The W
Views: 99019571
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.9.14 2110
The W - Current Events & Politics - David Kuo rolls on GWB
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.88
Pages: 1 2 Next
(524 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (33 total)
Brian P. Dermody
Liverwurst
Moderator








Since: 20.9.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 903 days
Last activity: 325 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.31
I really thought they couldn't surprise me any more. (evangelicalright.com)

This guy was a "Special Advisor", whatever it is they do. And Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.

[Summary for dialuppers/YouTube backlashers can be found here. (also evangelicalright.com)]

I'm not sure why this angers me more than a lot of the other stuff that the administration has done. Assuming it's all true, I guess it's just the basest hypocrisy I've seen yet. I'm trying to take it with a grain of salt, figuring it's a good way for this guy to sell books...

Still, building a base on the backs of churchgoers and then glad-handing them and mocking them for it... it really raises the bile into the back of my throat.



Learn the mysteries of a secret society of retired busboys!

Reward TV -- TV just got better!
Promote this thread!
DJ FrostyFreeze
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.67

I saw this on "Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann" a couple nights ago. Politicians sucking up to certain groups just for votes is nothing new, but an administration actually laughing at, mocking, and manipulating the very people that are supposed to be their base had me pretty shocked. It just makes me shake my head & reminds me why & how much I hate politics (both sides).

I wonder if the "mainstream" media picks up on this or not. Have they yet?



You should visit AlenOnline.com today
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 50 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
This is standard. 1/2 the GOP think the other half is completely insane, and 1/2 the GOP think the other half is going to burn in hell. They work together because they have to. If the Evangelicals ever walked and tried to form their own party, the Dems would control everything except for a few small pockets in the Southeast and West. So the fiscal conservatives and anti-government types roll their eyes and walk along with the Jesus Brigades, united by the common enemy of the Godless Big Government Democrats. Which is why Hillary Clinton is the dream candidate for the GOP to run against in 2008, because she would rile up both wings of the party and keep everyone in lockstep.



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 12 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.18
I am pretty sure every President has at one time or another, enlisted the help of people and groups that they were not personally all that fond of.

Nothing new.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.04
You wanted the best, you got... Out of Context Quote of the Week.

"They're plump, ripe, and priced to move. Get your fat Samoan today!" (Packman V2)


It'd be easier to dismiss the book as that if the Bush administration was simply in league with the evangelicals. But he's been built up as One Of Them. The evangelical wing can be excused if they're expecting to get something substantial for their support, but they've just been mocked by the administration that Represents Them, but instead most of the administration's offices just dropped the "pre".





CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.28
"60 Minutes" got the Kuo interview.

Text excerpt: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/14/60minutes/main2089778.shtml
Video excerpt: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2089880n

I wish I'd seen the whole "60 Minutes" story, because maybe then I'd finally figure out just what the big deal is here (besides selling books, of course).



CRZ
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.35
Zed, the big deal is betrayal. The conservative Christian movement is coming to the realization that they are being used by many in the Republican party. This isn't simply business as usual. These people have deliberately chosen to involve their religious beliefs directly in politics. The politicians have said " We are your moral partners and will partner to achieve these specific moral goals." They have been used and worse mocked for their beliefs. Whether or not this is a big deal remains to be seen. It depends on if the religious allies of the Reps believe it or not.



Perception is reality
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.60
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    It depends on if the religious allies of the Reps believe it or not.


I think we believe it from the Republicans - of course they're making fun of us. People who aren't Christians are supposed to make fun of those who are. The big guy said that would happen.

That being the case, what should we do: continue to support people who are willing to help us with our agenda - getting back to a place where there were some limits on indecency, allowing parents to make choices for their children - and not the children for the parents, making sure all humans have a right to due process, not just criminals, but the unborn humans as well, safety to worship as we wish, instead in a politically correct way, the government as far out of our lives as possible, while making the world around us safe for our children.

They're noble goals. Do we think that republicans who think Pat Roberson is nuts will help us? (I think Pat Robertson's nuts, BTW). Do we think the democrats will help us? (I resisted appending my favorite adjective to "Democrats" for the purposes of a civil discussion).

We know that the democratic party agenda is not ours. We don't want abortion providers on every corner, gay marriages, huge new entitlements run by government agencies, or any power given to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or Teddy Kennedy.

Of course, many of the current republicans are spending like drunken sailors on I and I. I vote against those guys in the primary. I voted for my Senator, Richard Lugar, but against my Representative, Mike Sodrell. But no matter, I am voting FOR both of them in the general election.

I still believe that's essentially what the evangelical Christian voters will do.



Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.35
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      It depends on if the religious allies of the Reps believe it or not.


    I think we believe it from the Republicans - of course they're making fun of us. People who aren't Christians are supposed to make fun of those who are. The big guy said that would happen.

    That being the case, what should we do: continue to support people who are willing to help us with our agenda - getting back to a place where there were some limits on indecency, allowing parents to make choices for their children - and not the children for the parents, making sure all humans have a right to due process, not just criminals, but the unborn humans as well, safety to worship as we wish, instead in a politically correct way, the government as far out of our lives as possible, while making the world around us safe for our children.

    They're noble goals. Do we think that republicans who think Pat Roberson is nuts will help us? (I think Pat Robertson's nuts, BTW). Do we think the democrats will help us? (I resisted appending my favorite adjective to "Democrats" for the purposes of a civil discussion).

    We know that the democratic party agenda is not ours. We don't want abortion providers on every corner, gay marriages, huge new entitlements run by government agencies, or any power given to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or Teddy Kennedy.

    Of course, many of the current republicans are spending like drunken sailors on I and I. I vote against those guys in the primary. I voted for my Senator, Richard Lugar, but against my Representative, Mike Sodrell. But no matter, I am voting FOR both of them in the general election.

    I still believe that's essentially what the evangelical Christian voters will do.


I undersatnd what you said but two questions for the sake of discussion.

1. Which is worse, Dems that openly hold counter views or Reps that are mocking and using the Christian right?

2. Are the Reps really working to get government out of peoples lives?

Both parties are much too intrusive for my taste.

I am a liberal Christian who very much respects the beliefs of my conservative bretheren. While I don't share many of their stands on issues, I am sad they are being treated this way by some Reps.

And all politically active conservative Christians should read "Democracy in America". Although 150+ years old, its sections on the threat of political activism for the survival of religion are quite cautionary.



Perception is reality
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.28
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Zed, the big deal is betrayal. The conservative Christian movement is coming to the realization that they are being used by many in the Republican party.
Shouldn't they have figured this out already, though? Maybe I'm naive, or they're naive.

    This isn't simply business as usual. These people have deliberately chosen to involve their religious beliefs directly in politics. The politicians have said " We are your moral partners and will partner to achieve these specific moral goals." They have been used and worse mocked for their beliefs. Whether or not this is a big deal remains to be seen. It depends on if the religious allies of the Reps believe it or not.
People keep saying "they're all gonna STAY HOME and the DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA TAKE OVER" and I can't help but think there's more wishful thinking than actual *thought* behind that idea. Evangelicals are righteous, frightening people who tend to either block out the news around them OR use the perception that the world is against them in their righteous cause (and see stories like this one as "the media's piling on again" - or even "well, I don't know who this Kuo guy is, and we all had an inklin about Rove's opinion anyway, but man... W's still MY CHRISTIAN BROTHER" and unless I've missed it, nobody's attributed any of this stuff directly to him yet - but I'll stay tuned ) Whew, that was a long parenthetical. I'll start again. ...tend to either block out the news around them or use it in such a way to energize themselves to turn out in droves for the Republicans and suddenly all the pundits are surprised at what's happened (see 2002). I just don't see them staying home - too big a fear that by doing just that they'll see the country go to hell when the other guys win - and I have yet to see anybody on the other side of the aisle doing anything to convince them that switching sides WON'T cause the country to go to hell. Now, I already hear a certain segment of the population say "hey buddy, we're closer than you think as it is" but I'm not necessarily the guy you need to convince, you know?

Maybe they could start their OWN party!



CRZ
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 50 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
    Originally posted by CRZ
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Zed, the big deal is betrayal. The conservative Christian movement is coming to the realization that they are being used by many in the Republican party.
    Shouldn't they have figured this out already, though? Maybe I'm naive, or they're naive.

      This isn't simply business as usual. These people have deliberately chosen to involve their religious beliefs directly in politics. The politicians have said " We are your moral partners and will partner to achieve these specific moral goals." They have been used and worse mocked for their beliefs. Whether or not this is a big deal remains to be seen. It depends on if the religious allies of the Reps believe it or not.
    People keep saying "they're all gonna STAY HOME and the DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA TAKE OVER" and I can't help but think there's more wishful thinking than actual *thought* behind that idea. Evangelicals are righteous, frightening people who tend to either block out the news around them OR use the perception that the world is against them in their righteous cause (and see stories like this one as "the media's piling on again" - or even "well, I don't know who this Kuo guy is, and we all had an inklin about Rove's opinion anyway, but man... W's still MY CHRISTIAN BROTHER" and unless I've missed it, nobody's attributed any of this stuff directly to him yet - but I'll stay tuned ) Whew, that was a long parenthetical. I'll start again. ...tend to either block out the news around them or use it in such a way to energize themselves to turn out in droves for the Republicans and suddenly all the pundits are surprised at what's happened (see 2002). I just don't see them staying home - too big a fear that by doing just that they'll see the country go to hell when the other guys win - and I have yet to see anybody on the other side of the aisle doing anything to convince them that switching sides WON'T cause the country to go to hell. Now, I already hear a certain segment of the population say "hey buddy, we're closer than you think as it is" but I'm not necessarily the guy you need to convince, you know?

