Are People Who Voted For Bush The Second Time Easily Controlled By Fear Tactics?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, March 16, 2009 17:08
VIEWED: 5670
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:32 PM

I can fully understand why someone might have voted for him the first time, by why in the name of Our Dear & Fluffy Lord would ANYONE have voted for him the second time? Were they SO scared of the terrorists taking over? Was that it?

Comments? Theories?

The laughing Chrisisall

FIVVER

Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:07 PM

Two words:

John Kerry

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 12, 2009 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fivver:
Two words:

John Kerry

Surely at that point he was easily the lesser of two evils, no?

The laughing Chrisisall

WASHNWEAR

Thursday, March 12, 2009 3:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by fivver:
Two words:

John Kerry
Surely at that point he was easily the lesser of two evils, no?

To peaceable, enlightened folk like us, sure. Though it's not very sexy as explanations go, I tend to mostly credit the "don't change horses midstream" mentality (and the alien transmissions received through that box on Bush's back). I would be interested to see the alternate 'verse version of that election, in which nothing changes except holding it a year later.

It was like that when we got here!

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 12, 2009 3:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
the alien transmissions received through that box on Bush's back

You saw it too?????
*knows he's not crazy now*

The laughing Chrisisall

WASHNWEAR

Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
the alien transmissions received through that box on Bush's back
You saw it too?????
*knows he's not crazy now*

Hmmm - on the advice of my therapist (court order, actually), I'm advising you not to rest too great a load on that particular cause-and-effect relationship...

It was like that when we got here!

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:56 PM

Yes, of course, hush hush and all that. Gotchya.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:33 PM

Huh, and I thought it was my imagination.

Bush was controlled by a box!

That explains the snarled Let me finish! to... the voices in his head, apparently.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:35 PM

I was. Fear of this bozo running our country.

'nuff said.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

CITIZEN

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Damn straight, Bush would have had a line of coke on each of those puppies, huh.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:43 PM

Clinton does a line of coke off of Monica - he's cool! What a fun party animal, that Bubba!

But make a bogus claim 'bout Bush doing a line or being drunk, you're doing it out of pure spite.

I find that funny.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

CITIZEN

Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Clinton does a line of coke off of Monica - he's cool! What a fun party animal, that Bubba!

But make a bogus claim 'bout Bush doing a line or being drunk, you're doing it out of pure spite.

I find that funny.

No, bogus is where they didn't really do it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WASHNWEAR

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I was. Fear of this bozo running our country.

'nuff said.

Party affiliation aside, that photo's priceless!

Kerry needs to re-view the Seinfeld ep about glancing vs. staring...

It was like that when we got here!

HERO

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I can fully understand why someone might have voted for him the first time, by why in the name of Our Dear & Fluffy Lord would ANYONE have voted for him the second time? Were they SO scared of the terrorists taking over? Was that it?

The most important issue for me was the War on Terror. In 2004 the Iraq war was less then a year and a half old. We had defeated the Iraqi Army, removed Saddam and the Baathists from power, and engaged in security and reconstruction operations. Yes, there were problems, what LATER turned out to be big policy problems in Iraq...but generally we had Iraq in hand. The same was true of Afganistan. Domestically... there had been no further attacks since 9/11, largely because of President Bush's post 9/11 security policy.

Second was the economy. After 9/11 we had some serious economic problems largely the result of inherited Clinton problems, instability in the energy markets, and 9/11's attack on the financial infrastructure which was already weakened by various accounting scandals. But in November of 2004 we seemed to have a handle on that as well. The Bush tax cuts were in effect, the market was up, car sales and house sales were up, unemployment was down, etc. Signs were pretty good.

Third was the social agenda of the various parties. I am a social conservative. That meant I would NOT vote for John Kerry...I vote Republican on issues of life, gay marriage, etc.

Fourth was health care. On one hand we had a Republican plan that completely failed to deal with the problem. On the other hand we had a Democratic plan that would pretty much screw everybody and bankrupt the nation. This was a very important issue to me as I was without health care at the time. On this issue I decided a screwed up plan was better then no plan and came down supporting Kerry on the issue.

Fifth, illegal immigration. Against it. Kerry wanted more illegals, Bush wanted less illegals. I wanted no illegals...Bush was closer.

Sixth, the invasion of Canada. I support it...I think Bush did too.

Seventh, Kerry was a French-i-fied pansy.

I simply had more faith in President Bush's ability to keep us safe, win the war, keep us prosperous, and to make the correct moral decisions that make for good public policy.

In effect he did keep us safe, he did win the war (with a late game rally), he kept us prosperous...until about 5 months before he left office, and he made moral decisions I supported.

I am really disappointed by the economic problems we had...but I think a bad situation last fall has been compounded by poor planning and failure to execute by Obama since he took office.

I think he'd have been better off taking a 'first do no harm' approach and maybe taking a couple weeks to get his economic team in place and let then sitting down and hashing out a plan. But its his show, I'll let him run it for a while longer yet.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:

Party affiliation aside, that photo's priceless!

Kerry needs to re-view the Seinfeld ep about glancing vs. staring...

It was like that when we got here!

The Kerry pic so speaks for itself. If that were him 20-30 yrs ago, I'd still find it crepy, just not as much. What a dirty old man!

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, March 13, 2009 5:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I can fully understand why someone might have voted for him the first time, by why in the name of Our Dear & Fluffy Lord would ANYONE have voted for him the second time? Were they SO scared of the terrorists taking over? Was that it?

Comments? Theories?

The laughing Chrisisall

Because we were smart enough NOT to vote for John Kerry. Maybe if the Democrats had put up a candidate, it might have been different, it's not like there isn't a decent Democrat in existence - but just that the party won't allow a reasonable person in the top ticket.

KWICKO

Friday, March 13, 2009 11:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I can fully understand why someone might have voted for him the first time, by why in the name of Our Dear & Fluffy Lord would ANYONE have voted for him the second time? Were they SO scared of the terrorists taking over? Was that it?

Comments? Theories?

The laughing Chrisisall

Because we were smart enough NOT to vote for John Kerry. Maybe if the Democrats had put up a candidate, it might have been different, it's not like there isn't a decent Democrat in existence - but just that the party won't allow a reasonable person in the top ticket.

Yeah, but you say that as if it's something only the Dems are guilty of! :) Plenty enough of that syndrome going around BOTH parties, to be honest.

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 13, 2009 12:14 PM

Kerry was put up against Bush because he would lose, just as McCain was put up against Obama because he would lose.

In both elections, there were other party members on either side that would have fared much better against their competition.

I knew the Rethugs were going to have a really rough time of it this go around since the Bush administration was so evil and unrepentant and seemed to revel in the "biggest dick" competition with American citizens as well as the rest of the world, but I knew the election was over the moment McCain got the nod.

Just like I was sure that the Rethugs won when Kerry did.

Mission accomplished. Now they have the greenlight to spend trillions on top of trillions of tax payer dollars that somebody is going to have to pay back someday.

Who says you can't get something accomplished if you work together? The neo-cons drove us to our knees and we're all still blowing Obama while he sells our grandchildren into slavery.

1984 was just the blueprint.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 13, 2009 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Sixth, the invasion of Canada. I support it...I think Bush did too.

Hero, you answered my question best from the support POV, thanks.

Your biggest drawback is being a social conservative, I believe. To ban gay marriage is to give it a cause, make it stronger, and more in your face than ever. If you truly want the issue to "just go away" then allow it. You'll never really hear about it after that.
I also understand the fear concerning the War On Temper, er.. Terror. Saddam had been portrayed as a terrorist, er, potential terrorist...he had WMD...without delivery systems..whatever, Bush was just carrying out a set of superseded UN resolutions that NEEDED to be carried out! Right?
Well, no, really.

I submit that voting for Bush a second time was due switching your brain to auto pilot. Kerry was an idiot, but a potentially far less hurtful one than Bush. But like folk that pick at a scab, y'all wanted to see how much we'd bleed with Bush. Well, y'all found out, and y'all can keep pretending to be happy about it.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 13, 2009 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Kerry was put up against Bush because he would lose, just as McCain was put up against Obama because he would lose.

Who says you can't get something accomplished if you work together?

There is a certain scary logic to that, 6.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 13, 2009 1:32 PM

Wow. A MAN looking at some nice boobies. That's INHUMAN!!!

AUHeterophobeisall

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 13, 2009 1:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
it's not like there isn't a decent Democrat in existence - but just that the party won't allow a reasonable person in the top ticket.

Yeah.

Then, anyway.

The laughing Chrisisall

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 13, 2009 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Kerry was put up against Bush because he would lose, just as McCain was put up against Obama because he would lose.

Who says you can't get something accomplished if you work together?
There is a certain scary logic to that, 6.

The laughing Chrisisall

Thanks for summing that up for me Chris with the PG version. My profanity filter today seems to be in need of some tuning.

I'm just wondering how many of us are voting for either "side" because we're easily controlled by fear tactics.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 13, 2009 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Wow. A MAN looking at some nice boobies. That's INHUMAN!!!

AUHeterophobeisall

The laughing Chrisisall

Kerry needs to re-view the Seinfeld ep about glancing vs. staring...

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

WASHNWEAR

Friday, March 13, 2009 2:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Who says you can't get something accomplished if you work together? The neo-cons drove us to our knees and we're all still blowing Obama while he sells our grandchildren into slavery.

There's a certain scary logic to that, too...

Not saying it's what I want to believe...but it wouldn't surprise me that damn much either if it turned out to be the case.

It was like that when we got here!

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 13, 2009 2:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

I'm just wondering how many of us are voting for either "side" because we're easily controlled by fear tactics.

More than half of us, clearly.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 13, 2009 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Kerry needs to re-view the Seinfeld ep about glancing vs. staring...

Why is it okay to stare at a beautiful car, or a beautiful child, but not a beautiful girl? Should I not look at Bruce Lee's magnificent abs in Enter The Dragon? Should I not look too long at a painting of a nude woman from the Baroque period?

AUPrudeisall

The laughing Chrisisall

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 13, 2009 2:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Who says you can't get something accomplished if you work together? The neo-cons drove us to our knees and we're all still blowing Obama while he sells our grandchildren into slavery.

There's a certain scary logic to that, too...

Not saying it's what I want to believe...but it wouldn't surprise me that damn much either if it turned out to be the case.

It was like that when we got here!

Hey man... I thought Minority Report was the scariest movie I've ever seen because most of that stuff if already possible. If we keep printing money like there is no tomorrow and Governement projects, off our own tax dollars, "give" us jobs, we'll all be installing video camera equipment over every square inch of public space with shit we buy from China one day.

WE didn't start the fire. That includes Obama and Bush.

I doubt that anyone who's alive today was around when those wheels started turning.

I know nobody wants to believe. Nobody wants to swallow the red pill when Cypher already taught us that it's so much more pleasurable to enjoy steak....

~6

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 13, 2009 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Cypher already taught us that it's so much more pleasurable to enjoy steak....

Speak for yourself.

Agent Veggieisall

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 13, 2009 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Kerry needs to re-view the Seinfeld ep about glancing vs. staring...

Why is it okay to stare at a beautiful car, or a beautiful child, but not a beautiful girl? Should I not look at Bruce Lee's magnificent abs in Enter The Dragon? Should I not look too long at a painting of a nude woman from the Baroque period?

AUPrudeisall

The laughing Chrisisall

So, women are now objects for your pure amusement ? As an elected offical, Kerry needs to show more tact. Hell, as an adult, he should show more tact. I'm not saying he can't peek ,but dude.... buy them ( the young women, of course ) a drink or something if you're gonna stare that long.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 13, 2009 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
dude.... buy them a drink or something if you're gonna stare that long.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 13, 2009 3:08 PM

Hey. This thread has gone off-topic.

You voted for Bush because you were afraid of Islamo-fascists, right?
NeoCon-fascists are more your speed, eh?

The laughing Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, March 13, 2009 3:19 PM

Actually it's worse, Howard Dean got boned by his own party to make way for Kerry so he could take a dive for his fellow bonesman.

I met John Conyers, and started getting into his shit on the spot, at a Dean rally cause I wanted to see if the guy had any kinda useful personal charisma, which he did - but AFTER his own party boned him, instead of going indie, he rolled over and started licking their boots for favors ?

Burn in hell, Howie.
And there's a special place for you too, Johnnie boy, and your wife agrees with ME.
(Monica has all the balls in THAT marriage)

So ya got Howie, who got torpedoed by his own party for rocking the boat during what was supposed to be a fixed fight, and then the gutless pansy goes crawling back to the very folk who screwed him - and Kerry, who actively tried to bone his own campaign every chance he got, in a "fight" as fixed as a WWF match, and of course he takes the dive for his bonesman buddy like he's supposed to...

And everyone acts like these votes MATTER ?

When the electors are hand-picked by the party machines and everyone knows exactly how it's gonna go a year in advance no matter what the vote count REALLY is, cause it's all blackboxed anyways ?

When the districts are so gerrymandered that even a massive backlash still won't change a goddamn thing ?

And let's not even talk about the 12% "electronic advantage"...

You're playing a rigged game, at the sharpers table, with a marked deck, by his house rules - what the fuck did you expect to happen, people ?

The electoral college was installed in the first place to prevent us pesky peons from being able to depose our "betters" so that Hamilton, Madison and Jay could install a de-facto aristocracy and keep it in place regardless of how we peons felt about it and like it or not, it worked exactly as planned.

Tell me folks, does any of you even know HOW electors are selected and installed, hmmm ?

Or what exactly, you would have to do TO install one, IF they even LET you despite what the rules might say on paper ?

And even if you DO pull it off, and they vote the will of the people, the other electors will label them as a "Faithless Elector" (because they'd have to lie to even get in the door!) and invalidate their vote under Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)

So, again, what the hell do you expect ?

Your ONLY chance is a sideways congressional ambush, and frankly, your time for that is running out all too goddamn fast, as everyone is too damn busy scratching for mere survival (exactly as planned) to bother with such concerns at the present time.

For the love of mercy quit pretending this system isn't locked up tight by the party machines and start facing the realities you will HAVE to face if you want to knock the damn props out from under these misbegotten sumbitches.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 13, 2009 3:32 PM

Frem, are you saying that Joss' comment about the "puppet theatre" applies to OUR system?

Shirley not!

The laughing Chrisisall

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 13, 2009 3:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
...instead of going indie, he rolled over and started licking their boots for favors ?

Boot lickin' good. MMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!

Who's boots were Dr. Paul licking while he voted against his own raise, refused to kiss McCain's ass to be a part of the Rethug Kiss Ass Party, and spent $24 million dollars of volunteer's money to advertise his positions against David's Golliath's?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

WASHNWEAR

Friday, March 13, 2009 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You're playing a rigged game, at the sharpers table, with a marked deck, by his house rules - what the fuck did you expect to happen, people?

Oh, you know - puppies, kittens, guilt-free sex, a smile like Bob's...the usual.

Quote:
For the love of mercy quit pretending this system isn't locked up tight by the party machines and start facing the realities you will HAVE to face if you want to knock the damn props out from under these misbegotten sumbitches.

I won't pretend there's not some pretense. I willfully and with goofiness aforethought drank a mess of the Obama Kool-Aid, especially in the last few months of the campaign. I knew there'd be a frightful hang-over, but I was just that damn simple-minded giddy over the prospect of a president who could speak in complete, intelligible sentences and didn't scowl in confusion at the sight of words longer than 2 syllables. And the fact that he took a dim view of torture was (and is, dammit!) a nice touch. I figured I'd deal with the disappointment - and I knew there'd be at least some - when the dust settled. And here comes the dust.

But in my case (and others, I'm sure), along with that pretense goes about 40 years of damn near unquestioning (plenty of snark and bitter commentary, but damn little questioning) belief. Belief that somewhere - somewhere - down below the bullshit of the individual personalities involved, was a political system that actually, in its means and motives, resembled the one presented to me and my classmates in 8th-grade history.

Not saying that my personal ignorance and disillusionment can't be dealt with, but...just makin' conversation.

It was like that when we got here!

HERO

Friday, March 13, 2009 5:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
To ban gay marriage is to give it a cause, make it stronger, and more in your face than ever. If you truly want the issue to "just go away" then allow it.

I don't care if the issue goes away or not. Essentially your arguing that the only way for me to get what I want is to give in on the issue. That's not the American way. I don't see this as an all or nothing prospect. I'm a lawyer. To me marriage is a sacred union between man and woman AND it is a legal institution that merges a man and woman's household creating new legal rights and obligations.

I can't give them marriage because as both a legal and spiritual issues marriage between same-sex persons simply does not exist. Its like calling an apple an orange.

But I can compromise. Legal unions can be used to recreate all of the legal rights and obligations marriage creates. It would be new law, so it cannot conflict with the old one on either spiritual or legal grounds. Plus, I see alternative uses for it outside sexual relationships.

Quote:

I also understand the fear concerning the War On Temper, er.. Terror. Saddam had been portrayed as a terrorist, er, potential terrorist...he had WMD...without delivery systems..whatever, Bush was just carrying out a set of superseded UN resolutions that NEEDED to be carried out! Right?
Well, no, really.

I disagree. My analysis was thoughtful despite reaching a different conclusion then you did.

I saw Saddam, not as a terrorist, but as a power hungery dictator who could use terrorists for his own ends to strike at us or others while maintaining deniability. All the reasonable and informed folks on the subject agreed that he had a WMD program (and he did have one...it was a programs designed to deceive us into believing he had one...and it worked). He was also providing material aid and comfort to terrorists such as a large Al Queda group based in northern Iraq and a high profile target that was in Baghdad for medical treatment the day the war started.

Looking back on it now I'm not convinced that we were wrong. I agree the post invasion planning was bad. My only concern is whether we should have gone after Iran instead.

In any event Obama will not even say "war on terror". In my opinion his policy change means there is no 'war on terror'. If that is the case then either there was no war, which will need to be explained to the 9/11 families, or we won the war, in which case we should all thank President Bush. If neither of those is correct then the only other explanation for Obama's policy change is that he's ignoring the war...and that's not good.

Quote:

I submit that voting for Bush a second time was due switching your brain to auto pilot.

Some people vote straight party line for either side. I think most people vote the way they do for very good reasons.

You should not assume people are stupid or ignorant or whatever for making a decision different then yours. You risk dehumanizing your opposition and that could lead to the very oppression you fear.

If you don't trust people to make the right decision and if that's the case, perhaps you should take the decision out of their hands.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

CITIZEN

Friday, March 13, 2009 5:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I can't give them marriage because as both a legal and spiritual issues marriage between same-sex persons simply does not exist. Its like calling an apple an orange.

Neither did marriage between a man and a woman until someone created it.

Quote:
He was also providing material aid and comfort to terrorists such as a large Al Queda group based in northern Iraq and a high profile target that was in Baghdad for medical treatment the day the war started.

Osama Bin Landen hated Saddam, he hated the motherfucker nearly as much as he hates the US, because he was secular. There was no big collusion between Al Qaeda and Saddam, this is nonsense. There's more members of Al Qaeda in Iraq NOW than there ever was under Saddam.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KWICKO

Friday, March 13, 2009 5:46 PM

Quote:

You should not assume people are stupid or ignorant or whatever for making a decision different then yours. You risk dehumanizing your opposition and that could lead to the very oppression you fear.

Okay, who the hell are you, and what have you done with "Hero"?

How many times did you call Ron Paul's supporters deluded crazy-talkers? How many times have you called "liberals" un-American? You've ALWAYS assumed that people are ignorant or stupid for making decisions different than yours. Why the sudden change of heart? Could it have anything to do with being on the outside now, looking in?

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

KWICKO

Friday, March 13, 2009 5:49 PM

Quote:
There's more members of Al Qaeda in Iraq NOW than there ever was under Saddam.

And that is 100% thanks to the U.S. of fuckin' A.
We made it SAFE for them to be in Iraq, and gave them something to fight against, a cause to believe in. We have been the number one recruiter of terrorists in the world, by our own actions. We've driven people right into the arms of our sworn enemies.

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

STORYMARK

Friday, March 13, 2009 5:53 PM

I think it's adorable that those who have been "Rah-Rah"ing for Bush for so many years, and now going "we only voted for him the second time causa Kerry".

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CITIZEN

Friday, March 13, 2009 5:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I think it's adorable that those who have been "Rah-Rah"ing for Bush for so many years, and now going "we only voted for him the second time causa Kerry".

Oh, but they weren't really for Bush all along, there was TONS of things they didn't support.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 13, 2009 6:03 PM

Chris,
Neo cons aren't 1/4th the fascist as Obama
& the Dems.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 13, 2009 6:10 PM

Perhaps it would help if you re- read the subject title.
Before any one gets cute & changes it :)

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

KWICKO

Friday, March 13, 2009 6:17 PM

Quote:
Are People Who Voted For Bush The Second Time Easily Controlled By Fear Tactics?

That thread title?

I would answer "Yes, obviously."

RIPWASH

Friday, March 13, 2009 7:23 PM

Quote:
Osama Bin Landen hated Saddam, he hated the motherfucker nearly as much as he hates the US, because he was secular. There was no big collusion between Al Qaeda and Saddam, this is nonsense.

Citizen (and Kwicko and Storymark and . . . ), I know you'll probably dispute this, but here is a report from 1999 from ABC News here in the US that shows the connection of Bin Laden and Hussein.

As my good friend Glenn Beck says . . . "I'm just sayin' . . ."

**EDIT** And yes I know there's a more recent report from ABC News stating that there was no link between the two, but their 1999 report went into the relationship rather extensively. Hmmmmmm . . . .

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

HERO

Friday, March 13, 2009 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Neither did marriage between a man and a woman until someone created it.

Thats my point, they created "marriage" they created it and defined it. You want something different...I say fine, nothing wrong with personal unions between same sex couples...but its something different, its not marriage.

Perhaps they could call it "smarriage".

Marriage, smarriage...its all the same.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

KWICKO

Friday, March 13, 2009 7:57 PM

Quote:
Citizen (and Kwicko and Storymark and . . . ), I know you'll probably dispute this, but here is a report from 1999 from ABC News here in the US that shows the connection of Bin Laden and Hussein.

As my good friend Glenn Beck says . . . "I'm just sayin' . . ."

**EDIT** And yes I know there's a more recent report from ABC News stating that there was no link between the two, but their 1999 report went into the relationship rather extensively. Hmmmmmm . . . .

Hmmmmm... indeed. You've got one source saying two completely opposite things. Looks like either way you believe, ABC has you covered!

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

KWICKO

Friday, March 13, 2009 7:59 PM

Quote:

Thats my point, they created "marriage" they created it and defined it. You want something different...I say fine, nothing wrong with personal unions between same sex couples...but its something different, its not marriage.

Well, what if they created it and defined it, and called it "marriage"? Hey, like you say, it's just a word, and the definition is whatever someone says it is. And lots of things don't mean today what they meant in Christ's time, right?

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

RIPWASH

Friday, March 13, 2009 8:00 PM

Very true! Makes you wonder how much research these bozo's actually do. Sometimes I think . . . not so much**.

**Research that is. Not that I don't think much. (Just tryin' to beat some of you guys to the punch there )

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 13, 2009 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
All the reasonable and informed folks on the subject

LOL, that's another good one, H.

Quote:

Some people vote straight party line for either side. I think most people vote the way they do for very good reasons.

LOL, keep 'em comin', man!
Many who voted for Obama did so for TOTALLY the wrong reasons, IMO.

Quote:

You should not assume people are stupid or ignorant or whatever for making a decision different then yours.

I never played Russian Roulette. It's a decision I've made. Many who've made the opposite decision are dead. Can I assume that that was a bad decision, even though it was different than mine? Please Hero, don't go all PC on me now.

Quote:
You risk dehumanizing your opposition and that could lead to the very oppression you fear.

You ARE right about that. I must have more compassion for the stupid & ignorant.

Okay, AND for peeps that just didn't/couldn't see it the way I did.

Quote:

If you don't trust people to make the right decision and if that's the case, perhaps you should take the decision out of their hands.

The memo stated that it IS largely out of our hands.

Seriously though, thanks for stating your reasons.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 13, 2009 8:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Chris,
Neo cons aren't 1/4th the fascist as Obama
& the Dems.

You couldn't just say the Dems are more fascist, you had to push it to a ridiculous extreme, eh?

Neurons.
Use them.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 13, 2009 9:58 PM

I was gonna say 1/10th , but decided to be more accurate instead.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Citizen (and Kwicko and Storymark and . . . ), I know you'll probably dispute this, but here is a report from 1999 from ABC News here in the US that shows the connection of Bin Laden and Hussein.

As my good friend Glenn Beck says . . . "I'm just sayin' . . ."

**EDIT** And yes I know there's a more recent report from ABC News stating that there was no link between the two, but their 1999 report went into the relationship rather extensively. Hmmmmmm . . . .

If an American news source is saying it, I'm more inclined to believe it isn't true.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

If an American news source is saying it, I'm more inclined to believe it isn't true.

Funny, that's similar to what Rush Limbaugh has said about the US news media as well.

I'm just sayin'.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Thats my point, they created "marriage" they created it and defined it. You want something different...I say fine, nothing wrong with personal unions between same sex couples...but its something different, its not marriage.

It doesn't support your point at all. It fairly solidly shows that Marriage is whatever we want it to be, especially considering many cultures around the world consider marriage to be something rather different, and that before the narrow Judo-Christian definition was adopted marriage was VERY different to what it is now. In fact go back a few hundred years there was no 'legal' marriage. Go back a few more and Marriage wasn't even a particularly religious ceremony.

In reality your argument is nonsense, because the definition of marriage has changed constantly, holding up the current definition as "traditionally" and therefore "right" and "the only one possible" is bullshit on so many counts I'm surprised I even have to point it out. But apparently I do, so:
1) Marriage has changed constantly, if it hadn't our current definition wouldn't be the accepted one. It's actually more traditional for the definition of marriage to change, and hell it's actually more traditional for it too include same-sex marriages.

2) An argument based around something being codified in law and that being it, is silly. Laws get rewritten all the time. A concept you yourself seem to have no problem with when the law in question is one you don't like.

3) Traditional isn't short hand for right or correct. Just because something is traditional, doesn't mean it cannot or should not be changed. Arguing that something is the way it is, and that's why we can't/shouldn't change it, is laughable.

4) There's a definition for your entire argument, it's an "appeal to tradition". Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. Are you also going to argue that we shouldn't drive cars, because people have ridden horses for millennia? Makes about as much sense. Logical fallacies are such, because on the face of it they sound good, but in the end prove and mean nothing.

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Funny, that's similar to what Rush Limbaugh has said about the US news media as well.

I'm just sayin'.

Rush Limbaugh is a member of the news media. He comments on news events, which means his basically the radio equivalent of those writers who write opinion pieces in news papers. As such that might be one of the few times he's on too something, because if Rush Limbaugh's saying something, it's probably bullshit.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:59 AM

Rush is as much a part of the US News media as you are w/ the British news media. You comment on news events, which means you are basically the internet equivalent of those writers who write opinion pieces in news papers. As such that might be one of the few times I am on too something, because if citizen's saying something, it's probably bullshit.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 14, 2009 1:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Rush is as much a part of the US News media as you are w/ the British news media. You comment on news events, which means you are basically the internet equivalent of those writers who write opinion pieces in news papers. As such that might be one of the few times I am on too something, because if citizen's saying something, it's probably bullshit.

If I were paid to comment on them, then yes. I'm not. Rush is. You're onto nothing. Instead you've basically proven you're incredibly stupid.

If you say something, we know its a lie. Ergo:
You've just proven that if I say something it's probably not bullshit, and Rush Limbaugh is definitely part of the American news media.

Thanks for the vote of confidence!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 14, 2009 1:39 AM

It's funny to see you try to contort your own twisted logic.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 14, 2009 1:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's funny to see you try to contort your own twisted logic.

You've been reading that word of the day calendar again. Given some more time you might actually know what you're talking about! Well done you.

What you need to do now is log into your sock puppet username so that you can say "well done AURaptor, put them loopy liberals in their place, you're so great!"

Then we can all laugh at the angry monkey slowly going insane.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:01 AM

You're the one gettin' all fussy, tossin' out insults and all. Look who's the angry monkey now!

Might be past your beddie-bye time.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You're the one gettin' all fussy, tossin' out insults and all. Look who's the angry monkey now!

Might be past your beddie-bye time.

Nope, you were the first to get personal, so yep, you're the angry crazy sock puppet wielding monkey. I'm afraid no amount of lying or rewriting of posts/history will change that. I know you'll be upset by that, since those things are all you have, but that's just the way it is.

You can check if you like, I have got the quote in one of my posts though, so don't go changing yours now, it'll just make you look more of a delusional liar

You just carry on not taking responsibility for your actions, you are after all an American far right winger, not taking responsibility for your actions is basically the dictionary definition.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:18 AM

Hee hee. Now you're gettin' cranky AND delusional. All I did was to turn your own words onto yourself. I never got ' personal', you did. And you know it. That's what makes all of this so fun. You've painted yourself into a wee little corner, and now you're all angry monkey and such.

Don't go to bed angry!

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

RUE

Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:30 AM

'nuff said.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:32 AM

'nuff said.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:40 AM

'nuff said.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:41 AM

'nuff said.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Saturday, March 14, 2009 3:15 AM

"Looking back on it now I'm not convinced that we were wrong. I agree the post invasion planning was bad."

Some people knew there were no WMDs. Tens of millions people knew it was a war of choice, not an act of self-protection. (... those tens of millions of people who demonstrated against the war world-wide.) Even Putin had the sense to see what a quagmire it would be.

How did all those people know something you did not ? Especially when they were in the news and you had the benefit of their insights ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

YINYANG

Saturday, March 14, 2009 3:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Why is it okay to stare at a beautiful car, or a beautiful child, but not a beautiful girl?

Um, because girls are children?

Justsayinisall

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 14, 2009 7:33 AM

Kerry's pic is clearly self explanatory. As for what Bush is doing to the 1 vollyball palyer, I've got no damn clue. She's explaining or demonstrating somethin, but I got nothin.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 14, 2009 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Hee hee. Now you're gettin' cranky AND delusional. All I did was to turn your own words onto yourself. I never got ' personal', you did.

You turned my words, directed at no one at this site, on to me, and some how that isn't personal. Hmm. That's not a delusional thing to say, but if you think anyone's going to buy it, you've pretty much just proved you're the stupidest moron on this site.

I know, you're just pissed off because I so completely owned you in that other thread so quickly you barely had time to run away! I'ts ok, just declare yourself the winner here, and we can all laugh at the delusional crazy monkey while you puff yourself up and act self important.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 14, 2009 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Hee hee. Now you're gettin' cranky AND delusional. All I did was to turn your own words onto yourself. I never got ' personal', you did.

You turned my words, directed at no one at this site, on to me, and some how that isn't personal. Hmm. That's not a delusional thing to say, but if you think anyone's going to buy it, you've pretty much just proved you're the stupidest moron on this site.

I know, you're just pissed off because I so completely owned you in that other thread so quickly you barely had time to run away! I'ts ok, just declare yourself the winner here, and we can all laugh at the delusional crazy monkey while you puff yourself up and act self important.

Awww.... look who woke up cranky on a fine Saturday morn.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Awww.... look who woke up cranky on a fine Saturday morn.

Heh, dance for me troll, dance!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:23 PM

Geeze, you're easier than a liquored up sorority girl.

(and I say that not as an insult, but with regret. )

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Geeze, you're easier than a liquored up sorority girl.

(and I say that not as an insult, but with regret. )

Now roll over!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KWICKO

Saturday, March 14, 2009 6:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kerry's pic is clearly self explanatory. As for what Bush is doing to the 1 vollyball palyer, I've got no damn clue. She's explaining or demonstrating somethin, but I got nothin.

Spin, boy! SPIN!

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

CHRISISALL

Saturday, March 14, 2009 6:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Why is it okay to stare at a beautiful car, or a beautiful child, but not a beautiful girl?

Um, because girls are children?

Justsayinisall

Excuse me, I meant young woman.

The corrected Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Saturday, March 14, 2009 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
As for what Bush is doing to the 1 vollyball palyer, I've got no damn clue.

Of course not, you like Bush better, so you can accept him staring at a young woman.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 14, 2009 9:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
As for what Bush is doing to the 1 vollyball palyer, I've got no damn clue.
Of course not, you like Bush better, so you can accept him staring at a young woman.

The laughing Chrisisall

The two photos are not anywhere near the same, thus there's no comparison. Liking W or not, isn't the issue.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, March 14, 2009 9:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

The two photos are not anywhere near the same, thus there's no comparison. Liking W or not, isn't the issue.

LOL, of course, looking at a female's ass is much more respectful than looking at a female's boobs. It's the curve of the neck that delineates the offense, I forgot, sorry your worshipfullness.

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Saturday, March 14, 2009 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

The two photos are not anywhere near the same, thus there's no comparison. Liking W or not, isn't the issue.

LOL, of course, looking at a female's ass is much more respectful than looking at a female's boobs. It's the curve of the neck that delineates the offense, I forgot, sorry your worshipfullness.

The laughing Chrisisall

Yeah, looking down her top is BAD and creepy, but smacking her on the ass shows respect!

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:59 PM

Bush is clearly not smacking anyone on their ass in the pic above. Looks like he's knocking sand off the woman's lower back, with the back of his hand, well above her hind quarters. And he appears to be doing what ever it is w/ her consent, while Kerry is obviously sneaking a peek at young coeds, younger than his own daughter, while they obliviously mug for the camera.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

KWICKO

Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:11 PM

Is he "sneaking a peek" or is he "staring"?

You're not making any sense!

And what on Earth is wrong with sneaking a peek anyway?

Mike

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:20 PM

Now you're just being silly.

Neat sig, though.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

AGENTROUKA

Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:34 PM

Did anyone notice that the other girl in the Kerry picture is looking in the same direction?

Maybe the girl's chest is particuarly mesmerizing, maybe they are looking at something below her chest, maybe she's holding something... The picture makes him look bad, but just like the Bush picture, I figure it probably wasn't a creepy old man thing.

Anyway, sneaking a peek is almost involuntary, for men and woman both. Staring is creepy, but I doubt this was happening here.

And Bush's hand is definitely aiming for her back. It's a weird tableau, but definitely nothing disrespectful.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, March 16, 2009 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I can fully understand why someone might have voted for him the first time, by why in the name of Our Dear & Fluffy Lord would ANYONE have voted for him the second time? Were they SO scared of the terrorists taking over? Was that it?

Comments? Theories?

The laughing Chrisisall

Because we were smart enough NOT to vote for John Kerry. Maybe if the Democrats had put up a candidate, it might have been different, it's not like there isn't a decent Democrat in existence - but just that the party won't allow a reasonable person in the top ticket.

Yeah, but you say that as if it's something only the Dems are guilty of! :) Plenty enough of that syndrome going around BOTH parties, to be honest.

Mike

You will not find me claiming that the GOP did not fail to put up a viable candidate in 2008. RINO McCain was the recent version of Dole in 1996, a worse liberal than Obama.
You have successfully made a valid point. Bravo.

RIPWASH

Monday, March 16, 2009 12:26 PM

Man, I know I'm gonna get blasted for this, but . . .

A point I like to make is that the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck . . . they've all made no bones about it. They're conservatives and they approach their shows from that point of view. They are commentating on politics from a certain slant. From their own personal beliefs and values. It's completely different, in my opinion, to claim to be an unbiased news media outlet like CNN or MSNBC and have the news anchors be so completely in one corner of the political landscape. Chris Matthews gushed about Obama and said he got a flutter up his leg during one of Obama's speaches and claims it's HIS job to make sure Obama succeeds. He never made such claims (that I know of) during the Bush administration.

All I'm sayin', ladies and gents, is that there's a reason that Rush, Hannity and Beck are the highest rated talk show hosts in the U.S. People want to hear what they have to say. There's also a reason that Air America failed so miserably. No one listened despite all the fanfair and talent. Advertisers want to support programs that make them money and the same goes for radio stations. Like it or not. Poeple are in business to make money. That's what makes the world go 'round.

I also saw above a quote about the stock market starting at 10,000 and ending at 8,000 for Bush's administration. But the fact of the matter is that the stock market hit record highs in between that time also.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

CITIZEN

Monday, March 16, 2009 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
It's completely different, in my opinion, to claim to be an unbiased news media outlet like CNN or MSNBC and have the news anchors be so completely in one corner of the political landscape.

FOX News is by far the worst offender there.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RIPWASH

Monday, March 16, 2009 2:11 PM

That's what a lot of people on the left think, but again that's a matter of opinion depending on what side of the political spectrum you're on.

Look at it this way. Everything is a matter of personal opinion. People on the left see hate speech on the right and vice versa. Some of it warranted, some not. Being what I would call a conservative (but perhaps more libertarian), I see a LOT more hate-filled speech coming from the left. But that's just my opinion. I don't have any hatred for the left, so you'll see none from me, hopefully, but I do hope you call me on it if you do. Everyone on this forum is well-informed and I respect your views. I may not agree and will respectfully tell you so and hope you do the same for me. So far so good I've made no enemies that I can tell so far.

At any rate . . .

I don't recall hearing any anchor on Fox gush over McCain the way CNN and MSNBC gushed over Obama. What I heard (in my opinion), for example, was Fox questioning of why a fuss was being made over how many houses McCain could remember owning vs. the overlooking of Obama's ties to . . . yup, I'm gonna mention them . . . Bill Ayers and Kaleed Rashidi (not sure of the spelling on that one). The only yelling I've ever heard on Fox News was by someone on the Left getting upset over a common sense question being asked of them and their refusal to answer adequately.

I for one, was not a super strong supporter of McCain, but he was a far better choice, in my personal opinion, than Obama. And Obama has already, in less than 60 days, renigged on two major campaign promises. 1) to not allow lobbyists in his cabinet, he's now got several and 2) to disallow any pork barrell projects or earmarks in any bill, the stimulous package had over 8,000 lines of earmarks and pork. He also promised, in the last debate, to "take a scalpel" to the budget and eliminate projects that didn't work and expand those that did. So far, a proposed 8-9% increase in the budget.

That said, I hope that Obama succeeds in making this country stronger. I would be a fool to wish him otherwise. If what he does makes America stronger, great. But if not, then my fears were proven correct. Only time will tell. But so far . . . it ain't lookin' that good.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

CITIZEN

Monday, March 16, 2009 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I don't recall hearing any anchor on Fox gush over McCain the way CNN and MSNBC gushed over Obama. What I heard (in my opinion), for example, was Fox questioning of why a fuss was being made over how many houses McCain could remember owning vs. the overlooking of Obama's ties to . . . yup, I'm gonna mention them . . . Bill Ayers and Kaleed Rashidi (not sure of the spelling on that one). The only yelling I've ever heard on Fox News was by someone on the Left getting upset over a common sense question being asked of them and their refusal to answer adequately.

I wouldn't call any of America's televised media in the slightest biased to the left. Whether that's Left as much of the developed world understands it, or the left as America does. I don't really see how it could be a matter of my own biases, though I know I have them they're not in play in this circumstance, because as far as I'm concerned FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, Republicans and Democrats are all right wing, and I'm not prepared to vote for either Republicans or Democrats even if I had the opportunity to do so. In fact my prefered newspaper over here is the Independent, loony liberal that I am.

Regardless, any bias of all those outlets isn't my bias, or anything like, so I don't think my biases would lead to any appreciable difference in the way I judge the bias of those stations, because I'm simply not on your political spectrum. As such I've seen most US media put a filter on their news, the way they report it, what they report, but FOX News, uniquely, has out right lied, blatantly so, either by omission, or plain making stuff up. There was a thread on here a year or so ago where they got caught out doing just that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KWICKO

Monday, March 16, 2009 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Man, I know I'm gonna get blasted for this, but . . .

A point I like to make is that the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck . . . they've all made no bones about it. They're conservatives and they approach their shows from that point of view. They are commentating on politics from a certain slant. From their own personal beliefs and values. It's completely different, in my opinion, to claim to be an unbiased news media outlet like CNN or MSNBC and have the news anchors be so completely in one corner of the political landscape. Chris Matthews gushed about Obama and said he got a flutter up his leg during one of Obama's speaches and claims it's HIS job to make sure Obama succeeds. He never made such claims (that I know of) during the Bush administration.

All I'm sayin', ladies and gents, is that there's a reason that Rush, Hannity and Beck are the highest rated talk show hosts in the U.S. People want to hear what they have to say. There's also a reason that Air America failed so miserably. No one listened despite all the fanfair and talent. Advertisers want to support programs that make them money and the same goes for radio stations. Like it or not. Poeple are in business to make money. That's what makes the world go 'round.

I also saw above a quote about the stock market starting at 10,000 and ending at 8,000 for Bush's administration. But the fact of the matter is that the stock market hit record highs in between that time also.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

I don't know about "blasted", but I definitely disagree...

I don't find Back, Hannity, or Limbaugh to be reflective of mainstream conservatism. They're fringe, they're far-right, they're the extreme. I don't believe that Rush honestly believes the majority of the stuff he spews on the air. For instance, do you REALLY think that Rush believes that all drug addicts and abusers should be in prison, without exception? If so, why hasn't he checked himself in to prison? Why didn't he ask the judge to throw the book at him? Because in HIS case, at least, he sees addiction as a disease.

And as far as I've ever heard, MSNBC isn't claiming to be unbiased. Indeed, they wear their biases on their sleeves for all the world to see. During the campaign, it was painfully obvious to anyone watching that Chris Matthews was solidly in the Hillary camp and Keith Olbermann was solidly in the Obama camp. They didn't necessarily SLAM each other's picks, but it was pretty clear who each was hoping would win. I don't know, maybe it has to do with Olbermann's history and his coverage of the Clinton regime during the impeachment and the Whitewater investigation, but there's something about Hillary that really puts him off.

A better analogy of biased reportage would really come from Fox. They actually went so far as to copyright the phrase "Fair and Balanced™", when they are so clearly anything BUT.

As to people wanting to hear what Rush and Company have to say, well... sure. But that was kind of the point made by Howard Stern way back when, too - it wasn't that he was RIGHT, just that he was OUTRAGEOUS. Even people who hated him would tune in to, in their words, "see what he says next". The fact that they're pulling in ratings doesn't mean they're right, it doesn't mean they're saying what people are thinking; it just means they're saying things outlandish enough to keep people listening. If their views were the popular views, then gods help us all, because Simon Cowell just became the smartest person in America! ;)

I find it odd that conservatives bring up the failure of Air America (actually, it's still alive, much to my surprise; I thought it went belly-up years ago - but they just pulled out of Austin, not out of existence), yet those self-same conservatives ALSO continually, endlessly point out the "liberal media bias" that pervaded the airwaves and rules the country. If anything, isn't the failure

RIPWASH

Monday, March 16, 2009 2:42 PM

I would be very interested in seeing that thread. Could someone please find it and post the link?

All I can say is that in American terms of the American media being biased toward Obama is that after he was elected, Tom Brokaw, "America's Anchorman" admitted to not knowing much about Obama. Who's fault was that? McCain and Palin were scrutinized, but Obama was practically ignored.

I don't mean to argue Citizen, but personal bias does leak into perceptions of the world around us. I admit it freely. The way I perceive things is based on my personal views and values. As an American citizen, I look at the American media and wonder what on earth they are thinking. My reference to ABC news, for example. They had a report in 1999 that detailed the relationship between Hussein and Bin Laden. They later rely on a government report to say there was no relationship. They don't mention their earlier report to contest the later one. Why? I can only see that as the news media, ABC in this instance, refusing to admit, "Hey we did a report a few years ago that confirms the Bush adminstration's claims." You might see it otherwise, and I respect that, but it's plain as day to me.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

KWICKO

Monday, March 16, 2009 2:51 PM

Quote:
the stimulous package had over 8,000 lines of earmarks and pork. He also promised, in the last debate, to "take a scalpel" to the budget and eliminate projects that didn't work and expand those that did. So far, a proposed 8-9% increase in the budget.

Couple points of clarification:

1) Those earmarks number some 9000 - yet that is STILL less than 2% of the proposed spending. And 40% of those earmarks were inserted by Republicans, so it's hardly a Democrat free-for-all.

2) A propsed 8-9% increase in the budget WHICH NOW INCLUDES THE IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN WAR SPENDING. Please be clear on this in the future. Bush's budgets never included any war spending; that was always addressed through "emergency funding" bills, and left out of the yearly budgets. So that 8-9% increase may well result in a SMALLER budget if you take the war spending into account.

Mike

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

RIPWASH

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
the stimulous package had over 8,000 lines of earmarks and pork. He also promised, in the last debate, to "take a scalpel" to the budget and eliminate projects that didn't work and expand those that did. So far, a proposed 8-9% increase in the budget.

Couple points of clarification:

1) Those earmarks number some 9000 - yet that is STILL less than 2% of the proposed spending. And 40% of those earmarks were inserted by Republicans, so it's hardly a Democrat free-for-all.

2) A propsed 8-9% increase in the budget WHICH NOW INCLUDES THE IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN WAR SPENDING. Please be clear on this in the future. Bush's budgets never included any war spending; that was always addressed through "emergency funding" bills, and left out of the yearly budgets. So that 8-9% increase may well result in a SMALLER budget if you take the war spending into account.

Mike

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

Yes, the Republicans inserting those are just as guilty as anyone else - and they could be those pesky RINO's, too. Who knows?

. My point, however, was that Obama promised to cut the earmarks out and he did not, regardless of the percentage. Still a sizeable chunk when you think about it in terms of dollar figures, not percentages. He should have stood his ground and said he wasn't going to pass the bill until those earmarks were taken out.

In terms of the budget, the bottom line is all people are ever really going to care about. If he was going to include the war spending, he still should have kept his promise to eliminate programs that aren't working. I have not heard if he has done this or not. In my view, he didn't take a scalpel to the budget, he opened the floodgates with the stimulus package.

Again . . . and I can't emphasize this enough . . . I want this President to succeed, but right now all he's doing is making me scratch my head.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

KWICKO

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:56 PM

Quote:

That's what a lot of people on the left think, but again that's a matter of opinion depending on what side of the political spectrum you're on.

Look at it this way. Everything is a matter of personal opinion. People on the left see hate speech on the right and vice versa. Some of it warranted, some not. Being what I would call a conservative (but perhaps more libertarian), I see a LOT more hate-filled speech coming from the left. But that's just my opinion.

That's what a lot of people on EITHER side think, to be blunt about it. Whichever side you're on, you see hate speech coming from the other side, but rarely your own. After all, if you're BEING called a "surrender monkey", it's probably more likely to seem offensive, whereas those who HEAR someone else being called such, doesn't strike them as offensive in the least.

In other words, we're somewhat programmed to hear the things from "the other guy" that we're vehemently opposed to, or that we're offended by, and we tend to tune out the stuff that we agree with or even that only mildly annoys us. So when you, as someone on the right, hears someone on the left go on a long diatribe against one of your favorite politicians, you tend to only focus on the negative parts, which your mind labels "hate speech". And if you were to then hear someone from your side go on a similar diatribe about the evils of the other side, you'd hear things you're pretty much in agreement with, which reinforce your already-held notions instead of challenging them, so your ming doesn't register any of it as offensive or hateful.

As you say, YOU see more of it coming from the Left. I, as a liberal, see much more of it coming from the Right. Like I said, in a way we're programmed to see it that way, because we already have our own internal biases that we've formed over the years...

Just another way of looking at it, and something to think about.

Mike

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

RIPWASH

Monday, March 16, 2009 4:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

That's what a lot of people on the left think, but again that's a matter of opinion depending on what side of the political spectrum you're on.

Look at it this way. Everything is a matter of personal opinion. People on the left see hate speech on the right and vice versa. Some of it warranted, some not. Being what I would call a conservative (but perhaps more libertarian), I see a LOT more hate-filled speech coming from the left. But that's just my opinion.

That's what a lot of people on EITHER side think, to be blunt about it. Whichever side you're on, you see hate speech coming from the other side, but rarely your own. After all, if you're BEING called a "surrender monkey", it's probably more likely to seem offensive, whereas those who HEAR someone else being called such, doesn't strike them as offensive in the least.

In other words, we're somewhat programmed to hear the things from "the other guy" that we're vehemently opposed to, or that we're offended by, and we tend to tune out the stuff that we agree with or even that only mildly annoys us. So when you, as someone on the right, hears someone on the left go on a long diatribe against one of your favorite politicians, you tend to only focus on the negative parts, which your mind labels "hate speech". And if you were to then hear someone from your side go on a similar diatribe about the evils of the other side, you'd hear things you're pretty much in agreement with, which reinforce your already-held notions instead of challenging them, so your ming doesn't register any of it as offensive or hateful.

As you say, YOU see more of it coming from the Left. I, as a liberal, see much more of it coming from the Right. Like I said, in a way we're programmed to see it that way, because we already have our own internal biases that we've formed over the years...

Just another way of looking at it, and something to think about.

Mike

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

Well said, my friend. Love the CHANGE poster, btw. That made me laugh out loud.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

CITIZEN

Monday, March 16, 2009 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I don't mean to argue Citizen, but personal bias does leak into perceptions of the world around us.

It's something I totally accept, I just don't see how it can change my comparative estimations between the two, as my biases would seem to colour both equally.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.