Democrats Suck

[HappyCamper]

True - maybe I am just amazed that when the Swift Boat ads and other attacks came out - he sort of stalled. Even true believers likely began to wonder if the ads were truth when there was nothing but silence in response.

 

Well, silence broken only by the sounds of

 

Edited November 4, 2004 by HappyCamper

[JayB]

who cares if such a franken-candidate could have won if for all intent and purpose it is to apply conservative policy. the goal is not to create unanimity but reasonable policy. it'd certainly would have been good for 3rd party alternatives.

 

so minx, assume for a moment that both candidates fit your morals equally but otherwise are similar to bush and kerry as far as policy is concerned. who would you have picked?

 

chuck: for once we disagree on everything you just said.

 

Well - seeing as how anything that you view as reasonable will be rejected by 95% of the electorate for all of eternity, one would think that you'd try to find a guy that embraces at least a part of your agenda and pitches it to voters in a manner that doesn't consign the ideas to a Larouchesque slagheap of political non-starters. Do keep it up though comrade.

[scott_harpell]

classic!

[j_b]

who cares if such a franken-candidate could have won if for all intent and purpose it is to apply conservative policy. the goal is not to create unanimity but reasonable policy. it'd certainly would have been good for 3rd party alternatives.

 

so minx, assume for a moment that both candidates fit your morals equally but otherwise are similar to bush and kerry as far as policy is concerned. who would you have picked?

 

chuck: for once we disagree on everything you just said.

 

Well - seeing as how anything that you view as reasonable will be rejected by 95% of the electorate for all of eternity, one would think that you'd try to find a guy that embraces at least a part of your agenda and pitches it to voters in a manner that doesn't consign the ideas to a Larouchesque slagheap of political non-starters. Do keep it up though comrade.

 

considering that i'd have been mostly happy with kerry just shows that your attempts at marginalizing anybody who doesn't give into your "dems have to go conservative to be elected" for what it truly is: hogwash!

 

i note that you are the second one of our very conservative posters who attempts to pin the larouche tag on me. are you people concerting with one another to label vocal opponents or do you share the same trait commonly known as stupidity? for you ought to be able to assess readily from my discourse that i consider larouche a fascist nutcase.

 

as far as you are concerned however, i can tell you are a manipulative scumbag. have a good day asshole.

[slothrop]

It's too bad that neither j_b or JayB is willing to end this bitter War of the Homonyms by getting a new avatar. It's a hogwash arms race!

[j_b]

i certainly do not go out my way to discredit jay_b by underhanded tactics, but if he is going to resort to throwing epithets around because he cannot argue his point cogently, he'll definitely find his match.

[klenke]

No, but you do discredit him by undercased tactics. It's Jay_B, not jay_b.

[slothrop]

klenke, you're taking this debate to a new low.

[JayB]

who cares if such a franken-candidate could have won if for all intent and purpose it is to apply conservative policy. the goal is not to create unanimity but reasonable policy. it'd certainly would have been good for 3rd party alternatives.

 

so minx, assume for a moment that both candidates fit your morals equally but otherwise are similar to bush and kerry as far as policy is concerned. who would you have picked?

 

chuck: for once we disagree on everything you just said.

 

Well - seeing as how anything that you view as reasonable will be rejected by 95% of the electorate for all of eternity, one would think that you'd try to find a guy that embraces at least a part of your agenda and pitches it to voters in a manner that doesn't consign the ideas to a Larouchesque slagheap of political non-starters. Do keep it up though comrade.

 

considering that i'd have been mostly happy with kerry just shows that your attempts at marginalizing anybody who doesn't give into your "dems have to go conservative to be elected" for what it truly is: hogwash!

 

i note that you are the second one of our very conservative posters who attempts to pin the larouche tag on me. are you people concerting with one another to label vocal opponents or do you share the same trait commonly known as stupidity? for you ought to be able to assess readily from my discourse that i consider larouche a fascist nutcase.

 

as far as you are concerned however, i can tell you are a manipulative scumbag. have a good day asshole.

 

Tisk. Tisk. Bit sensitive on that one are we? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.*

 

Just throwing the LaRouche reference out there as a prime exemplar of a fringe candidate with zero electability, actually. The unfortunate thing for you, however, is that the fringe candidates who espouse the same principles as you are so far off of the map that I can't even think of an example to cite. Just give me the name of the Socialist Equality Party's latest candidate for office and I will gladly subsitute his name for LaRouche whenever I need a quick example of someone espousing ideals that would have had them laughed out of Havana 20 years ago for their sheer implausibility and datedness.

 

BTW - That's Mr. Asshole...

 

*I will faint in my chair if you can cite the reference without Google...

[j_b]

Tisk. Tisk. Bit sensitive on that one are we?

 

indeed, i am sensitive to my being compared to a fascist nutcase without you providing evidence to support your assertion.

