The DU today...
- Thread starter Voter2002
- Start date
I read that whole thread last night and about passed out from laughing so hard. I love it when Bush gets under their skin. 
Toxick
Splat
Voter2002 said:...is really vile after the State of the Union address last night....
You want to know what I think is so funny.
I mean bent-over, holding-your-sides, friggin hilarious:
These people actually believe that they became democrats and shun all things Right of center because Republicans are the ones who are mean, hateful, close-minded and intolerant.
That's a hoot.
And the willful blindness toward their own meamness, hatred, close-mindedness and intolerance is simply mind-boggling.
Indeed, the mind scarcely has the courage to boggle.
I oftentimes wonder what machine is used to force such ignorance and willful stupidity into a single head.
That's why I often find it amusing when they use GWB's DUI as "ammo" when that pig Ted Kennedy is still running amok in the Senate with his fat bloated porcine head.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Du...
...is an Orwellian, toxic, (no pun intneded) stagnant gene pool.
I think Karl Rove secretly runs the place. At least that makes sense.
...is an Orwellian, toxic, (no pun intneded) stagnant gene pool.
I think Karl Rove secretly runs the place. At least that makes sense.
Well, Tox, let me tell you what I find just side-splittingly hilarious about the DU:
They go on and on about how closed minded and intolerant Republicans are, yet if you post an opinion that is not in complete and total lockstep with theirs, their Admin will delete your posts and ban your account.
They go on and on about how closed minded and intolerant Republicans are, yet if you post an opinion that is not in complete and total lockstep with theirs, their Admin will delete your posts and ban your account.
Toxick
Splat
vraiblonde said:
Can't be!
JUST CAN'T BE!
Aren't Liberals the Defenders of Free Speech? It's the republicans who try to silence opposition. Just look at the patriot act, which has locked away several of my friends just because they didn't worship the Bush/Cheney deities with the proper amount of servitude.
I won't believe that Democrats would do this.
Does the ACLU know about this?
That's tolerant isn't it? (2A removes tongue from cheek)vraiblonde said:Well, Tox, let me tell you what I find just side-splittingly hilarious about the DU:
They go on and on about how closed minded and intolerant Republicans are, yet if you post an opinion that is not in complete and total lockstep with theirs, their Admin will delete your posts and ban your account.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
What bothers me is that there are so many Republicans who will actually waste so much time trying to argue with these guys! Sean Hannity wasted 20 minutes of my life yesterday, arguing with Al Sharpton about Bush's SS plan. Sharpton has his marching orders from the Democrats, and he isn't going to deviate from them. Hannity kept making the arguments, and no matter how much sense he made, he got nowhere.
Why? I think it's because the Democrats are fast running out of campaign issues. Remember the 2000 election? How many ads, articles, speeches, and rhetoric utterings did we endure about seniors having to eat dog food because they can't afford prescription drugs? 10,000? 50,000? How many were there in 2004? 0. Either the elderly suddenly acquired a taste for dog food, got rich, prescription drugs became free, or Bush's precription drug benefit took the issue off the table. The only drug issue on the table was Canadian imports, and that was always a self-correcting issue... we just had to wait until the Canadian government realized the damage this process was doing to it's own healthcare system, and then the Democratic howling died on that issue.
I'm 44, and I've been hearing about SS having problems since I was a kid. SS was discussed during every election that I can remember. Now Bush is threatening to fix the problem once and for all, and I think that's terrifying the Democrats. Once the implied threat of losing SS benefits is gone, what leverage will the Dems have on seniors? Nothing. Thanks to Bush's NCLB act, the only way for Dems to criticize education is to attack teachers, and there's no way they can do that. Bush's call for a marriage ammendment forced the Dems into a position where they couldn't passively support their Gay membership - they had to publically come out against them. Defense and Security issues aren't theirs and likely won't be anytime soon. And now that more and more blacks are becoming wealthy, it's becoming harder and harder to play the race card except for in the inner cities, which explains not the Red/Blue states as much as the Red/Blue counties.
So what's left? Abortion and Social Security. If Bush can get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V Wade, and send the issue of abortion back to the Congress, that issue will be gone too. So, if Bush says we're done talking about how broken SS is, and we're going to fix it, the Dems aren't going to have any major issues to campaign on and I think that's the real issue driving their side of the "debate." No amount of clever reasoning, hard facts, or cajolling is going to get them to change their tune. They need all the issues they can get and I think they'll fight dearly to keep a proven winner like this one.
The best thing for Bush to do is to forget trying to get Dems onboard, take his case to the people, and get the votes he needs. He's done it before and he can do it now.
Why? I think it's because the Democrats are fast running out of campaign issues. Remember the 2000 election? How many ads, articles, speeches, and rhetoric utterings did we endure about seniors having to eat dog food because they can't afford prescription drugs? 10,000? 50,000? How many were there in 2004? 0. Either the elderly suddenly acquired a taste for dog food, got rich, prescription drugs became free, or Bush's precription drug benefit took the issue off the table. The only drug issue on the table was Canadian imports, and that was always a self-correcting issue... we just had to wait until the Canadian government realized the damage this process was doing to it's own healthcare system, and then the Democratic howling died on that issue.
