so we allied ourselves with some evil basterds just as we allied ourselves with the Soviets against the Nazis. Now we face no such threat and, ironically, the injustice we supported in the past is, to a large degree, the cause of many of our present difficulties. There's a certain symetry to it. We allied ourselves with the Soviets to defeat the Nazis only to find the Soviets our new enemy. So we allied ourselves with various and sundry unsavory characters to help defeat the Soviets, and now they've turned against us as well. The enemy of my enemy may be my friend, but not for long.
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    And I'm sure you believe that. And perhaps it's true. But you simplify the case you claim it is not.

    Conservatives do often appear evil. It's part of what happens when you're the war party, the discrimination party, the superstition party, and the greed party.

    Are those generalizations? Defense/security, gay marriage, tax cuts. Certainly, the GOP platform is more detailed than that, but just as the right-to-life people side with the state-sanctioned homicide people, the curious forgiveness of sins that takes place on the right wing is generally oriented toward taking things away from people: rights, money, &c.

    If I suggest that this is similar to Nazi infamy, have I violated Godwin? It has nothing to do with severity, though, but rather device. What American conservatism has in common with many infamous regimes in history is that its efforts work to secure authority and wealth in small pockets of privilege. A ball log rolls down the hill, a marble falls off the table. How do we view the processes? They're different, the conservative would tell me, because one is a log and the other is a marble; one is on a hillside, the other is on a tabletop. But they're similar, the liberal would assert: both are rolling, and both are responding to gravity.

    Nobody's wrong. It's just a matter of each finds important.

    Conservatives focus inward, on the self, to such a point that the society that empowers the self is expected to be either secondary or a non-issue altogether. If society does not conform to desire, the individual is violated.

    Here's the thing, Madanthonywayne: many have told me that their group isn't as dumb as it appears. And I understand. The saving grace of liberalism in the American political arena is mere good intentions.

    And that's the source of so much condemnation of conservatives, as well: it appears selfish. My money, my rights, my beliefs!

    So if you believe that the criticisms of conservatism are untrue, and you want the rest of us to believe it, compel your fellow conservatives to start showing some of that intelligence, some of that benevolence.

    It's not that I have no reason to trust conservatives. Rather, I have every reason not to.

    So, a mistake that led to another mistake is the justification for a third mistake? And those three mistakes are irrelevant to a fourth mistake made as a result of the prior three?

Share This Page