FOX Strategy Really Paid Off...........Idiots
POSTED BY: captaincdc
UPDATED: Saturday, March 13, 2004 00:47
VIEWED: 21389
PAGE 7 of 8
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:Quote:
Not a Republican so I frankly don't care. If the Republican Party falls then hopefully that will be a sign that the two party system will end.
I also don't like the 2-party system. Right now, each party has various aspects that disgust me. I side with the democrats because I hate Bush, but I hate their softness on drugs and immigration, and their reluctance to let people have guns.
PS: sorry for the triple-post, I go through and respond to each post I'm gonna respond to. Frankly, I prefer this to an ultra-long post, as is popular in political boards
Well LtNowis I don't like the the two party system either I think their both parties are corupt and foul.But but to suggest the Republicans are tough on immigration is a joke Bush always without exception wants amnesty for illegals so do most of his fellow Republicans. We have Republican Senate and Congeress and yet nothing is ever done about the illegals who disrespect our nations laws except to give them amnesty.
And I must say to suggest Democrats are soft on drugs they love locking up non-violent drug offenders I wish they were soft on drugs. The war on drugs is an utter failure. Prohabition only creates crime and lawlessness. We should return to the country our founding father created where there was no drug prohabition.
We didn't have any drug laws until the turn of the century. And why did we get these laws was it because drug users were creating crime and havoc no it was because some do gooders thought it was ungodly. Yes we used to have addictive drugs like opium and cocaine,but they never lead users to commit any crimes why? Because these drugs aren't worth anything that is unti you make the illeagal. Then the price goes up a thousand fold and addicts need to commit crime to maintain thier habit. You also end up with stronger and more addictive drugs like heroin why?
First off heroin because it's stronger you can make more money off a pound of that than a pound of opuim. And it's so much more addictive you can ensure more repeat bussiness. The same happened during alcohol prohabition the criminals that ran the alcohol trade prefered hard alcohol to soft for all the same reasons. The only real change that took place before and after alcohol prohabition is now there is a higher consumption of hard alcohol then before prohabition. And just like illegal drugs has spawned insane drugs like heroin and crack, alcohol prohibition spawned the drinking of wood alcohol and moonshine. We need to stop this madness and end the drug war. It hasn't worked in the 90 some years it's existed and it won't work in ninety more.
Liked your point about Republicans and guns though the gun issue is one of the few issues Republicans are still mostly good about.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
... All I'm saying is that it isn't secret.The whole damn world knows about it means it isn't secret.
The whole damn world dooesn't know we are about to have an all skull and bones election Christheynic. If even 5 percent of the American people know about it I'd be supprised. I watch mainstream news media news every day except for the examples I mentioned above I never see it mentioned ever for any reason.
Fine if you want to think it's just college club and it's just a coincidence that a club that graduates 15 members a year is running two for the highest office in the land fine.
Perhaps skull and bones conpiracies don't exist that would require people working in secret and not telling everyone what they are really are up too. And if Discovery Channel does a hard hitting investagation and discovers everything is cool maybe it is. And if every bonesmen isn't wildly successful perhaps that proves it. Me I just have a different way of looking at it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ecmorgan69:Quote:
Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
...Whatever, I hope your all your sakes that Mr. Kerry will take over come November and you guys can get back to where you were 4 years ago. No deficit, not so many ppl hating you, more of your ppl working, fewer ppl dying violently, fewer ppl homeless and/or without medical aid. Well done, Shrub.Quote:
Ok, now I have one political thing I have to say. You sir, based on your statements in your previous posts, must be from outside the USA.
First of all, sir or madame, I happen to be a MADAME!Quote:
People from other countries, and liberals from the USA, seem to be under the misguided notion that we have to go along with the "recommendations" and "suggestions" of other countries. I, sir, think not. I admit I voted for Bush in 2000, and I also admit I will most likely vote for him again this year. One of the biggest reasons for me voting for him over some Liberal Democrat is he, largely, doesn't feel the need to get a "by-your-leave" from the UN, EU, NATO, or any other organization. IMHO, we in the USA have the right to go with our national interests over the wishes and desires of other nations. What that means, in essence, is that nobody gives a good gorram what some hoodlum warrior chief in Africa who happens to be on the UN Human Rights Commission thinks about how the USA conducts her affairs.
I happen to be a Canadian, your nearest neighbour and largest trading partner. And what you are saying saddens me a great deal. This kind of thinking is exactly why ppl the world over are angry at and despise you (I am reluctant to say hate).