 

Just throwing the LaRouche reference out there as a prime exemplar of a fringe candidate with zero electability, actually.

 

i have only expressed support for 2 candidates which are: dean and kerry. how does this fit with your discourse?

 

who espouse the same principles as you are so far off of the map that I can't even think of an example to cite.

 

and what principles would these be? that attacking other nations without provocation is wrong? that the motive behind the iraq war is controlling the flow of oil? that promoting conservation is necessary? that bush's economic policy amounts to bankrupting this nation and its social programs? i think it'll be very difficult for you to show that these feelings aren't shared by many if not most americans. of course you can't address these issues so you find it convenient to attack the messenger thus being consistent with the display of hate and mud-slinging we have witnessed in the recent past.

 

Just give me the name of the Socialist Equality Party's latest candidate for office and I will gladly subsitute his name for LaRouche whenever I need a quick example of someone espousing ideals that would have had them laughed out of Havana 20 years ago for their sheer implausibility and datedness.

 

pathetic discourse which isn't 20years old but at least 50. everyone will instantly recognize the debt you owe to joe mccarthy. in this you join the plethora of rightwing windbags that you guys find so pleasurable listening to on the airwaves.

[JayB]

The only dissapointing aspect of your response was your failure to cite the source of the quote, much less the context. Where is the crestfallen emoticon?

[JayB]

"indeed, i am sensitive to my being compared to a fascist nutcase without you providing evidence to support your assertion."

 

My bad. Just for the sake of clarification, is it the fascist part, or the nutcase part that upsets you?

[Skeezix]

Is Larouche still in prison?

[nonanon]

The only dissapointing aspect of your response was your failure to cite the source of the quote, much less the context. Where is the crestfallen emoticon?

 

I agree completely.

Other than not jumping thru your stupid hoop, that post was outstanding!

[JayB]

Well - the I was fully prepared to pay homage to my infinitely more literate brethren on the Left if one of their champion posters could come through on that one but I'll learn to live with the dissapointment.

[j_b]

"indeed, i am sensitive to my being compared to a fascist nutcase without you providing evidence to support your assertion."

 

My bad. Just for the sake of clarification, is it the fascist part, or the nutcase part that upsets you?

 

both, hypocrite windbag! after supporting bush in almost every instance for the past 3years, you suddenly would have the moral integrity to tell progressives how to elect a progressive candidate. risible.

[j_b]

The only dissapointing aspect of your response was your failure to cite the source of the quote, much less the context. Where is the crestfallen emoticon?

 

 

the slanderer fails to substantiate his slurs and he thinks he is being funny.

[JayB]

Speaking of Funny:

 

Republican Operatives in Disguise

[klenke]

Is this our very own Off White... ...

[selkirk]

Granted, there are wacko's on both sides. Though the conservative ones are doing much more damage right now.

[Alpinfox]

Well - the I was fully prepared to pay homage to my infinitely more literate brethren on the Left if one of their champion posters could come through on that one but I'll learn to live with the dissapointment.

 

Bill The Bard wrote that. Hamlet.

 

I don't see how the quotation was all that apt in the context in which you used it, except that you ruffled J_B's feathers, but the emotion the quote is about is a little more complex than that.

 

edit: And no, I didn't use google initially, but here is the context of the quote (using google):

 

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

 

--From Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

 

Queen Gertrude speaks these famous words to her son, Prince Hamlet, while watching a play at court. Gertrude does not realize that Hamlet has staged this play to trap her and her new husband, King Claudius, whom Hamlet suspects of having murdered his father. She also does not realize that the lady who "doth protest too much" is actually herself, as the Player King and Queen represent King Hamlet and Queen Gertrude. The former will be poisoned (in this play within the play) by the king's brother, as in reality (Hamlet suspects) Claudius killed King Hamlet. Gertrude's statement is in response to the play-Queen's repetitive statements of loyalty to and love of her first husband.

 

 

 

p.p.s. I believe John McCain will be elected president in 2008. He's pretty much unstoppable as far as I can tell. He has right wing appeal, very strong moderate appeal, he has impeccable character... hell, I might even vote for him.

 

In the early days of the democratic primaries, I was very excited by the prospect of Dean getting the nomination. It looked likely to happen and he was a politician that could almost imagine honestly supporting! A rare thing, especially at the national level.

 

Jim McDermmot for President!!!

Edited November 5, 2004 by Alpinfox

[cj001f]

Speaking of Funny:

 

Republican Operatives in Disguise

 

Like the "spontaneous" protestors who appeared in FL during the recount who were all Republican Hill staffers?

[JayB]

Pax saves the day.

"

Gertrude's statement is in response to the play-Queen's repetitive statements of loyalty to and love of her first husband."

 

This quote really was apt here though. It's quite often tossed out there when someone seems to be denouncing something so vigorously that one suspects the charges have credence that the target wishes to deny, or has a personal association with the object being denounced and wishes to conceal it by means of a vociferous denunciation.