RE: published article that makes a lot of sense

RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 11:15:37 AM)
Aynn, Don't be so quick. As someone else said recently (I've forgotten who, but ya'll can Google it if you care), "Republicans are GREAT are running elections--they just aren't good at running the country." Tim

celticlord2112 -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 11:21:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u CL when you say the Democrats have the votes....I'm hoping your aware they do not have a veto-proof majority and never have during the entirety of bushies presidency(that felt better) Vetoes be damned. Bush can only veto legislation that is passed. If the Democrats would refuse to pass funding bills for Iraq, the troops necessarily would have to come home. That requires only a simple majority in Congress. The Democrats have that. If the Democrats would refuse to pass a budget that has deficit spending, there would be no deficits. That only requires a simple majority in Congress. The Democrats have that. Whining about a "veto proof" majority suggests that the Democrats are not obligated to work with Republicans to administer the government of this nation in the best interests of this nation. That argument is summarily rejected; it is morally bankrupt, politically unsound, and practically unworkable. The Democrats have had control of Congress since 2006. Since 2006 they have not altered in the slightest this country's political direction. Since 2006 they have been MIA with respect to leading this nation and this nation's government. Since 2006 their esteem in the public eye has plummeted; I submit this is not mere coincidence. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u You started a thread a few weeks ago asking for opinions on bushies legacy...care to suggest one now,in light of the single biggest socialist proposal this country ha ever seen? Certainly. More of Bush cleaning up Clinton's mess.

slvemike4u -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 11:27:49 AM)
This post is a joke in its entirety.(the punch line being bushies legacy bit) Do you really expect the Democratic party to hold the nation hostage by refusing to pass a budget.Dithering and bickering as the wheels of government grind to a halt In your model you would hve the Democrats cutting their own throats to spite the Republicans...all while opening themselves up to Republican bashing as being unsupportive of the troops.....are you sure you don't work for The Republican Party?

SophiaCorrupted -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 11:32:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 If the Democrats would refuse to pass funding bills for Iraq, the troops necessarily would have to come home. That requires only a simple majority in Congress. The Democrats have that. If the Democrats would refuse to pass a budget that has deficit spending, there would be no deficits. That only requires a simple majority in Congress. The Democrats have that. Whining about a "veto proof" majority suggests that the Democrats are not obligated to work with Republicans to administer the government of this nation in the best interests of this nation. That argument is summarily rejected; it is morally bankrupt, politically unsound, and practically unworkable. The Democrats have had control of Congress since 2006. Since 2006 they have not altered in the slightest this country's political direction. Since 2006 they have been MIA with respect to leading this nation and this nation's government. Since 2006 their esteem in the public eye has plummeted; I submit this is not mere coincidence. You're essentially complaining that not all democrats are following the party line. Some democrats want out of Iraq now, some don't. I imagine many republicans would complain just as much if they did follow the party line. The only difference between what what the republicans were doing and what the democrats are trying to do is that the democrats are fighting against legitimate legislative-executive gridlock when the republican didn't have to.

celticlord2112 -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 11:40:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u This post is a joke in its entirety.(the punch line being bushies legacy bit) Do you really expect the Democratic party to hold the nation hostage by refusing to pass a budget.Dithering and bickering as the wheels of government grind to a halt Bill Clinton did exactly that, and brought Newt Gingrich and the Republicans to the bargaining table (personally I suspect Hillary put him up to it). Sometimes saying "No" come what may is the right thing to do--and the willingness to make that call is what is technically known as leadership. quote: In your model you would hve the Democrats cutting their own throats to spite the Republicans...all while opening themselves up to Republican bashing as being unsupportive of the troops.....are you sure you don't work for The Republican Party? So the Democratic MAJORITY is held hostage by a Republican MINORITY because bringing the troops home as the Democrats insist is in the nation's interest would be spun as bashing the troops. The Democratic MAJORITY is afraid to show the courage of their convictions lest they lose an election campaign. Tell me again how blatant cowardice is change we can believe in?

slvemike4u -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 11:51:12 AM)
No CL not funding the troops would be what they would get bashed for and you know it.Ending the war is indeed the Democratic game plan....but as adults and responsible public servants they need to do that responsibly...no way to do that with the current blithering idiot in the white house and you know that. This isn't a debate o the relative merits of Lincoln,this is the real world and real hardball politics...it would seem while proclaiming the Democrats as bereft of ideas and political courage,you expect them to do much more than their Republican counterparts...why is that?