Your country does NOT have the right to act unilaterally when your actions have global consequences. Might does not make right.Quote:
IMHO, I think we in the USA should become totally isolationist, since all we do is piss off every other country every time we do anything overseas.
I could be wrong but maybe that because your country acts unilaterally without consulting neighbouring nations and/or the UN!Quote:
Of course, that would also involve eliminating foreign aid, pulling the thousands of troops we have stationed overseas back to our own borders, and telling the rest of the world to gen hou zi bi diu shi
Your industry leaders (in tight with the Bush family) would never permit it. There's too much money to be made. First from all the armaments for tearing down a nation and then from the gov't contracts to build it back up and then, of course, there's all that yummy OIL! I say again, they would NEVER allow it.Quote:
From now on, we could use all the money we save from not sending it out to ungrateful, corrupt international organizations and collapsing military juntas to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless right here in the USA. That would make foreigners and liberals happy. We wouldn't be "interfering" in the affairs of other nations, and we would be fulfilling that do-gooder wish list that all Liberals have handy in their PDAs, in case anyone asks.
I can't believe that Liberals are the only ones who dream of feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless! I am sure that right-wingers must have at least a drop of human feeling for those who suffer.
Plus, your gov't has shown many times that they are quite adept at supporting military juntas and corrupt, tyrannical regimes when it suits their own short-term myopic goals. Why, wasn't Hussein himself graced with weapons etc by the last Republican president? And wasn't it the Iranian guys who got the weapons from the one before him?Quote:
Ok, that's enough of my speechifying for now. Oh, andoff Fox TV.
I quite agree. This thread has nothing but heartache in it for anyone regardless of your political position.
Didn't Voltaire say and Benjamin Franklin quote:
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right toNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The three things we definitely can agree on:
1) The, uh, "HATEHATEFOX" thing,
2) Our universal agreement that we may disagree, and
3) Our universal right to opine to the rooftops for all to hear.
Oh, and uh, apologies for the "sir" thing. I had a 50% chance of being right, and I figured that it'd be best to be polite anyway
I just want to mention that I loved "Canadian Bacon"
They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....
Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ecmorgan69:
The three things we definitely can agree on:
1) The, uh, "HATEHATEFOX" thing,
2) Our universal agreement that we may disagree, and
3) Our universal right to opine to the rooftops for all to hear.
Oh, and uh, apologies for the "sir" thing. I had a 50% chance of being right, and I figured that it'd be best to be polite anyway
I just want to mention that I loved "Canadian Bacon"
ROTFLMAO! Canadian Bacon? You are too funny. Anyway ... see you at the theatre (or you may say theater) ... see we CAN all get along!
~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:Quote:consequences. Might does not make right.
Originally posted by ecmorgan69:Quote:
Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
...Whatever, I hope your all your sakes that Mr. Kerry will take over come November and you guys can get back to where you were 4 years ago. No deficit, not so many ppl hating you, more of your ppl working, fewer ppl dying violently, fewer ppl homeless and/or without medical aid. Well done, Shrub.Quote:
Ok, now I have one political thing I have to say. You sir, based on your statements in your previous posts, must be from outside the USA.
First of all, sir or madame, I happen to be a MADAME!Quote:
People from other countries, and liberals from the USA, seem to be under the misguided notion that we have to go along with the "recommendations" and "suggestions" of other countries. I, sir, think not. I admit I voted for Bush in 2000, and I also admit I will most likely vote for him again this year. One of the biggest reasons for me voting for him over some Liberal Democrat is he, largely, doesn't feel the need to get a "by-your-leave" from the UN, EU, NATO, or any other organization. IMHO, we in the USA have the right to go with our national interests over the wishes and desires of other nations. What that means, in essence, is that nobody gives a good gorram what some hoodlum warrior chief in Africa who happens to be on the UN Human Rights Commission thinks about how the USA conducts her affairs.
I happen to be a Canadian, your nearest neighbour and largest trading partner. And what you are saying saddens me a great deal. This kind of thinking is exactly why ppl the world over are angry at and despise you (I am reluctant to say hate).
Your country does NOT have the right to act unilaterally when your actions have globalQuote:
IMHO, I think we in the USA should become totally isolationist, since all we do is piss off every other country every time we do anything overseas.