    Maybe they could start their OWN party!

They've done the stay at home thing before. 1992 immediately jumps to mind. There were a lot of religious conservative groups that year who pretty much just decided to sit out, or not work as hard as ever.

The problem this year for the GOP is they don't have anything really good to fire up their base. The gay marriage thing has kind of petered out. With the two new SCOTUS justices the abortion thing is kind of on hold. And while the organizational base will still work hard for the GOP, it's going to be tougher to convince folks who tend to think ill of politics in general to come out and vote to save the GOP simply to stop the Dems. There will likely be more "a pox on both their houses" voters who decide to sit out. And I don't think the Kuo thing will have nearly as much to do with it as the Foley controversy.

I guess I just fail to see the lightning rod the GOP will be able to use to whip the evangelicals into a frenzy in these final few weeks. It seems like no issue they try to run with gains any traction. I don't think it will be everything the Dems are hoping for, since polling tends to consistently underestimate the GOP base by a couple percent, but it's not going to be good for the GOP. There are just too many districts that are normally safe GOP plays that are up in the air, to the point where everything would have to break for the GOP on election day, and can anyone really say that they expect that to happen?



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
EddieBurkett
Boudin blanc








Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 48 sec.
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.02
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    making sure all humans have a right to due process, not just criminals, but the unborn humans as well


I'm really not looking to hijack the thread or troll, but I can't read this quote and not snicker after the elimination of habeas corpus for 'terrorists'. I'm actually somewhat surprised that topic didn't get more discussion on this board.



You believe me, don't you?
Please believe what I just said...
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.35
Zed, I don't mean to imply they will stay home as I really don't know.

Maybe they should have figured all this out but they are so zealous that they want to believe the Reps as a whole care like they do.

By tying God to a particular party, they can't win unless everything goes their way. If Congress does go to the Dems than God lost.

By the way, I have my doubts that the Reps will lose control. They might but the Dems just aren't doing a good job of enunciating why people should vote for them. We'll have to see.



Perception is reality
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.28
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Zed, I don't mean to imply they will stay home as I really don't know.
Nor did *I* mean to imply that I was getting that from you specifically!

I'm also in the "Dems will surely find a way to blow this golden opportunity" camp.....but I'm also voting third party as much as can this time around, so who knows who I'M helping. ;-)



CRZ
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.60
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    1. Which is worse, Dems that openly hold counter views or Reps that are mocking and using the Christian right?

    2. Are the Reps really working to get government out of peoples lives?


1. Doc, I'd rather have almost anyone running our government than Pelosi and Reid. Anyone. (troll-like rant deleted because, well, I just got a really nice note from someone and I didn't want to screw it up just yet)

So yeah, I'd rather have 10-15-20% of my stated agenda from the Republicans and let them call me a hick and a bumpkin and a dummy, then I would get the Democrats in there and do their thing.

2. The ones I vote for (at least in the primary) do. My heros do. Most of them are just washington money grabbers like the democrats are. Best I can hope for is that I get more out of their pork-barrel down time than I wil from the Dems pork barrel down time.

At least voting for a republican (or a democrat, if that is your thing, and trust me, Doc, I will NEVER understand why that is your thing) is voting for something. You hope you have some influence.

do I wish it was perfect? Of course. It's not going to be. So you pragmatically vote for the person who best represents you. I voted for a democrat once or twice. It'd take a lot for me to vote for one again.

    Originally posted by CRZ
    I'm also in the "Dems will surely find a way to blow this golden opportunity" camp.....but I'm also voting third party as much as can this time around, so who knows who I'M helping. ;-)


stay home, save gas. Why bother? On principle? Unless you have an independent star (Jesse Ventura,ah yeah, I remembered - Ross Perot, or even AhNold), you have almost zero chance unless it's for dogcatcher. At best you are voting against someone who might win if you voted for the best possible winner. At worst, you are encouraging people who might enter one of the major parties and actually help to reform them to stay out on the fringe and be inconsequential.

