Bush's speech...

POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Saturday, February 3, 2007 22:04
VIEWED: 12155
PAGE 5 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SHINYED

Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

But still, limiting the choices to two parties seems, silly.

Last time I voted I remember seeing multiple Parties with candidates :
Green Party
Communist Party
Libertarian Party
Socialist Party
Independent Party
and others

Granted that these Parties in toto only represent about 1-2% of the voters in America, it still shows that we have choices other than Dems. or Repubs. It's too bad that the views and platforms of these lesser parties are not very well known.....they do have some good ideas and positions on issues; too bad they have no money or real organization. I see both Democrats and Republicans hell bent of destroying America...piece by piece....each party doing it in their own way...one from the left & one from the right & MOSTLY for the SAKE OF GETTING ELECTED...and along the way every single thing that America once stood for, and every single once-proud tradition of America is vanishing from our society. I'd love to see A NEW POLITICAL PARTY...something that embraces our traditions and values, and addresses the urgent problems in America without slinking down to the levels of the insane fringe left or the insane fringe right....something MODERATE...could call it The American Moderate Party?

!

CHRISISALL

Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:

something MODERATE...could call it The American Moderate Party?

Once you hang a name on it and define it, it's as good as corrupt. It becomes it's own thing with agendas that suit the peeps running it, and like all other organized well-meaning entities, it loses sight of the people in favour of fighting for it's dogma.

We need the 'American Whatever' party. (Whatever the issue is, we'll consider it from whatever point of view that best serves the people!)

Crap. I hung a name on it....

Can't win Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
We need the 'American Whatever' party. (Whatever the issue is, we'll consider it from whatever point of view that best serves the people!)

Crap. I hung a name on it....

So what we need is the “American ﺦ Party.” The Party formerly known as ...

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I was waiting for Cartoon to debunk this particular strawman when Storymark mentioned it earlier, but I'm too impatient.

Actually no, though you assertion is a Strawman, well done.

Thanks for pointing that out though, I hadn't read Storymarks post, I largely skimmed this thread you see.

Then you are doing this thread and perhaps even this forum a disservice. Are you telling me that instead of reading the thread and contributing, you skim for the posters you disagree with to flamebait them?

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.
How else is this to be taken except 'if they knew what they were talking about they'd stop whining'?

Just so we're clear, whining is the word that tends to be attributed to a position that one disagrees with .

I read the statement as whine all you like but at least know what you are whining about first.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).

In other words if people were informed the election would have gone differently, people wouldn't have voted democrat and would have voted republican, like Cartoon does. Or, as I said, you either agree with Cartoon or you are uninformed.

Cartoon's statement was pretty non partisan if you ask me, it was open to multiple interpretations.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Because you do not agree with Cartoon, you are putting words in his mouth.

Actually I directly quoted him, right there for all too see, and now given clear reasons as to why I made the assertions I did, so try again, because this accusation is clearly erroneous. Oh and it's also a Strawman and a Red Herring because you both made up my argument and motivation for me.

Sort of like how you took Cartoon's post and are now making up his argument and motivation for him?

Quote:

Quote:
Should a person actually watch the SOTU address before commenting or are you comfortable with uninformed opinions?

Before commenting on the address, probably, but Cartoon wasn't talking about the address, he was talking about the election, it's right there in the quote if you care to take a look.

Actually Cartoon was initially talking about an informed electorate. Perhaps if you had read the entire thread you would not take things out of context.

Posting to stir stuff up.

CARTOON

Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Cartoon's statement was pretty non partisan if you ask me, it was open to multiple interpretations.

As you correctly stated, the first paragraph was in response to your post, where you mentioned that you had watched the speech, and addressed the benefit of an informed electorate.

I complimented you in that while American's who complain about his policies didn't watch, you as a non-American were able to find the time to watch our President's speech.

The second paragraph of my response was a general comment, not indicating any preference on my part. Naturally, as most posters know that I'm a conservative, they may have just assumed that this was a cut at the Democrats.

I believe that those in here who know me, know that if my intention had been to cut into the Democrats, I would've done it, and not beat around the bush (no pun intended).

