It's time!

[John Smith]

One example, the way in which, through repetition, the right wing has the entire country convinced that the mainstream media is in possession of and controlled by left wing bias, when, in fact, the charge is untrue. And that Fox News

[Sir Stewart]

Who wouldn't if given the chance?

Florence Halop.

[IRememberDBoon]

 

 

and she still looks good!

 

 

[yermom]

All I know is Clinton banged Markie Post in the Lincoln bedroom and that's a fact.

[Sir Stewart]

Yes!

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I'm not sure why the conservative independent who is voting for Obama (!) is being harassed about people who may share similar views to him, but aren't him.

 

Can you name 5 Republicans who are good at hopscotch?

[PigSooie]

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

That makes me want to vote for HRC.

[PigSooie]

That makes me want to vote for HRC.

 

What, dude's neck?

[IRememberDBoon]

I always loved how Hillary was a lesbian that was screwing Vince Foster so Slick had him killed in Fort Marcy Park

[uncle wilco]

Good job on tossing in the leftist whack-job comment. Very constructive

the "whack-job" term is not exclusive to the left. there are rightist whack-jobs too. very influential ones as you've noted.

 

there..you feel better now? some people sure have some thin skin around here.

 

i just don't understand how both parties aren't held in contempt by informed people like you john. two failed "visions" for the future are recycled election after election. now it's the democrats turn to f*ck things up for the next 4 to 8 years.

 

have at it.

[ikol]

ummmm DUH!

 

Are you saying you think the Democrats and Republicans are both on the right sides of every issue?? Name an issue that the Dems are on the wrong side of. I can name 20 right off the bat that I think the Republicans are on the wrong side of.

 

How are you defining right? You do realize that political philosophy comes into play here, right? If I say that Republicans are right in favoring low taxes and small government (at least they claim to), you'll just claim they're wrong. And my point had nothing to do with favoring the right side of the issue, but rather the sort of ad hominem attacks and stereotypes that both sides engage in.

[PopTodd]

Everyone is going to vote in their own best interests (or one would hope that they would).

If that were, in fact, the case, then the result would be a choice that would serve the interests of the greater good.

 

Unfortunately, there are too many people out there who have been fooled into voting for candidates that actually serve against what it is that their constituants need. We all can be (and have been) swayed by the cult of personality, which is why it's so difficult to choose the candidate that would be best for (IMO) the country.

[jff]

Everyone is going to vote in their own best interests (or one would hope that they would).

If that were, in fact, the case, then the result would be a choice that would serve the interests of the greater good.

 

I don't agree that people vote for their own best interests. Are lower taxes really someone's "best" interest? That's what a great number of people have consistently used as the basis for their voting choices.

[John Smith]

the "whack-job" term is not exclusive to the left. there are rightist whack-jobs too. very influential ones as you've noted.

 

there..you feel better now? some people sure have some thin skin around here.

 

i just don't understand how both parties aren't held in contempt by informed people like you john. two failed "visions" for the future are recycled election after election. now it's the democrats turn to f*ck things up for the next 4 to 8 years.

 

have at it.

 

This is very long winded and I could care less if you read one word of it.

 

I'm not thin skinned I could care less how you insult me. I simply noted the derisive comment. I believe elsewhere in this very thread someone was discussing the very issue of name calling for the sake of politics. That is the only reason I brought it up.

 

As to both parties failing I don't see how you can view things that way. I tend to be pretty conservative personally and I used to be republican politically, even fairly recently. (as recently as 2004 I was asked to be a republican committeeman in my town. I refused of course, because at the time I was the campaign manager for a friend running for DA as a democrat...he won) I simply have taken a look at how the republican party responded to having full power and how they governed. I was appalled that they put Bush forward as their candidate. You see I was alive and aware during the 70's & 80's and I remember all the negative stories being written about GW, and could see this disaster coming. Little did we know that thhe Onion got it right when they ran a story of a disastrous presidency back in early 2001. Yet in spite of his record the republican party choose to re-nominate him and things only went down hill from there. Of course he had help with a negligent corrupt congress paving thhe way. But all in all the performance of that party has been horrible.