I could be wrong but maybe that because your country acts unilaterally without consulting neighbouring nations and/or the UN!Quote:
Of course, that would also involve eliminating foreign aid, pulling the thousands of troops we have stationed overseas back to our own borders, and telling the rest of the world to gen hou zi bi diu shi
Your industry leaders (in tight with the Bush family) would never permit it. There's too much money to be made. First from all the armaments for tearing down a nation and then from the gov't contracts to build it back up and then, of course, there's all that yummy OIL! I say again, they would NEVER allow it.Quote:
From now on, we could use all the money we save from not sending it out to ungrateful, corrupt international organizations and collapsing military juntas to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless right here in the USA. That would make foreigners and liberals happy. We wouldn't be "interfering" in the affairs of other nations, and we would be fulfilling that do-gooder wish list that all Liberals have handy in their PDAs, in case anyone asks.
I can't believe that Liberals are the only ones who dream of feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless! I am sure that right-wingers must have at least a drop of human feeling for those who suffer.
Plus, your gov't has shown many times that they are quite adept at supporting military juntas and corrupt, tyrannical regimes when it suits their own short-term myopic goals. Why, wasn't Hussein himself graced with weapons etc by the last Republican president? And wasn't it the Iranian guys who got the weapons from the one before him?Quote:
Ok, that's enough of my speechifying for now. Oh, and
I quite agree. This thread has nothing but heartache in it for anyone regardless of your political position.
Didn't Voltaire say and Benjamin Franklin quote:
I may not agree with what youNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
ROTFLMAO! Canadian Bacon? You are too funny. Anyway ... see you at the theatre (or you may say theater) ... see we CAN all get along!
~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies
Whenever I envision the "Ugly American" abroad, I often think of John Candy in the boat returning to the USA from Canada. The pollution-filed view of Northern NY and the clean, sweet view of Canada. Let's not forget the ultimate irony that John Candy and most of the rest of the cast was, of course, Canadian
Anyway, let's make "Serenity" a box office smash!
Oh, and keep buying FRFLY stocks!
They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....
Oh yeah,
you, FOX TV!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Could you please, close the html next time? It is kind of hard to read what is being quoted and what you are saying. Thanks!
I'm sorry about that, I did try but when I went back to edit the post, my pc froze and had to be rebooted and then by the time I got back in it seemed pointless.
Sorry.
~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This has mutated in a very strange direction.
First off, two party systems. This is one of the envitablities of life on planet earth. Any third party that comes along is either going to have their agendas co-opted by one of the major parties, (or usually just the parts that they can agree with) when that third party becomes popular and starts winning elections.
Political parties, like a lot of man made mental constructs are organic critters. They adapt, or die, just like everything else. If they ever want to become a major influence in politics, instead of just color, they have to appeal to a large base, a pluarity of the electorate.
And it seems to be human nature to settle with only two choices. You may have liked Mary Carey's positions in the gubernatorial recall drive here in California last year. And may have wanted to vote for her. But she had no chance against the majority of voters.
Voters tend to think about whom they like, first, and then who has a chance of winning. And that usually falls down to two major parties and a bunch of smaller third parties whose policies and positions get adopted by the major parties once that position becomes so popular as to threaten it.
Also there is the problem of third parties "souring" the process. Think of Perot in 92, and Nadar in 2000. Sometimes a 3rd party candidate does make a big showing and ends up electing the guy that his supporters wanted least. Some of us learned that lesson the hard way in 92, and some others learned it in 2000.
So short of changing human nature, the two party is here to stay. Now, whether the same two parties stay is secondary. (Remember the Whigs?)I know a lot of folks are predicting and hoping for a Republican trouncing come November, but that really does not look to be in the cards.
Right now, the Republicans have a pretty good lock on the House, and more Democrats are challenged in this race than Republicans for the Senate. Which means that the Republicans have a better chance at maintaining or building on their slim majority in the Senate than the Democrats do of taking it back. The economy is doing pretty good (could be better, but still) and looks to be much better come November. There is also the fact that April 15th is not far off, and the voters know whose on the side of those tax cuts, and who wants them repealed. So that works against the Democrats out of the box.
Not to mention the war, which will be the other major issue for the campaign.
As for Skull and Bones, I am not at all sure what the deal is. They still have to run for office, and that means appeal to the voters. Unless they are sacrificing virgins, I don't think its going to be a big deal. There are other more weightier issues to deal with than what either candidate did in college over 30 years ago.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME