A Really Important Question
-
Chris Losinger wrote: first of all, i hear nothing but disdain from "true conservatives" over McCain. the right has an unlimited well of bile for him. No argument. I would far prefer Santorum or Condi Rice in the GOP primary to McCain. Chris Losinger wrote: the other three are Republican only by virtue of being...... Registered Republicans. With all the rhetoric, did it occur to you to ask why they don't switch parties? fyi - Bloomberg I could do without, period. Chris Losinger wrote: they don't represent the bulk of the GOP in Congress Who were elected with the electorate fully understanding and approving of everything you dislike. That isn't a slam, it is a simple fact that they represent the people who elected them - there isn't a Republican machine that automatically appoints a conservative to a seat. Chris Losinger wrote: the ones the GOP footsoldiers like to describe as "liberal coastal elitist". that is a kinder description than I would use. I've lived in the east (Mass.) and travelled heavily to NYC and wouldn't live in either place on a bet. Chris Losinger wrote: choice for bigots what do you call Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy if not bigot? Chris Losinger wrote: theocrats How so. becuase they/we're against murdering unborn? Chris Losinger wrote: corrupt southern demagogoues Byrd? Your broad brush indictments are filtered by your liberal viewpoint. Virtually everyone one has a Democrat party parallel, yet the only one you chose to criticize is Republican. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: did it occur to you to ask why they don't switch parties? no question they are conservative for the areas they are elected to. and while that may make them Republicans in NYC or CA (by virtue of our silly Dem/Rep duopoly), they are still pretty far to the left of the current national GOP. it's a stretch to claim Pataki or Arnold has much of anything to do with Trent Lott or Tom DeLay. Mike Gaskey wrote: Who were elected with the electorate fully understanding and approving of everything you dislike. of course. and that electorate doesn't like pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-science politicians. they're the same people you described as the "far right that make it uncomfortable for the Gulianis and Patakis." Mike Gaskey wrote: what do you call Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy if not bigot? ? i don't see how those people deserve the name. i've seen nothing from any of them that would make me call them "bigoted". they're certainly not gay-bashing, xenophobes who want to run the infidels out of the country, and they don't play wink-wink with those who are. maybe you can get them by using some expansive definition of the word. but if you're gonna make it broad enough to get them, you're gonna end up getting everybody else in the country, too. if you stick to the commonly-accepted definition, they aren't it. Mike Gaskey wrote: becuase they/we're against murdering unborn? cute. but that's not all the religious right is about. Mike Gaskey wrote: Byrd? not exactly a leader of the Democratic party. Mike Gaskey wrote: yet the only one you chose to criticize is Republican so what? i'm telling you why i, and many people like me, won't vote Republican no matter how much we like some of what they profess to stand for. do you think changing the subject to Dems is a defense of the GOP ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Ed K wrote: Outright lie That's Jim's specialty. But, than, he is a democrat so its always for a good cause! :rolleyes: "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: But, than, he is a democrat so its always for a good cause! You assume too much, Stan; I'm independent.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: But, than, he is a democrat so its always for a good cause! You assume too much, Stan; I'm independent.
Oh! my mistake. I suppose you would have to hold out for the possibility of an occassional communist on the ballot. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: did it occur to you to ask why they don't switch parties? no question they are conservative for the areas they are elected to. and while that may make them Republicans in NYC or CA (by virtue of our silly Dem/Rep duopoly), they are still pretty far to the left of the current national GOP. it's a stretch to claim Pataki or Arnold has much of anything to do with Trent Lott or Tom DeLay. Mike Gaskey wrote: Who were elected with the electorate fully understanding and approving of everything you dislike. of course. and that electorate doesn't like pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-science politicians. they're the same people you described as the "far right that make it uncomfortable for the Gulianis and Patakis." Mike Gaskey wrote: what do you call Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy if not bigot? ? i don't see how those people deserve the name. i've seen nothing from any of them that would make me call them "bigoted". they're certainly not gay-bashing, xenophobes who want to run the infidels out of the country, and they don't play wink-wink with those who are. maybe you can get them by using some expansive definition of the word. but if you're gonna make it broad enough to get them, you're gonna end up getting everybody else in the country, too. if you stick to the commonly-accepted definition, they aren't it. Mike Gaskey wrote: becuase they/we're against murdering unborn? cute. but that's not all the religious right is about. Mike Gaskey wrote: Byrd? not exactly a leader of the Democratic party. Mike Gaskey wrote: yet the only one you chose to criticize is Republican so what? i'm telling you why i, and many people like me, won't vote Republican no matter how much we like some of what they profess to stand for. do you think changing the subject to Dems is a defense of the GOP ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: i don't see how those people deserve the name. i've seen nothing from any of them that would make me call them "bigoted". Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The reason you don't see them as bigots is you share their opinions and prejudices. Chris Losinger wrote: so what? i'm telling you why i, and many people like me, won't vote Republican no matter how much we like some of what they profess to stand for. and I'm explaining why "you" lost the Presidency, House, Senate, Supreme Court. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i don't see how those people deserve the name. i've seen nothing from any of them that would make me call them "bigoted". Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The reason you don't see them as bigots is you share their opinions and prejudices. Chris Losinger wrote: so what? i'm telling you why i, and many people like me, won't vote Republican no matter how much we like some of what they profess to stand for. and I'm explaining why "you" lost the Presidency, House, Senate, Supreme Court. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. right, like i said: use a big enough definition and you catch everyone. there is nobody alive who doesn't meet that definiton. of course when i used the word, i used its common meaning of someone who's prejudiced and intolerant of social or racial differences. Mike Gaskey wrote: and I'm explaining why "you" lost the Presidency, House, Senate, Supreme Court. and i'm explaining why you won't keep them. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. right, like i said: use a big enough definition and you catch everyone. there is nobody alive who doesn't meet that definiton. of course when i used the word, i used its common meaning of someone who's prejudiced and intolerant of social or racial differences. Mike Gaskey wrote: and I'm explaining why "you" lost the Presidency, House, Senate, Supreme Court. and i'm explaining why you won't keep them. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: and i'm explaining why you won't keep them ready to lose another wager? 2006: GOP maintains or gains House seats - $1 gets you $10. 2006: GOP maintains or gains Senate seats - $1 gets you $10. results to charity of choice. 2008: GOP maintains control of Presidency - $1 gets you $25. Pelosi, Kennedy, Shumer, Boxer, Waters (I could go on, but..) are as bigoted aginst conservatives, Christians, anti-aboritionists, the successful business man as anyone you mant to point to who is bigoted regarding gays, abortion and liberals. You're making the same mistake my stepson did prior to the 2004 elections. He watched CNN, ran around with hip-hop sub-culture and simply believed that what they thought was the thought process of the rest of America. Dead fucking wroong. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and i'm explaining why you won't keep them ready to lose another wager? 2006: GOP maintains or gains House seats - $1 gets you $10. 2006: GOP maintains or gains Senate seats - $1 gets you $10. results to charity of choice. 2008: GOP maintains control of Presidency - $1 gets you $25. Pelosi, Kennedy, Shumer, Boxer, Waters (I could go on, but..) are as bigoted aginst conservatives, Christians, anti-aboritionists, the successful business man as anyone you mant to point to who is bigoted regarding gays, abortion and liberals. You're making the same mistake my stepson did prior to the 2004 elections. He watched CNN, ran around with hip-hop sub-culture and simply believed that what they thought was the thought process of the rest of America. Dead fucking wroong. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
right, again, use a huge definition and everybody's a bigot. use the narrow definition i was using and you get quite a different set of people. but, since you're bigoted against that definition, i guess this is a dead-end conversation. Mike Gaskey wrote: simply believed that what they thought was the thought process of the rest of America and yet here you are telling me that America's thought process is more like your's? no irony there! sure, i'll take your bets. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
right, again, use a huge definition and everybody's a bigot. use the narrow definition i was using and you get quite a different set of people. but, since you're bigoted against that definition, i guess this is a dead-end conversation. Mike Gaskey wrote: simply believed that what they thought was the thought process of the rest of America and yet here you are telling me that America's thought process is more like your's? no irony there! sure, i'll take your bets. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: but, since you're bigoted against that definition lol - bigotry cuts both ways, just just happen to see you stands as more noble thus not bigoted and mainstream. Chris Losinger wrote: yet here you are telling me that America's thought process is more like your's? no, I'm telling you that the majority of Americans see things the way I do. Chris Losinger wrote: no irony there! does seem odd, doesn't it. Chris Losinger wrote: sure, i'll take your bets. great. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Chris Losinger wrote: but, since you're bigoted against that definition lol - bigotry cuts both ways, just just happen to see you stands as more noble thus not bigoted and mainstream. Chris Losinger wrote: yet here you are telling me that America's thought process is more like your's? no, I'm telling you that the majority of Americans see things the way I do. Chris Losinger wrote: no irony there! does seem odd, doesn't it. Chris Losinger wrote: sure, i'll take your bets. great. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: no, I'm telling you that the majority of Americans see things the way I do. oh. well then. that's completely different. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
A lot of people seem to be mostly interested in a pissing contest over who should take the blame for the mess of Katrina. But take a critical look, not at the preventative measures that could have been taken, but rather only at the response that was mounted after the disaster had indeed become a reality. I believe that it is hard for a person not blinded by their particular political and ideological persuasion to disagree that the post-disaster response that has been mounted has been characterized by a disturbing level of, uhmm, shall we say, "ineptness". We have had almost 4 years since 911 of living in a world where every person is acutely aware that a terrorist catastrophe can occur on our own soil. Now, given the recent test of our ability to respond to a catastrophe involving on the order of roughly 100,000, where we had advance warning to boot, what does that tell us about our ability to respond to something like a dirty bomb exploded in a metropolitan area with millions of citizens and no warning???
It tells us to go buy duct tape for the windows and doors of our homes.
-
A lot of people seem to be mostly interested in a pissing contest over who should take the blame for the mess of Katrina. But take a critical look, not at the preventative measures that could have been taken, but rather only at the response that was mounted after the disaster had indeed become a reality. I believe that it is hard for a person not blinded by their particular political and ideological persuasion to disagree that the post-disaster response that has been mounted has been characterized by a disturbing level of, uhmm, shall we say, "ineptness". We have had almost 4 years since 911 of living in a world where every person is acutely aware that a terrorist catastrophe can occur on our own soil. Now, given the recent test of our ability to respond to a catastrophe involving on the order of roughly 100,000, where we had advance warning to boot, what does that tell us about our ability to respond to something like a dirty bomb exploded in a metropolitan area with millions of citizens and no warning???
You all (or y'all as we say around here) or at least most of you managed to completely divert this discussion from a central, potentially very important and troubling issue to an extended bi-partisan pissing contest. So, in conclusion, I firmly believe that you all would make very fine Congressmen for your respective parties. :->