Many of the contests in the November congressional elections in the U.S. were very close. And even though the Democrats took both houses, they only have a one-seat majority in the Senate, and nothing anyone would consider major in the House.

Be that as it may, all I've heard in the media since the day after the election is "Democrat mandate!" Interestingly, when the Republicans actually gained seats for their majority in the 2002 Congressional election, none of the liberal media pundits were crying "Republican mandate!" So, one wonders how they interpret this similar gain (but for a different party) in an entirely different manner?

Given the said closeness of many of those races, an "informed" electorate could've turned them either way. Unfortunately, many people I know (and many I don't know, but whom I've heard speak on the subject), simply voted "against" one party, without even knowing what the other party stood for. To me, this certainly qualifies as an "uninformed" electorate (even if the situation were reversed, and people were voting against the Democrats, without knowing what the Republican's stood for, just because they were angry with the Democrat's).

Anyhow, I just skip over posts (including quotations included in other people's posts) made by such individuals who've long ago lost the right to occupy any of my time with name-calling, misinterpretations, and outright lies.

While I disagree with the vast majority of things I read on the internet, I've never once resorted to the tactics of these individuals, and their comments say more about themselves than they do about those who disagree with them. Those with whom I disagree, yet conduct themselves in a respectful manner (several persons in this thread come to mind) are worthy of my time. Those who don't, are not.

This is a policy I have long utilized on the internet, and one which I highly recommend. You'll find your stress level lowered considerably if you sieve out the responsible and courteous posters from those who are not.

SHINYED

Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Be that as it may, all I've heard in the media since the day after the election is "Democrat mandate!" Interestingly, when the Republicans actually gained seats for their majority in the 2002 Congressional election, none of the liberal media pundits were crying "Republican mandate!" So, one wonders how they interpret this similar gain (but for a different party) in an entirely different manner?

You're being a bit too kind on the "media". Any clear-thinking person could only conclude by their actions over the last decade or so that the elite media are nothing but whores & shills for the Democrats; ceaselessly attempting to shove fringe-left, ultra-liberal positions down American's throats in order to de-sensitize us to the many perversions and vile lifestyles that they endorse as well as their absurd adulation for anything anti-American...aka The UN and European socialism..

and while we're at it, consider the following :

All we ever heard from the Democrats from 2004 election loss was " rigged elections", " voter fraud","stolen election", "no paper trail", etc etc etc . For the recent 2006 election they had swarms of lawyers all around the country just ready to file suits and claim all of the above...if they lost!...but they didn't lose...they won...so ALL OF A SUDDEN the election process WORKS GREAT????? I didn't hear any sore loser Repub's blasting the election as " stolen", or "fraud" etc etc . Repubs took their hit with some dignity, as opposed to the Dems who were all too fully prepared to paralyze America with contested elections....so damn high-schoolish!...Either I won...OR YOU cheated!!!!...

CHRISISALL

Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
the “American ﺦ Party.” The Party formerly known as ...

Genius.

Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:56 PM

Quote:
While I disagree with the vast majority of things I read on the internet, I've never once resorted to the tactics of these individuals, and their comments say more about themselves than they do about those who disagree with them. Those with whom I disagree, yet conduct themselves in a respectful manner (several persons in this thread come to mind) are worthy of my time. Those who don't, are not.

As I recall from the Abortion thread, I was polite and on-point when I asked

Quote:
Do you have any arguments to refute that? Any other studies? And comments by the authors themselves on how they might have corrected for that? ... Any studies which- for example- show better development and more intact personalities when presumed fetal "pain" is controlled? Any comments on the mechanism of pain? Any insight on fetal EEGs? Comparative anatomy?

but the answer I got was, well...

Quote:
Studies which will meet the only criteria accepted by this group -- from atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American sources? No. I imagine that even if one could produce a speaking, fully-educated fetus who solemnly swore that it felt "pain", there would still be those in this forum who would claim that the fetus was biased, and summarily dismiss its testimony. Given the apparent, omniscient attributes of many of the posters in this group, it seems rather pointless to even try.

How do I classify THAT response?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How do I classify THAT response?

Sincere admiration....?

The Klingon Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 25, 2007 6:04 PM

hahahahahahaha!!!! Thanks Chrisisall!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE