PDA

View Full Version : For the Democrats



SecaucusFats
11-05-2004, 01:43 PM
Democrats can try to convince themselves, and others, that the President's victory was one begotten only through vestige sentiments of 9/11 and through the meddlesome intervention of the “religious right,” but this fails to explain the losses that their party has incurred in every election for over a decade now.

With the exception of the anomalous Clinton Presidency, which never received the percentage of the vote that Bush just did, Democrats have not held the executive office since 1980. Come 2008, you will have been out of the office of the presidency for twenty of the last twenty-eight years.

Things have been equally bleak for Dems in the Congress, as you have lost seats and remained a minority in the House for over a decade now. In the Senate, your numbers continue to diminish, with your very leader being ousted this past week. Yet still, you claim “No Surrender!” The ridiculousness of this statement, cried out by you effeminate peaceniks and perpetual capitulators, is only fully revealed when juxtaposed to the unremitting resolve of our President and Armed Forces.

I understand that you are jealous and feel alienated from a country that shares neither your liberal agenda nor your twisted moral relativism. Allow me to try to explain it to you, firstly, your Party is one surrounded by scandal and controversy, and this is no fluke. The Democratic Party suffers from a lack of moral absolutes and the traditional, AMERICAN values that this country holds dear. You have lost the ear of the everyday people, as you no longer have leaders like FDR, Truman, or Kennedy, but have only a party of radical, secular, and socialist fanatics. These fanatics are typified by negative, lying propagandists like Michael Moore and the criminals like Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Jim Traficant, Al Sharpton, Clinton, McGreevy, etc, etc.

These “leaders” no longer provide leadership in this country, but issue only “a long litany of complaints.” There are no solutions offered to these complaints, which are then spuriously propagated by media hacks. Your party panders to the errant sense of entitlement held by the weakest parts of our society. You are fear mongers, race baiters, and poverty pimps, who offer not true leadership, but only fear and dependency.

The left tries to divide this country and promulgate the perception of “two Americas.” This a approach at governance is derived not from the Constitution, but from the Communist Manifesto, where talk of optimistic opportunity and personal responsibility is replaced with inflammatory comments directed towards inciting warfare between the classes. Again, as you may gather from the last election, it is not working. But don't surrender yet, as there is more… The scandals and controversies of your party disgust the American people, as they reveal the true core of the Democratic leadership. I am not saying it is not inspirational. The only problem is that it inspires the wrong people.

The left has been propping up the enemies of this nation since Vietnam, and has found aid in comfort in your disloyal rants against everything American. Do you ever wonder why Yassar Arafat might have endorsed Kerry? Why Osama Bin Laden so HATES Bush? Do you wonder why eight of the nineteen September 11th hijackers were registered –by A.C.O.R.N. incidentally- democrats?

Tell me, why do the French love you so? Zell Miller knows! It is because the Democratic Party is “A National Party No More,” having come to prefer a more European, secular and socialist society. Now take a breath, I am not saying that the entire Democratic Party is comprised of Islamic terrorists. After all, you are a BIG TENT party, with other pseudo-terrorists groups like E.L.F, and P.E.T.A., N.O.W., and N.A.R.A.L. However, the Big Tent party doesn’t stop there… lets not forget the diverse thought pool of liberal academia and the old media, whose disloyalty is only equaled by their pretension and arrogance –another important tenet of liberalism.

Newsweek just reported Kerry to have said during his campaign, “I can’t believe that I am losing to this idiot.” IF your leaders aren’t [war] criminals or charlatans –and Kerry was both-, they most certainly are elitist snobs who radiate condescension and self-importance to all who have the misfortune of encountering them. Thus, the American people have done their best to limit their encounters with you by canceling their subscriptions to your liberal rags and by changing the channel.

The old media no longer provides your party with the privilege of a rose tinted filter, through which your party is propagandized, and conversely, conservatives are vilified. You whine and exclaim, “Propaganda?!?" Oh now, these things happen… Look at Abu Ghraib”… Doesn’t anybody care?” The answer is a resounding NO!

You must find yourself desperate to understand why the American people didn’t “hold Bush and his cronies accountable” in the last election, if not for the controversies you created, than for their sheer simplicity and inferiority. My answer to you, which you undoubtedly won’t believe or understand, is that the American people sees the contrived attacks made by your leftist papers and networks as just that, contrived attacks. They trust George W. Bush, and believe in the right to protect ourselves without having passed some arbitrary “global test,” and share his belief that marriage is something sacred and worth protecting.

I will let you in on a little secret, in mainstream America, religious faith and conviction isn’t viewed as pedestrian, and protecting ourselves from terrorism isn’t viewed as a “war crime.” You can say it wasn’t a landslide, but Bush won over 40% of the vote in 47 states. Kerry won over 40% of the vote in 13 states. Bush received more votes than any other President has ever received, and won the popular vote by nearly four million votes. This is something that your beloved Clinton never did, and it’s the first mandate since Bush Sr. beat another out of touch liberal from Massachusetts back in 1988.

Your incomprehension of these things is neither unexpected nor unwelcome, as the Republican party will continue to grow as the Democratic Party continues to separate itself from the majority of the American people. This trend will continue until your party finds a soul again, and in consideration of your own vow to offer “No Surrender,” it doesn’t appear that this epiphany will occur any time soon.

SF

Deeman2
11-05-2004, 02:15 PM
Mega Ditto....

Ross
11-05-2004, 03:49 PM
SF, a few points in response:

Point 1: Winning an election does not make you right:

Let's see... Richard Nixon won by 18 million votes with 60% of the US vote in 1972. He carried 49 states. And he was a dishonest crook that hoodwinked the nation. And 45 of GW's electoral votes in come from states that chose George Wallace to be their president in '68. So popularity is not to be confused with being right or moral.

Point 2: Bush's presidential vote was NOT a landslide

As you know, you have to be careful with statistics if you are interested in giving an accurate picture. Only reporting selected ones can distort things considerably. You noted correctly that Bush got the most votes ever, but failed to note: a) US voting population is largest in history, b) '04 had the weakest 3rd party candidate since '88, c) Bush's absolute margins of victory in both 2000 (- 1/2 million) and 2004 (3.5 million) are the SMALLEST since 1976. (For comparision Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton won by 8,17,7,5,and 8 million respectively, even though there were fewer voters then.) d) Bush's % victory was also also smaller than all but 3 elections in the previous 100 years, e) Bush's electoral votes in '00 and '04 were the fewest for a winning candidate since 1916, and finally f) Kerry received 55 million votes, more votes than any other other candidate, winner or loser, in any previous election, so he also had considerable support.

Point 3: Things change.

Nixon was immensely popular in 1972, and immensely unpopular in 1973. Gingrich was immensely popular in 1994, a pariah a couple of years later. And only 8 years ago, these same US voters overwhelmingly elected Clinton to a second term, giving him a 379-159 electoral victory.

Point 4: Many of the Bush voters voted for him because they liked him personally more than they liked Kerry, not because they agreed with Bush's values.

In fact, according to every poll taken in recent years most US citizens DISAGREE with Bush on abortion, on stem-cell research, on the environment, and many other issues. If the Dems put up someone these voters like personally in 2008, these voters will switch to that candidate in a heartbeat.

So obviously you are free to gloat all you want, but don't confuse winning an election with meaning everyone agrees with you. And keep in mind the saying that good coaches live by: "You are never as bad as they say you are when you are losing, and you are never as great as they say you are when you are winning." Interested in betting where Bush's popularity rating will be in say 2006?

highsea
11-05-2004, 04:32 PM
Wow! That was a mouthful SF!
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr> ...lets not forget the diverse thought pool of liberal academia and the old media, whose disloyalty is only equaled by their pretension and arrogance –another important tenet of liberalism.<hr /></blockquote>This made me think of Rachel Corrie. I didn't know Rachel personally, but an ex GF of mine went to school with her, and knew her well.

Rachel went to school at Evergreen State College in Olympia,WA. This school is a liberal as they come. Every year the town is shut down for a few days for their protests as they flock to the streets waving their signs and yelling at everyone who tries to pass.

The students write their own curriculum, eat vegan pizza and generally consider themselves oh so sophisticated and worldly in their baggy pants and backpacks, while they smoke clove cigarrettes and recite bad poetry.

The Professors (and I use that term loosely) surround themselves with adoring and impressionable young kids and preach a radical liberal agenda. Most of these kids lap it up in the desire to impress their professors, who don't have the courage to debate their agenda with adults.

Rachel was one of these kids. Naive and idealistic, when she was approached by a Palestinian Resistance Group and invited to go to Palestine to protest the occupation, she did not hesitate. None of her friends tried to talk her out of it, they were impressed by Rachel's moral conviction. Some of them told her that they wished they could go too.

When Rachel stood in front of an armored Israeli D9 bulldozer, wearing a blaze orange safety vest and holding up a protest sign, no one will know the thoughts that were going through her head. There were no Palestinians standing next to her, and when the bulldozer did not stop, she died alone.

Some people criticized her for her radical beliefs, but I have to wonder, what did her liberal professors do for her? In her 4 years of "higher" education, did they do one single thing to prepare her for the harsh realities of the world?

Yes, it was a temporary PR coup for the Palestinians, a young American girl killed by an Israeli bulldozer, and they got good mileage out of it. But it was permanent for Rachel.

nhp
11-05-2004, 05:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr> Democrats can try to convince themselves, and others, that the President's victory was one begotten only through vestige sentiments of 9/11 and through the meddlesome intervention of the “religious right,” but this fails to explain the losses that their party has incurred in every election for over a decade now.

With the exception of the anomalous Clinton Presidency, which never received the percentage of the vote that Bush just did, Democrats have not held the executive office since 1980. Come 2008, you will have been out of the office of the presidency for twenty of the last twenty-eight years.

Things have been equally bleak for Dems in the Congress, as you have lost seats and remained a minority in the House for over a decade now. In the Senate, your numbers continue to diminish, with your very leader being ousted this past week. Yet still, you claim “No Surrender!” The ridiculousness of this statement, cried out by you effeminate peaceniks and perpetual capitulators, is only fully revealed when juxtaposed to the unremitting resolve of our President and Armed Forces.

I understand that you are jealous and feel alienated from a country that shares neither your liberal agenda nor your twisted moral relativism. Allow me to try to explain it to you, firstly, your Party is one surrounded by scandal and controversy, and this is no fluke. The Democratic Party suffers from a lack of moral absolutes and the traditional, AMERICAN values that this country holds dear. You have lost the ear of the everyday people, as you no longer have leaders like FDR, Truman, or Kennedy, but have only a party of radical, secular, and socialist fanatics. These fanatics are typified by negative, lying propagandists like Michael Moore and the criminals like Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Jim Traficant, Al Sharpton, Clinton, McGreevy, etc, etc.

These “leaders” no longer provide leadership in this country, but issue only “a long litany of complaints.” There are no solutions offered to these complaints, which are then spuriously propagated by media hacks. Your party panders to the errant sense of entitlement held by the weakest parts of our society. You are fear mongers, race baiters, and poverty pimps, who offer not true leadership, but only fear and dependency.

The left tries to divide this country and promulgate the perception of “two Americas.” This a approach at governance is derived not from the Constitution, but from the Communist Manifesto, where talk of optimistic opportunity and personal responsibility is replaced with inflammatory comments directed towards inciting warfare between the classes. Again, as you may gather from the last election, it is not working. But don't surrender yet, as there is more… The scandals and controversies of your party disgust the American people, as they reveal the true core of the Democratic leadership. I am not saying it is not inspirational. The only problem is that it inspires the wrong people.

The left has been propping up the enemies of this nation since Vietnam, and has found aid in comfort in your disloyal rants against everything American. Do you ever wonder why Yassar Arafat might have endorsed Kerry? Why Osama Bin Laden so HATES Bush? Do you wonder why eight of the nineteen September 11th hijackers were registered –by A.C.O.R.N. incidentally- democrats?

Tell me, why do the French love you so? Zell Miller knows! It is because the Democratic Party is “A National Party No More,” having come to prefer a more European, secular and socialist society. Now take a breath, I am not saying that the entire Democratic Party is comprised of Islamic terrorists. After all, you are a BIG TENT party, with other pseudo-terrorists groups like E.L.F, and P.E.T.A., N.O.W., and N.A.R.A.L. However, the Big Tent party doesn’t stop there… lets not forget the diverse thought pool of liberal academia and the old media, whose disloyalty is only equaled by their pretension and arrogance –another important tenet of liberalism.

Newsweek just reported Kerry to have said during his campaign, “I can’t believe that I am losing to this idiot.” IF your leaders aren’t [war] criminals or charlatans –and Kerry was both-, they most certainly are elitist snobs who radiate condescension and self-importance to all who have the misfortune of encountering them. Thus, the American people have done their best to limit their encounters with you by canceling their subscriptions to your liberal rags and by changing the channel.

The old media no longer provides your party with the privilege of a rose tinted filter, through which your party is propagandized, and conversely, conservatives are vilified. You whine and exclaim, “Propaganda?!?" Oh now, these things happen… Look at Abu Ghraib”… Doesn’t anybody care?” The answer is a resounding NO!

You must find yourself desperate to understand why the American people didn’t “hold Bush and his cronies accountable” in the last election, if not for the controversies you created, than for their sheer simplicity and inferiority. My answer to you, which you undoubtedly won’t believe or understand, is that the American people sees the contrived attacks made by your leftist papers and networks as just that, contrived attacks. They trust George W. Bush, and believe in the right to protect ourselves without having passed some arbitrary “global test,” and share his belief that marriage is something sacred and worth protecting.

I will let you in on a little secret, in mainstream America, religious faith and conviction isn’t viewed as pedestrian, and protecting ourselves from terrorism isn’t viewed as a “war crime.” You can say it wasn’t a landslide, but Bush won over 40% of the vote in 47 states. Kerry won over 40% of the vote in 13 states. Bush received more votes than any other President has ever received, and won the popular vote by nearly four million votes. This is something that your beloved Clinton never did, and it’s the first mandate since Bush Sr. beat another out of touch liberal from Massachusetts back in 1988.

Your incomprehension of these things is neither unexpected nor unwelcome, as the Republican party will continue to grow as the Democratic Party continues to separate itself from the majority of the American people. This trend will continue until your party finds a soul again, and in consideration of your own vow to offer “No Surrender,” it doesn’t appear that this epiphany will occur any time soon.

SF
<hr /></blockquote>

ROFL I don't mind if Republicans gloat about Bush getting re-elected, but I must admit, this was one of the most retarded things I've ever heard from a Republican. You're acting like Bush scored some huge victory, when in reality the country is completely divided, you nincompoop. I also love how you accuse democrats of doing the same exact things that republicans do, and that accounts for about 90% of your post. You sound like a child who just learned some big words. Congratulations.

highsea
11-05-2004, 05:56 PM
Jesus, does every discussion on this board have to devolve to name calling? Just once I'd like to see a thread where everyone treated everyone else with some respect.

nhp
11-05-2004, 06:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Jesus, does every discussion on this board have to devolve to name calling? Just once I'd like to see a thread where everyone treated everyone else with some respect. <hr /></blockquote>

(from the first post in this thread)
[ QUOTE ]
you are jealous and feel alienated from a country that shares neither your liberal agenda nor your twisted moral relativism..... <hr /></blockquote> [ QUOTE ]
You are fear mongers, race baiters, and poverty pimps <hr /></blockquote>

That and alot more just like that warrants name calling. The purpose of this thread is to insult, so I am going to respond with an insult.

highsea
11-05-2004, 06:17 PM
SF did not single out any CCB'ers in his post. He stated his opinion of Liberals in general terms. I read it, and yes, it was not very flattering.

But you responded with a direct attack on him personally, rather than a response to his opinion. This takes the argument from the general to the personal, and is a good way to start a flame war. I don't think we really need that, since this forum is emotional enough as it is.

It's the same reason I criticize Qtec for his attacks on Bush, rather than on US policies. It leads the debate down a slippery slope where personal animosities eventually overshadow the argument.

Please don't get me wrong. I understand where you are coming from. I may or may not agree with SF, but I think he has the right to state his opinion, and you have the right to challenge it if he posts it here. If he were to start calling other posters names, I would criticize him for it also. We have altogether too much of that around here, imo.

nhp
11-05-2004, 06:28 PM
I myself identify with the Democratic party, although I am not an extreme left winger, and I hardly consider myself thoroughly liberal, I am still a democrat, and when someone insults democrats, I take offense to it. I take it personally. Since there are only about five democrats on this board, the poster is obviously talking to all five of us, and he insulted all five of us. If his intention was just to post his opinion, and NOT insult us, I highly doubt he would have written that on a board where there is only a few of us to read the insults.

The truth is, emotions are high right now for democrats. Not this democrat, I could care less about Bush or Kerry being president (because I think they both stink), but I recognize an intent to anger and insult when I see it, and that is clearly what I see here, especially since us democrats just lost the election. It is a gloating (which I don't mind), insulting (which I do mind), fictitious (which is debatable) piece of work that was posted on a message board to anger the already emotional and very few democrats here. So yes, I believe my calling him something as horrific and evil as a 'nincompoop' is just.

highsea
11-05-2004, 06:50 PM
Well, according to my CCB poll, there are 93 Kerry supporters to 29 Bush supporters here. So I don't think you are as outnumbered as you say.

I read SF's post as a pointed (and somewhat vitriolic) criticism of democratic policies and tactics. I did not see it as targeting any members here who preferred Kerry over Bush.

I understand that emotions may be high for democrats, but by your logic I would be justified in making personal attacks on every poster who said something critical of republicans.

I think it's more productive to engage the points in the post you disagree with. It may take a bit more time, but it makes for a more robust discussion. You're a pretty smart guy nhp, and I'm sure if you wanted to, you could argue the points you disagree with logic rather than emotion.

Qtec
11-05-2004, 09:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This school is a liberal as they come. Every year the town is shut down for a few days for their protests as they flock to the streets waving their signs and yelling at everyone who tries to pass.

The students write their own curriculum, eat vegan pizza and generally consider themselves oh so sophisticated and worldly in their baggy pants and backpacks, while they smoke clove cigarrettes and recite bad poetry.

The Professors (and I use that term loosely) surround themselves with adoring and impressionable young kids and preach a radical liberal agenda. Most of these kids lap it up in the desire to impress their professors, who don't have the courage to debate their agenda with adults.

Rachel was one of these kids. <hr /></blockquote>

OMG, [ QUOTE ]
vegan pizza <hr /></blockquote> LOL


Rachel was a very brave young lady who saw injustice and decided to do something about it. You make it sound as if she was brain-washed!
The Israelis knock down houses for two reasons: to appropriate land or as a method of collective punishment. Both ILLEGAL acts.
Not all Palestinians are terrorists but they are treated that way by the Israelis.


http://electronicintifada.net/artman/uploads/largerachfront.jpg


Q
fact: In the Gaza strip,2/3 of the land is occupied by 1.5 million Palestinians. The other third is occupied by 8,000 settlers!

highsea
11-05-2004, 09:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Rachel was a very brave young lady...<hr /></blockquote>Yes, Rachel was a very brave young lady. Also very naive, and now very dead. Tell me, why did her palestinian "friends" allow her to stand in front of that bulldozer? They knew very well it wasn't going to stop. She was used as a political pawn.

I will tell you something Q, I know these kids. I lived with one of them for over a year. I've lived in the South Sound for 15 years. I've gone to school with them, partied and played pool with them. My best friend's daughter just graduated from that school. My aunt cooks their lunches in the cafeteria. (all organic, and yes, they do eat vegan pizza) I've argued and laughed with them. Some of them are very close friends. I know them. Sadly, brainwashed is not all that far from the truth for some of them.

The Israeli act was illegal. Rachel's professor was not driving that bulldozer, and he is not directly responsible for her death. But Rachel had just graduated from a school that fostered the mindset in her that put her in front of that bulldozer. The people that should have been looking out for her failed her, and she lost her life trying to help someone who did not deserve her sacrifice.

Qtec
11-05-2004, 10:11 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif LOL

[ QUOTE ]
The left has been propping up the enemies of this nation since Vietnam, and has found aid in comfort in your disloyal rants against everything American. Do you ever wonder why Yassar Arafat might have endorsed Kerry? Why Osama Bin Laden so HATES Bush? <font color="blue"> You must have missed the video. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Osama said it makes no difference to him who the President is, its US foreign policy that he is against. </font color> Do you wonder why eight of the nineteen September 11th hijackers were registered –by A.C.O.R.N. incidentally- democrats? <font color="blue"> HaHaHaHa. LOL </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
The Democratic Party suffers from a lack of moral absolutes and the traditional, AMERICAN values that this country holds dear <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
The old media no longer provides your party with the privilege of a rose tinted filter, through which your party is propagandized, and conversely, conservatives are vilified. You whine and exclaim, “Propaganda?!?" Oh now, these things happen… Look at Abu Ghraib”… Doesn’t anybody care?” The answer is a resounding NO!
<hr /></blockquote>

I guess you dont see the hypocracy shown by these two statements.
Tell me, were you also for torture before 9/11? Do human rights only apply to US citizens?

Its in times like these that our morals and standards are put to the test. I understand your anger and the desire for revenge after 911, but if we abandon the Law, its all over. If we cant claim the moral high-ground the terrorists have won.


Q

Qtec
11-05-2004, 10:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
and she lost her life trying to help someone who did not deserve her sacrifice.
<hr /></blockquote>

Thats a matter of opinion.

Q

highsea
11-06-2004, 03:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Its in times like these that our morals and standards are put to the test. I understand your anger and the desire for revenge after 911, but if we abandon the Law, its all over. If we cant claim the moral high-ground the terrorists have won.

Q <hr /></blockquote>Tap, Tap.

Well said, Q. There's something we can agree on.

Gayle in MD
11-06-2004, 06:17 AM
Thank you friend,
A good post. Took the words right off my keys, lol, so to speak.

Interesting how the original poster lists N.O.W. among his so-called enemies of our country, lol. That falls right in line with religeous teachings, since we women are often portrayed in the bible as lower class, sin producing, chattle.

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

nhp
11-06-2004, 07:52 AM
May Rachel rest in peace, but I think what she did was really stupid. For her to protest with a side that supports suicide bombings that kill innocent men, women, and children, that is just dumb.

nhp
11-06-2004, 07:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Well, according to my CCB poll, there are 93 Kerry supporters to 29 Bush supporters here. So I don't think you are as outnumbered as you say.

I read SF's post as a pointed (and somewhat vitriolic) criticism of democratic policies and tactics. I did not see it as targeting any members here who preferred Kerry over Bush.

I understand that emotions may be high for democrats, but by your logic I would be justified in making personal attacks on every poster who said something critical of republicans.

I think it's more productive to engage the points in the post you disagree with. It may take a bit more time, but it makes for a more robust discussion. You're a pretty smart guy nhp, and I'm sure if you wanted to, you could argue the points you disagree with logic rather than emotion. <hr /></blockquote>

Highsea I appreciate the comment, and it seems you are right. I wasn't really that angry, I was just annoyed because I took it as an insult, which I still believe it was. I shouldn't just feed the fire, however. Thanks

Deeman2
11-06-2004, 08:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Thank you friend,
A good post. Took the words right off my keys, lol, so to speak.

Interesting how the original poster lists N.O.W. among his so-called enemies of our country, lol. That falls right in line with religeous teachings, since we women are often portrayed in the bible as lower class, sin producing, chattle.

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle,

Women are too often portrayed in a negative light in the Bible. I really don't think most modern Christians agree with those characterizations but understand that was central to humanity at that time in the world's culture. What most of us have done is say, and demonstrate, that women are every bit as valued as men. Slowly, the culture is catching up. If you look at the Muslim present day religeous as well as political view of women, they are still stuck in the 9th century. Many of us hope that the brave women and men fighting in Iraq, liberate the women there so they can start on the long raod to equality as well.

However, your point is well taken. While many actions of NOW have certainly made them the subject of ridicule (standing up for women who are abused, but staying silent when the same is done by Clinton, for instance) they have contributed much to the progress of our society.

We all have to pull together now, both Bush and Kerry supporters. We need to stop the harsh critique of the winners and losers as Kerry said so well and discuss the important issues with whatever middle ground we can muster.

I hope Bush can work with both sides of the isle and bring the Iraq situation under control, that we can spend more on the critical issues that face us. However, if we just keep yelling at each other, the ridgid lines will just make a more right wing stand more certain and even I don't want that.

I promised to support Kerry with all my heart if he won. Please give GWB that consideration. He is the only president we will have for four years and we need to Pray (I know, you don't pray) or reflect in your own way, how to help him succeed for all of us. Bush has won, he has no aspirations of being reelected so maybe we can work together for at least the next couple of years to make the best we can for all of us.

My prayers may be foolish to you. However, they are sincere and I don't hurt you by doing this. I also don't pray for harm to come to you or anyone else, just for strength and hoping to become a better person. If it's wasted time, it is my wasted time. I'll probably find out in a few years.

By the way, I would never refer to you as "Chattle" in my prayers or my posts... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Nothing but love for you Gayle....

Deeman
ran a 5 pack last night! How come a 6 pack sounds so much better?

Chopstick
11-06-2004, 09:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr>

Deeman
ran a 5 pack last night! How come a 6 pack sounds so much better?

<hr /></blockquote>

Wow! Nice going man. I'd better get to work on my stroke.

Ross
11-06-2004, 10:02 AM
Deeman, from what I've read, Bush has already made it abundantly clear he isn't into bipartisanship or "working together" with the Democrats over the next 4 years. His attitude seems to be similar to SF's - "we won, you lost, so to hell with you." He has said he now has "political capital" and he is going to "spend it." He said he is willing to work with those who "share his values." More code for - if you disagree, go f yourself. He has shown no propensity to learn anything by listening to dissenting views in his previous 4 years, whether they be intelligence officials, his own generals, other allied leaders, or even scientists. Why would he now?

Gayle in MD
11-06-2004, 10:16 AM
You are so right, he is cockier than ever. He will be known as the Great Divider!

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Deeman2
11-06-2004, 11:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Deeman, from what I've read, Bush has already made it abundantly clear he isn't into bipartisanship or "working together" with the Democrats over the next 4 years. His attitude seems to be similar to SF's - "we won, you lost, so to hell with you." He has said he now has "political capital" and he is going to "spend it." He said he is willing to work with those who "share his values." More code for - if you disagree, go f yourself. He has shown no propensity to learn anything by listening to dissenting views in his previous 4 years, whether they be intelligence officials, his own generals, other allied leaders, or even scientists. Why would he now? <hr /></blockquote>

Ross, I hope you are wrong. I guess we will have to wait and see. If he does not take getting us all back together as a prime initative, he will not be the man I believed when I voted for him. I just think we need to give all sides a chance and see if differences can be worked out. I hope you agree with me that if we don't, we all lose and there is nothing to be gained by continuing to question the ligitimacy of his win. Both sides used the same scare tactics, democrats with the race and social security scares and republicans with the terrorist scares.

If the democrats don't want a repeat of the outcome in four years, they need to figure out why they lost and address that. Not just flame on Bush for four years and expect that to win voters. You have viable candidates out there. While Hillary is the predicted 2008 candidate, if you really look at reality, she can't be elected any more than a Strom Thurmond could have been elected from our side.

My wish is that Bush meet with all top party leaders from both sides, assure them of a voice in government and go from there. But as you said, he could have used better word, so far, to that end. However, Nancy P. has already started the bombs from her side as well.

Maybe, on day, we can hand over the government to adults but, for now, we're stuck with "get elected at any cost" on both sides. I just happen to fall on the side of Bush as it more closely matches my ideas, but not completely. I guess any of us could make up a good platform and strategy as long as we didn't have to worry about getting elected.

Number one rule of politicians: GET ELECTED BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE. Number two: GET REELECTED BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE.

Sadly, show me a politician who does not go by those rules and I'll show you a man no longer in public service.....

Deeman

Deeman2
11-06-2004, 11:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr>

Deeman
ran a 5 pack last night! How come a 6 pack sounds so much better?

<hr /></blockquote>

Wow! Nice going man. I'd better get to work on my stroke. <hr /></blockquote>

Hate to make this pool related but....Sadly, it was on a bar box. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif Nine ball on a bar box is pretty lame but I follow the wife and she loves small tables!!! Seriously, since Scott Lee spent a day with me two months ago, I've won 8 of 11 tournaments I've entered. Some were on bar boxes but I think Scott really helped get my consistency back. I'll find out for sure when I play Grady's one pocket event in December. Oh! and I guess you guys can knock me down at PettyPoint in three weeks...

Deeman

Gayle in MD
11-06-2004, 11:34 AM
Dear Deeman, atlast, a post from you which is nondemeaning and noninsulting enough for me to respond to you. In this post you sound like a different person, although you still assume things about me which are not true, as I also pray.

Needless to say, I have been very angry about the campaign this year. If I offended anyone on the forum with my "Rantings" about Bush, I do apologize, but I never resort to name calling against other members of the forum that I can recall.

As you can probably tell, I am very opinionated, and very strong in my convictions. Be that as it may be, my impatience with organized religeon as an affront to peace has been well documented in the history of the world. I just can't understand why people can't leave one another alone.

I don't consider myself a religeous person. I do have my own personal spiritual values, but they are mine, and I don't try to impose them on others. To me, the endeavor to reach inside ones self for compassion, understanding and patience for others is all that God ever has to be. Ones conscience is rewarded enough by loving others, and lending a helping hand to the poor and the weak, in my world, and heaven is right here on earth, I needn't be rewarded any further in some afterlife.

Bricks and stone, collections and ritual, statues and steeples, chanting and organizing, none of these things seem necessary in order to love your God, whomever He may be. But for those who find solace in such practices, and a need for affirmation, they are there for the taking. My problem is that organized religeon often leads to the need to convert others to it way, and this is often the road to war.

I suppose as long as the nature of man is such that absolute power corrupts absolutly, the world will never evolve to the peaceful and loving place of which I dream, and would like my little grand daughter to inherit.

So much of what has become issue in our political life seems to come from the teachings of the bible, and those who think that they have the ultimate answers for us all.
This is the attitude which drove me away from the Catholic church when I was an adolecent.

When one aspires to live and let live, it is hard to understand so many things which are problems in the world, and issues in our country. For example, this issue of Gay people who wish to be married. I just can't see why anyone cares if they marry or not. Whom will they hurt by professing their love for and committment to one another? Isn't life difficult enough for such people without our making an issue of their wishes, condemning their lifestyle?

When so much of the strife that I see in the world has root in organized religeon, and I observe this phenomena infiltrating our politiical system here in America, and then being used as a bargaining tool for political power, I am truly devastated by it, and fearful of how we will be effective in dealing with other nations whose own religeous disagreements have lead to civil war amongst them.

This is why I originally wondered what my fellow CCBers thought about this question of separation of Church and State.

I do wish you all the best, and I hope that we can all see some resolution to the strife in the middle east. As for George Bush, while I don't intend to lead a revolution, lol, I do not respect him or his tactics, and will always believe that Karl Rove and the Bush administration have set us back as a nation in their quest to win an election by demonstrating intolerance toward Gay people, and making family values and religeous doctrines the main theme of an American election, and especially at a time when we are at war. I think it was a diversionary tactic to avoid responsibility and attention to the important issues of war, the deficit, the environment and the energy crises. Nothing and no one will change my mind about that. This is the time when we should display to the rest of the world the importance of religeous tolerence, and the separation church and state and the importance of what must be done for world peace, rather than what must be done for religeous power.

Anyway, have a nice day, I am quite sure if we really knew one another, we would enjoy debating these issues in a more civil way. Unfortunately, people often are misunderstood when communicating without the advantage of looking into one another's eyes, and hearing one another's voice.

I would like to see the day when people could state their positions here without sarcasiam toward one another, and without character assinations.

Good luck to you and yours,
Love,
Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SnakebyteXX
11-06-2004, 05:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Democrats can try to convince themselves, and others, that the President's victory was one begotten only through vestige sentiments of 9/11 and through the meddlesome intervention of the “religious right,” but this fails to explain the losses that their party has incurred in every election for over a decade now.
<hr /></blockquote>

Are you saying that the reason(s) for this election's loss are the same reason(s) for EVERY Democratic loss in EVERY election 'for over a decade now'? Strange, seems like if that were the case someone in the Democratic Party might have figured it out by now.

[ QUOTE ]
With the exception of the anomalous Clinton Presidency, which never received the percentage of the vote that Bush just did... <hr /></blockquote>

For the record:

"Bush won with the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president in U.S. history in terms of the percentage of the popular vote. (Bush received 3.0% more than Kerry; the closest previous margin won by a sitting President was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916.) In terms of absolute number of popular votes, his victory margin was the smallest of any sitting President since Harry S. Truman in 1948.

Aside from the 2000 election (which Bush won by just 5 votes in the Electoral College), it was the smallest margin of victory won in the Electoral College since 1916, when Woodrow Wilson beat Charles Evans Hughes by 23 votes, 277 to 254."
U.S. presidential election, 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004)

Looks like Bush won the Popular Vote by about 3.5 million. By comparison Clinton (the 'anomalous president'?) won the 1992 Popular Vote by 5.8 million and the 1996 Popular Vote by 8.2 million.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that you are jealous and feel alienated from a country that shares neither your liberal agenda nor your twisted moral relativism. <hr /></blockquote>

This is a tough one. Given that all Democrats are not 'liberals' with 'twisted moral relativism' and that the Democratic candidate got 48% of the Popular Vote to the Republican candidates 51%. Kind of hard to feel lonely and alienated when nearly half of voting Americans chose the Democratic nominee.

[ QUOTE ]
You are fear mongers, race baiters, and poverty pimps, who offer not true leadership, but only fear and dependency.
<hr /></blockquote>
Why hold back? Tell us how you really feel. LOL.

[ QUOTE ]
These fanatics are typified by negative, lying propagandists like Michael Moore and the criminals like Clinton Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Jim Traficant, Al Sharpton, Clinton, McGreevy, etc, etc.
<hr /></blockquote>

You have included the 'anomolus president' in here twice. Just guessing, but I'm thinking that you didn't like him very much?

[ QUOTE ]
The left tries to divide this country and promulgate the perception of “two Americas.” <hr /></blockquote>

Now Democrats aren't just 'liberal' they're 'The left'. I also see that you managed to work the Communist Manifesto into your diatribe as some kind of core treatise integral to the machinations of the Democratic Party. Interesting, if I didn't know better I might jump to the conclusion that it's YOU who are trying to '...divide this country and promulgate the perception of “two Americas."

[ QUOTE ]
The left has been propping up the enemies of this nation since Vietnam, and has found aid in comfort in your disloyal rants against everything American. <hr /></blockquote>

Wait, wait, now I think I'm getting it - according to you there's ONLY ONE AMERICA and it's REPUBLICAN! That's going to come as a real shock to the 55,949,407 citizens who voted for Kerry. They're NOT Americans, eh? How does that work?

[ QUOTE ]
You must find yourself desperate to understand why the American people didn’t “hold Bush and his cronies accountable” in the last election, <hr /></blockquote>

48% of them did and 51% of them didn't. Desperate to understand? Not exactly.


[ QUOTE ]
I will let you in on a little secret, in mainstream America, religious faith and conviction isn’t viewed as pedestrian, and protecting ourselves from terrorism isn’t viewed as a “war crime.” You can say it wasn’t a landslide, <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry bud, you can try and wrap yourself in the American Flag and pretend to your hearts content that it's yours and your's alone. But in the end you're absolutely right -

It wasn't a landslide.

Snake &lt;--- who thinks that no matter WHO we voted for - we're ALL Americans.

SnakebyteXX
11-06-2004, 07:21 PM
Highsea -

Your post about an idealistic Rachel Corrie dying in a far off land rung a familiar note with me.

[ QUOTE ]
Rachel was one of these kids. Naive and idealistic, when she was approached by a Palestinian Resistance Group and invited to go to Palestine to protest the occupation, she did not hesitate. None of her friends tried to talk her out of it, they were impressed by Rachel's moral conviction. Some of them told her that they wished they could go too.

When Rachel stood in front of an armored Israeli D9 bulldozer, wearing a blaze orange safety vest and holding up a protest sign, no one will know the thoughts that were going through her head. There were no Palestinians standing next to her, and when the bulldozer did not stop, she died alone.
<hr /></blockquote>

I grew up in a small conservative farming community. In 1966 a month before I graduated from high school and at the height of the Viet Nam War, Marine recruiters came to our campus looking for volunteers. They were very impressive in their dress blues and wearing their battle ribbons and medals.

Many of the naďve, idealistic, Senior boys signed up immediately - none of their friends tried to talk them out of it - some of the younger ones said that they wished that they could go too.

They all ended up on active duty in Viet Nam. Over the next three years eight of them came home in boxes -

We have a memorial dedicated to those boys (men) and that lost war in the center of our town square.

You are absolutely correct - naive, idealistic American kids can be swayed into doing things that they might later regret - if they live long enough - unfortunately, some don't get that privilege.

When kids die no matter what the reason it's the ones who survive who suffer the pain of their loss. I find little redeeming value in differentiating if they died fighting for a lost cause or a senseless protest.

Undoubtedly, Rachel's parents will miss her for the rest of their lives - just as the parents of my classmates who died in Viet Nam still grieve for them after all these years.

The war is long over and most people don't even think about it anymore. I for one know that just like poor Rachel, the boys from my town who died never had the chance to grow up.

Lesson learned?

When you're young and impressionable, idealism and naiveté, no matter what the political flavor, can get you killed.

That's the sad truth of it.

Snake

SecaucusFats
11-07-2004, 01:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif LOL

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The left has been propping up the enemies of this nation since Vietnam, and has found aid in comfort in your disloyal rants against everything American. Do you ever wonder why Yassar Arafat might have endorsed Kerry? Why Osama Bin Laden so HATES Bush? <font color="blue"> You must have missed the video. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Osama said it makes no difference to him who the President is, its US foreign policy that he is against. </font color> Do you wonder why eight of the nineteen September 11th hijackers were registered –by A.C.O.R.N. incidentally- democrats? <font color="blue"> HaHaHaHa. LOL </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The Democratic Party suffers from a lack of moral absolutes and the traditional, AMERICAN values that this country holds dear <hr /></blockquote>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The old media no longer provides your party with the privilege of a rose tinted filter, through which your party is propagandized, and conversely, conservatives are vilified. You whine and exclaim, “Propaganda?!?" Oh now, these things happen… Look at Abu Ghraib”… Doesn’t anybody care?” The answer is a resounding NO!
<hr /></blockquote>

I guess you dont see the hypocracy shown by these two statements.
Tell me, were you also for torture before 9/11? Do human rights only apply to US citizens?

Its in times like these that our morals and standards are put to the test. I understand your anger and the desire for revenge after 911, but if we abandon the Law, its all over. If we cant claim the moral high-ground the terrorists have won.


Q <hr /></blockquote>

I could care less what you, or any other of your Euro-weenie comrades thinks about the policies of our government.

Why don't you worry about your own Dutch problems such as the recent terrorist murder of Van Gogh? Perhaps you can go and have some dialogue with the Islamic terrorist underground in your own country. Then again, just make sure you don't lose your head over the matter, although I suppose it's hard to lose your head, or to breathe the fresh air of reason, when you are always walking around with your leftist head up your you know what.