I'm 44, and I've been hearing about SS having problems since I was a kid. SS was discussed during every election that I can remember. Now Bush is threatening to fix the problem once and for all, and I think that's terrifying the Democrats. Once the implied threat of losing SS benefits is gone, what leverage will the Dems have on seniors? Nothing. Thanks to Bush's NCLB act, the only way for Dems to criticize education is to attack teachers, and there's no way they can do that. Bush's call for a marriage ammendment forced the Dems into a position where they couldn't passively support their Gay membership - they had to publically come out against them. Defense and Security issues aren't theirs and likely won't be anytime soon. And now that more and more blacks are becoming wealthy, it's becoming harder and harder to play the race card except for in the inner cities, which explains not the Red/Blue states as much as the Red/Blue counties.
So what's left? Abortion and Social Security. If Bush can get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V Wade, and send the issue of abortion back to the Congress, that issue will be gone too. So, if Bush says we're done talking about how broken SS is, and we're going to fix it, the Dems aren't going to have any major issues to campaign on and I think that's the real issue driving their side of the "debate." No amount of clever reasoning, hard facts, or cajolling is going to get them to change their tune. They need all the issues they can get and I think they'll fight dearly to keep a proven winner like this one.
The best thing for Bush to do is to forget trying to get Dems onboard, take his case to the people, and get the votes he needs. He's done it before and he can do it now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Bruz...
...it ain't about changing Al's mind; you're right, he has orders. He works for company A and sells their solutions.
But it, arguing in the arena of ideas (thank you Rush) IS about testing a plan of public policy. This allows it, the SS debate, to take shape. What will resonate with moderates? What do conservative's need to re-think? What will actually get a Democrat, who has a seat to win, on board? What can he/she actually go for? What kind of cover might get their vote?
Sharpton is just doing the converse. If he can come up with a catchy sound bite, cause Sean to come up short or stutter, then his side has an advantage.
As far as campaign issues, there are issues galore. Healthcare, SS/Medicaire, social issues like abortion, gay issues, foreign policy, the environement, on and on.
The Democrats problem is they constantly come out negative. They are against this, that and the other thing. Over time, nationaly, optimism and claiming to be changing things for the better resonates and you win.
Clinton was FOR change. Bush 41 stood there defensive instead of pointing out the change for the good he was doing.
Democrats right now have chosen to present themselves as oppossed to hurting FDR's 70 year old masterpiece. They are for the past.
...it ain't about changing Al's mind; you're right, he has orders. He works for company A and sells their solutions.
But it, arguing in the arena of ideas (thank you Rush) IS about testing a plan of public policy. This allows it, the SS debate, to take shape. What will resonate with moderates? What do conservative's need to re-think? What will actually get a Democrat, who has a seat to win, on board? What can he/she actually go for? What kind of cover might get their vote?
Sharpton is just doing the converse. If he can come up with a catchy sound bite, cause Sean to come up short or stutter, then his side has an advantage.
As far as campaign issues, there are issues galore. Healthcare, SS/Medicaire, social issues like abortion, gay issues, foreign policy, the environement, on and on.
The Democrats problem is they constantly come out negative. They are against this, that and the other thing. Over time, nationaly, optimism and claiming to be changing things for the better resonates and you win.
Clinton was FOR change. Bush 41 stood there defensive instead of pointing out the change for the good he was doing.
Democrats right now have chosen to present themselves as oppossed to hurting FDR's 70 year old masterpiece. They are for the past.
K
Kain99
Guest
Ummm shouldn't The Secret Service be questioning this guy?
You know, I could listen to these guys if they would just explain *what* it is that p!sses them off so much. It's one thing to hear and endless litany of "Bush is a f****n' liar, he's destroying our country", but you know, one actual case of why they hate him might explain things. "He went to war!". Ok. Why is that bad? "Because he did it to help himself politically!". Hardly - you must be joking. The man took a nosedive over this. "He's going to RUIN Social Security!!!". He hasn't even *SAID* what he's going to do with it yet. "He's a scum-sucking liar". Yeah, whatever.
I can't debate with these people. They don't argue, they just rant.
I can't debate with these people. They don't argue, they just rant.
No overt threat to the life or harm to the President, so the answer is no.Kain99 said:
They want all or nothing....Demoncrats in total control. If Demoncrats can't be in control, then everyone who blocks their path to control is a scum sucking pig that deserves to die! So that's why they endlessly rant and rave without offering specifics. Their mind-set is that if it is repeated long and loudly enough, some people might actually believe it and cross over to the demoncrats' side. It has nothing to do with what the actual truths are.SamSpade said:
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Larry Gude said:
You're right Larry. A public discussion is what we need. What we don't need is to waste a lot of breath cajolling people who have no desire to see things "our" way, and have no interest in a real discussion. I still think that if Bush takes SS off the table as an issue by securing the program for future generations, and fixing all of the cracks that have developed over the years, the Democrats will lose a huge portion of their "for granted" voters - the senior citizens. Bush already took one of the "litmus test" issues out with the drugs for seniors program, now he's going after big number 2 - and that scares the hell out of the Dems.
Like I said, if he can take away abortion, there isn't much more in the cupboard. They have the environment, but that's not a big issue with voters aside from the Greenies, who want their own guy in office. People still prefer cheap gas and heating more than a potential .00000001 reduction in some sort of emissions. If SS goes away, the Dems will need to change their symbol from the donkey to Old Mother Hubbard's dog.