For example, there's a guy here, Losertarian. Gonna get his 1 or 2%. Whoopee. It'll be a "moral" victory if he gets 3%. Still a loser. Now, the guy is fiscally very sound, pretty down the Libertarian. For a Libertarian, he's socially rather conservative. I could vote for him. but he has NO change to win. Now, if he would shuck all that "3% is a moral victory" crap and join the Republican party and run, I predict he'd do well. Maybe win in Primary. Have actual influence, instead of looking all scholarly and above it all.

But, you see, that takes BALLS. And I haven't met any Liberatarians with them yet. They are all chicken and unwilling to fight for a win, accepting that it is easier to lose.

Ok, see, I CAN troll.

(edited by AWArulz on 16.10.06 1654)


Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 50 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    stay home, save gas. Why bother? On principle? Unless you have an independent star (Jesse Ventura,ah yeah, I remembered - Ross Perot, or even AhNold), you have almost zero chance unless it's for dogcatcher. At best you are voting against someone who might win if you voted for the best possible winner. At worst, you are encouraging people who might enter one of the major parties and actually help to reform them to stay out on the fringe and be inconsequential.

    For example, there's a guy here, Losertarian. Gonna get his 1 or 2%. Whoopee. It'll be a "moral" victory if he gets 3%. Still a loser. Now, the guy is fiscally very sound, pretty down the Libertarian. For a Libertarian, he's socially rather conservative. I could vote for him. but he has NO change to win. Now, if he would shuck all that "3% is a moral victory" crap and join the Republican party and run, I predict he'd do well. Maybe win in Primary. Have actual influence, instead of looking all scholarly and above it all.

    But, you see, that takes BALLS. And I haven't met any Liberatarians with them yet. They are all chicken and unwilling to fight for a win, accepting that it is easier to lose.

    Ok, see, I CAN troll.

    (edited by AWArulz on 16.10.06 1654)

And some fine trolling it was sir

As for Losertarian...maybe he doesn't want to compromise. Maybe the compromises that he would have to make to be a Republican would be as distasteful to him as the ones you would make to be a Democrat. I find it kind of counterproductive to bash someone for standing up for their beliefs simply because they will not succeed in a given election. If anything many of our problems are because we have so many groups grafted into an unwieldy two party system. Why isn't there a party that works to advance the Evangelical agenda without trying to simultaneously carry the Limited Government agenda? Because the way the two party system is right now no one can leave the fold without tipping the balance. The only chance for this to change is for large masses of people to accept a short-term failure in the hopes of building something for the future. But because every election cycle is built up as if it is electoral Armageddon, such a thing can never occur.



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.60
    Originally posted by spf
    As for Losertarian...maybe he doesn't want to compromise. Maybe the compromises that he would have to make to be a Republican would be as distasteful to him as the ones you would make to be a Democrat.


Look, this ain't Canada (he said, trying AGAIN not to troll). We have a two party system. It's more or less been that way since Hamilton and Burr shot it out. During that time, we have never had a major third party. When the Whigs were sort of losing relevance, the Republicans came in. But that was precipitated by the Civil war. Otherwise, we have had some personalities run third parties on a national level, but they have not lived part the celebrity. Who do you know in the American Independence Party? The Free Soil Party? The Reform party is almost done - they do still have a website ( http://www.reformparty.org/national.htm ).

You can wish all day for multiple parties, but face reality. The way you make changes is by getting into the party and changing it. And if you don't want to build your coalition and work your ass off for change, then you end up outside, basically irrelevant. Pat Buchanan comes to mind.

I am truely excited by what Joe Lieberman is doing. Yes, he's running as an "independent", but we all know that it's a somewhat conservative democrat against a lefty democrat.

When Joe wins, (and he will) will he begin to build that less lefty coalition within the Ds? Is that the kind of change from within that the Ds need? Too many of the true conservatives (JC Watts comes to mind) have more or less given up on changing the Rs from inside.

But it has been done - and many times. The radicals from the 60s, Kerry included, who, instead of being in the "yippie party - thanks Abbie Hoffman" entered the democratic party and moved it to the left. Shoot, I could have voted for Humphrey and Kennedy and some others (not McGovern or Johnson, though) and I DID vote for Carter. Same on the Republicans - after Nixon, the fiscal conservatives and reaganites got in there and moved the party to the right.

The problem is, the true right radicals, and the whoevers are not in there on the Rs side - they are out going for the 2% moral victories. While the lefty radicals are in the Democratic party.



Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 50 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by spf
      As for Losertarian...maybe he doesn't want to compromise. Maybe the compromises that he would have to make to be a Republican would be as distasteful to him as the ones you would make to be a Democrat.


    Look, this ain't Canada (he said, trying AGAIN not to troll). We have a two party system. It's more or less been that way since Hamilton and Burr shot it out. During that time, we have never had a major third party. When the Whigs were sort of losing relevance, the Republicans came in. But that was precipitated by the Civil war. Otherwise, we have had some personalities run third parties on a national level, but they have not lived part the celebrity. Who do you know in the American Independence Party? The Free Soil Party? The Reform party is almost done - they do still have a website ( http://www.reformparty.org/national.htm ).

    You can wish all day for multiple parties, but face reality. The way you make changes is by getting into the party and changing it. And if you don't want to build your coalition and work your ass off for change, then you end up outside, basically irrelevant. Pat Buchanan comes to mind.

    I am truely excited by what Joe Lieberman is doing. Yes, he's running as an "independent", but we all know that it's a somewhat conservative democrat against a lefty democrat.

    When Joe wins, (and he will) will he begin to build that less lefty coalition within the Ds? Is that the kind of change from within that the Ds need? Too many of the true conservatives (JC Watts comes to mind) have more or less given up on changing the Rs from inside.

    But it has been done - and many times. The radicals from the 60s, Kerry included, who, instead of being in the "yippie party - thanks Abbie Hoffman" entered the democratic party and moved it to the left. Shoot, I could have voted for Humphrey and Kennedy and some others (not McGovern or Johnson, though) and I DID vote for Carter. Same on the Republicans - after Nixon, the fiscal conservatives and reaganites got in there and moved the party to the right.

    The problem is, the true right radicals, and the whoevers are not in there on the Rs side - they are out going for the 2% moral victories. While the lefty radicals are in the Democratic party.

This is a very different world than the one in which only 2 parties were formed. There is no reason except for inertia that we still live in a two-party country. With the amount of decentralized media that exists there is no need for there to be this sort of thing. We live in a two-party state that no one is particularly happy with, but no one would dare change it because that would be letting "the enemy" take control. Combine that with restrictive ballot access laws, and the two parties go on to the satisfaction of no one, government never does much of anything that any one wants, and our President worships with people he calls "nuts" in order to show how much he agrees with them.

And the lefty radicals are in the Green Party. Getting the other 1% of the non two-party vote that the Libertarians aren't getting.




Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese








Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1164 days
Last activity: 697 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.04
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    While the lefty radicals are in the Democratic party.


No. I'm sorry you believe that.

And I respect politicians acting like they're scholarly and above politics. I don't want my leaders to be uber-talented in pandering and lying.



My first Marathon was November 27th 2005 -- 3:10:43

Hogan's My Dad
Andouille








Since: 8.6.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 17 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.91
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    So you pragmatically vote for the person who best represents you.


    Originally posted by AWArulz
    stay home, save gas. Why bother? On principle?


This kind of hypocrisy is something only evangelicals seem to be capable of, and that is why you get attacked. Not because Christianity is utterly reviled on American society.

You want him to stay home so that your side has a better chance at winning, and that's quite transparent by what you've advised here. To call that noble is laughable. Your agenda at the expense of everyone else's right to express themselves democratically violates the principles your country was founded on.

The reality is, if you did have a couple of parties split off, the other side wouldn't win (necessarily). Sure, you might drop an election to the Dems, but that wouldn't be the end of the world. When more choice is there in the future, things would be better. It would, however, get a lot more complicated. In Canada certain parties have to make deals in order for one to amass power and the less powerful one to get some of its issues addressed. Not perfect, but better than "one side fucks the other for eight year periods". Multi-party is still a more effective form of governance than what you have in the States. This way, more of the what the general populace wants actually gets represented in policy. And in America, there'd be more variation, and you'd be surprised. With only about sixty percent of eligible voters coming out, what would happen if a party or parties came along which were really speaking to that disenfranchised forty?

(edited by Hogan's My Dad on 16.10.06 2352)


It hurts to be a wrestling fan.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 6.88
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Fidel Castro in Central Park
Next thread: Clear Channel Considers Sale
Previous thread: Alright, now it's Personal GOP! (Online Gaming Ban)
(524 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
What this points out is the hypocrisy on both ends. For both sides it's all about the money and perpetuating their organization/cause, not solving problems or fighting the good fight. I'm not talking about the foot soldiers but the higher ups.
The W - Current Events & Politics - David Kuo rolls on GWBRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.139 seconds.