 

I can not think of a time in the history of our nation that a party has performed worse, maybe the Grant years?. Republican types like to toss out the Carter years as their example (somehow they also try and paint the Clinton years as a disaster for our economy and nation, I can't quite figure that one out though). But I would beg to differ on a couple of issues. Bush and his congress inherited, to use Bush's own words..eight years of peace and prosperity. Carter inherited a nation in flux. The presidency was in relative tatters. The economy was in bad shape, really bad shape. Our industry leaders fell asleep and were in desperate need to re-tool yet they did not do so and the Japanese passed us by in many areas. The first oil embargo occurred three years earlier and changed us forever. Way back then Nixon should have charted a course of kissing Arab leaders arses and marginalizing Israel from our political foreground. Not abandon them, but just not make them the focal point they have been. Anyhow Carter also inherited the changing face of the military. And then Iran. What was he to do? Was he to deny the Shah sanctuary? Do we abandon old allies? Even when we were wrong to be allied with them in the first place? Also out of this came the desert one disaster, which is pinned on Carter too. Forget the military guys who planned it, it was apparently Carter's fault that it happened. Anyhow, I do think Carter performed poorly when it came to handling these challenges. He did fail, no doubt about it. But he failed based on wading into these problems that were already in motion. Just to show I'm not entirely biased I do recognize that when Reagan took office things did not get better because he too inherited a bad situation from his predecessor. People view the Reagan years as being perfect but the economy did not start to rebound until late in his third year. Easily Bush is below Carter because everything he has done and failed at has failed because of his and his boot licking congress own actions.

 

Heck the dirty contentious political climate we live in is a direct result of the republican party's take no prisoners and give the minority party no favors attitude and Bush has pushed that attitude to the limit. What the feck is Liberty university doing stocking our justice department with lawyers for? We used to hire only tier one law school grads, now we get bottom tier programs running our legal system? They are only their for their unqualified political loyalty, which is such a shame because I'll bet they could have found politically loyal people who went to decent law schools. But no they choose to promote the divisive political attitudes and only hire people who were going to toe the ideological line, right or wrong. And look at the mess we now have at justice. Multiply that by all the cabinet posts and it will take years to undo.

 

Assuming democrats are going to be a disaster for 4 or 8 years is your right. Everything could turn to gold and roses and chances are republicans would deny it all the way they deny the 1990's and somehow paint the era as one bleak desolate time, which is entirely their prerogative. The democrats will have a hard time screwing things up because I don't think they can get much worse. The biggest difference I see coming is that the democrats will actually talk things through and allow the minority party in on formulating legislation. I see them actually negotiating with people rather than dictating terms and going to war. I see them thinking. Republicans seem to live by the do something, anything as long as its something, action is more important than thinking out the proper action ethos. Don't blame me if the democrats overwhelmingly take control this year, if they do so it will be because of the actions of the current administration and republican party leadership...

[ShuckOwens]

they deny the 1990's and somehow paint the era as one bleak desolate time,

Militant Islam certainly won't paint the 90's as a bleak and desolate era.

[IRememberDBoon]

i just don't understand how both parties aren't held in contempt by informed people like you john. two failed "visions" for the future are recycled election after election. now it's the democrats turn to f*ck things up for the next 4 to 8 years.

 

Its not hard to understand. We dont believe President Clinton's vision was "failed" or that he f*cked up. We believe in the way he governed and the outcome of his policies and want to return to that America except even better.

 

Nothing in the dem platform is recycled from President Bush I can assure you that. We have our own ideas on how to do things wholly seperate from him and his party. I dont see how informed folks such as yourself cant see that.

[Atticus]

I just had one fantastic cookie

[IRememberDBoon]

Militant Islam certainly won't paint the 90's as a bleak and desolate era.

 

 

and I guess thats President Clinton's fault right??

 

NOT ONE WORD about terrorism was uttered by and Republicna before 9/11 and dont even try and say it was.

[bobbob1313]

I don't agree that people vote for their own best interests. Are lower taxes really someone's "best" interest? That's what a great number of people have consistently used as the basis for their voting choices.

 

I could easily see how lower taxes are in an individual's best interests. In fact, I don't see how you could argue they aren't in the individuals best interest. Taxes are an example of the individual giving up a part of their well being for the greater good.

[explodo]

I could easily see how lower taxes are in an individual's best interests. In fact, I don't see how you could argue they aren't in the individuals best interest. Taxes are an example of the individual giving up a part of their well being for the greater good.

Because lowering taxes in the end might give that person a worse country? You are right, but I often think the greater good and the individual's best interest are closely related unless you have millions and millions of dollars.

[bobbob1313]

Because lowering taxes in the end might give that person a worse country? You are right, but I often think the greater good and the individual's best interest are closely related unless you have millions and millions of dollars.

 

It might give the person a worse country. It all depends on if you believe in trickle down economics, or that lower or no taxes ulitmately lead to a better economy that meets the needs of the consumer.

 

I personally do not, but that doesn't mean I am right. It's certainly possible.

[captain obvious]

NOT ONE WORD about terrorism was uttered by and Republicna before 9/11 and dont even try and say it was.

Many Republicans spoke about many terrorist acts before 9/11/(presumably)2001.

[Atticus]

fucking cookie haters

[caliber66]

Is you avatar a butt plug?