Look at the Spaniards, they thought they could escape further terrorism by capitulating to Al Qaeda after the Madrid train bombings and electing a Socialist government. After all, that is what the terrorists "promised" them. Now we have word of a plot to blow up a large chunk of the Spanish judiciary.

As to torture, let me assure you that if the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocents lay in the balance I would have no qualms about torturing the living hell out of some terrorist in order to extract information needed to prevent such an attack. I repeat NO QUALMS, NONE WHATSOEVER.

Again, your opinions mean squat to me, in fact you could take all my concern about Euro sentiments and shove them up a gnat's rear and it would not even make its belly swell.

BTW stop smoking that high powered hash in the cafes and you may just come back down to reality you whacky Gouda cheese eating surrender monkey.

Are you "feeling me" now? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

SF

Ross
11-07-2004, 04:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr> As to torture, let me assure you that if the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocents lay in the balance I would have no qualms about torturing the living hell out of some terrorist in order to extract information needed to prevent such an attack. I repeat NO QUALMS, NONE WHATSOEVER.
SF <hr /></blockquote>

SF, this statement has so many incorrect assumptions it is hard to know where to start. I will point out a few things though:

First, and I know you won't agree with this, torture is morally wrong. The fact that the enemy does it, does not make it morally right.

Second, torture, at least based on the info I have seen, has been found throughout military history to be a very poor tool for extracting useful information from enemy combatants.

Third, the US is legally bound by the Geneva convention which we have signed and ballyhooed in large part to help protect our own young soldiers.

Fourth, the prisoners at Abu Graib were not, at least from the info I've seen, high level terrorists that had information about attacks that would take "hundreds of thousands of innocents." Some were common thugs. Some were cab drivers "suspected" of having information, but we weren't sure which side they were on. Some were likely innocent but just caught up in the dragnet in the confusion. None were the "generals" pulling the strings as far as I can tell. There was one former Iraqi commander, but our soldiers accidentally smothered him to death, so I doubt that was in service of gathering intelligence. The Abu Graib "operation" was equivalent to capturing US soldiers and civilians and torturing them to get info thinking this would somehow help them stop the US military.

Fifth, several of the war crimes, including the murder of a few innocent Iraqis that we are supposed to be liberating, were were actually done for sadistic entertainment, not to extract information. If one is a racist that sees all Arabs as terrorists, I guess that would be OK. But for non-racists, each individual is responsible for his own actions and therefore only the guilty should be punished. And enjoying it and laughing about it just shows how dehumanized a person has become - not how realistic or tough-minded he is.


And before you misinterpret this as you seem wont to do, I'm not saying the US is a horrible country or that our soldiers are horrible. Nor am I excusing terrorists for what they do - I think what they do IS horrible. And in every war atrocities are committed by both sides. That is partly due to the dehumanizing that goes on when troops are prepared for battle. Some of it is due to sadistic people suddenly getting power in a situation that they think they can satisfy their sick needs without getting caught. But what civilized countries do is train their soldiers the best they can and then hold soldiers accountable when they drift over to the dark side. And that is why the excesses of Abu Graib should be pointed out and the responsible soldiers or commanders should be punished. To believe that is as American as it gets - after all we are a society that believes in the rule of law, not a country of emotionally driven revenge and vigilantism.

Qtec
11-07-2004, 12:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
As to torture, let me assure you that if the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocents lay in the balance I would have no qualms about torturing the living hell out of some terrorist in order to extract information needed to prevent such an attack. I repeat NO QUALMS, NONE WHATSOEVER.
<hr /></blockquote>

90% of the prisoners in Abu G were innocent and thats according to the US!


You sound like a flip-flopper to me. The first sigh of trouble and you are willing to give up all your values in your thirst for revenge.
You cant even argue your point without being insulting. You cant even argue your point! Period.

If you are not interested in what anyone else has to say about your post, that means you are here to lecture us all.
I see this board as a place where different points of view can be presented and be discussed. An opportunity for us all to try and understand how the other guy thinks. To try and look through the eyes of another.
You on the other hand ....................


Grow up.

Q

SecaucusFats
11-07-2004, 03:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
As to torture, let me assure you that if the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocents lay in the balance I would have no qualms about torturing the living hell out of some terrorist in order to extract information needed to prevent such an attack. I repeat NO QUALMS, NONE WHATSOEVER.
<hr /></blockquote>

90% of the prisoners in Abu G were innocent and thats according to the US!


You sound like a flip-flopper to me. The first sigh of trouble and you are willing to give up all your values in your thirst for revenge.
You cant even argue your point without being insulting. You cant even argue your point! Period.

If you are not interested in what anyone else has to say about your post, that means you are here to lecture us all.
I see this board as a place where different points of view can be presented and be discussed. An opportunity for us all to try and understand how the other guy thinks. To try and look through the eyes of another.
You on the other hand ....................


Grow up.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Au contraire, I am interested in what other AMERICANS have to say, but I am not in the least bit interested in sanctimonious drivel from foreigners.

BTW, let me clarify somthing for you. IMO, a ‘ticking bomb’ situation would justify some form of torture to extract information. Suppose you know that there is a bomb about to go off which could claim thousands of lives and you have good reason to believe the prisoner knows where it is. Would it be justified to use torture? The correct answer, albeit a reluctant one, must be ‘yes.’

BTW,I could care less what the Dutch government chooses to do or not do, nor would I be so arrogant as to lecture Dutch citizens on their politics. IMO, you should likewise stay out of our affairs.

Now go plant some tulips, drink some of that bitter beer, smoke some herb, or do whatever else floats your boat.

SF