SilverMark -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 12:00:05 PM)
hmmmm...in 2 years the Democratic Majority is to fix the ills brought on by so many years of Republican domination of both houses and the White House? Interesting concept C L but not realistic. The Republicans were the last to halt the government, didn't serve the country nor them very well. Pulling out of Iraq is a commendable objective but, not realistic due to forces, I know you understand. Conquering is one thing, policing and governing with Military officers is a bit different.( I know the Iraqis have a civil government now, even though they can't govern well) It would be irresponsible to have moved to quickly after the President had committed us so deeply. Yes, they can make a difference in many things but, your examples above would not be perceived as prudent or productive.

celticlord2112 -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 12:06:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u No CL not funding the troops would be what they would get bashed for and you know it.Ending the war is indeed the Democratic game plan....but as adults and responsible public servants they need to do that responsibly...no way to do that with the current blithering idiot in the white house and you know that. If Iraq is wrong, if Operation Iraqi Freedom was wrong, if continued American presence in Iraq is wrong, pray tell what is either adult or responsible about agreeing to fund that which is wrong? If the responsible thing is to continue to fund the troops in Iraq, on what basis then are the Democrats justified in haranguing the administration for continued troop presence in Iraq--i.e., for doing the "responsible" thing?

slvemike4u -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 12:13:28 PM)
Okay CL if you want to play this silly game lets play.....if Iraq is wrong(btw it is)it does not alter the reality that we are there and getting out is not as easy as getting in proved to be....but again you know this, as a matter of fact there is really no basis for continuing this pointless discussion with you...you twist and disseminate,you ignore facts you yourself know to be true...all to make a point I have a hard time believing you yourself believe in...

celticlord2112 -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 12:16:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Okay CL if you want to play this silly game lets play.....if Iraq is wrong(btw it is)it does not alter the reality that we are there and getting out is not as easy as getting in proved to be....but again you know this, as a matter of fact there is really no basis for continuing this pointless discussion with you...you twist and disseminate,you ignore facts you yourself know to be true...all to make a point I have a hard time believing you yourself believe in... You do realize that you have concisely summarized a position I have articulated many times in these forums (do the research).

slvemike4u -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 12:22:59 PM)
No CL the only thing I sought to point out and believe i have is your claim of bipartisianship is disproven by your track record of post's and your propensity to start frivolous anti- Obama threads....Of al here you should not be decrying others for a partisian view point....pot,kettle,black leaps to mind. Edited because a cluttered mind often derails itself...Mike

celticlord2112 -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 12:40:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u No CL I have proven nothing more,the only thing I sought to point out and believe i have is your claim of bipartisianship is disproven by your track record of post's and your propensity to start frivolous anti- Obama threads....Of al here you should not be decrying others for a partisian view point....pot,kettle,black leaps to mind. What claim of "bipartisanship"? My original assertion is that we, the American voters, bear full and sole responsibility for the government we have. Nothing said here even remotely challenges that assertion. My additional assertion is that it does not matter to what party the politicians belong. We elect them, we re-elect them, and if we don't like things in Washington we need to stop doing that. That is not being "bipartisan"; that is being accountable. As I have stated, and for the reasons I have stated, I do consider the Democratic political hacks to be considerably worse than their Republican counterparts. Excoriation of one is not approval of the other--any more than saying I detest squash amounts to saying I like beets. That also is not "bipartisan". I have stated that John McCain is a better choice by far than The One. Obviously that is not "bipartisan". In political debate, I am neither nuanced nor bipartisan. I am unhesitatingly, unreservedly, and unashamedly partisan. I have never pretended to be otherwise.

slvemike4u -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 12:46:15 PM)
Never claimed you were bipartisian CL and if my last disjointed post gave that impression I apologise Any chance in the search for fairness you could remember "The One's" name...all assertions of unbiased opinions sort of go out the window with this dismissal of the Democratic Candidate for President's very name.

celticlord2112 -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 12:48:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Never claimed you were bipartisian CL and if my last disjointed post gave that impression I apologise Any chance in the search for fairness you could remember "The One's" name...all assertions of unbiased opinions sort of go out the window with this dismissal of the Democratic Candidate for President's very name. Not a chance in hell. The One has no name.

kittinSol -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 12:52:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 My original assertion is that we, the American voters, bear full and sole responsibility for the government we have. Nothing said here even remotely challenges that assertion. I'll challenge it [:)] . The fact is that in a democracy the majority rules; so the large number of people who didn't vote for the ruling party/president have to suffer through the term of a leader and government they have not chosen. The people who didn't vote for Bush TWICE do not deserve the shit they're going through. Alas, it's the nature of the game, but I wouldn't start making meritocratic allusions about 'the government we deserve' and 'full responsibility'.

kittinSol -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 12:56:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Not a chance in hell. The One has no name. Wow... not wanting to be insulting, but now you're sounding like a member of an obscure Doomsday sect [&:] .

slvemike4u -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 1:01:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Not a chance in hell. The One has no name. Wow... not wanting to be insulting, but now you're sounding like a member of an obscure Doomsday sect [&:] . What evil is so hienous,so terrifying that we dare not give it a name.....spooky shit!

celticlord2112 -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 1:04:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Alas, it's the nature of the game, but I wouldn't start making meritocratic allusions about 'the government we deserve' and 'full responsibility'. I assert precisely that. I voted against Clinton and against George Bush. Didn't get the President I wanted any of those times....but with the exception of 1992 when I voted for George H. W. Bush, I am confident that the President elected was better than the potential likely alternatives (not a fan of Clinton but he was better than Dole in 1996). As a voter, I am quite at peace saying I, as a voter, have the government I deserve, and that I, as a voter, am the one charged with changing it if I don't like it. As a voter, I happily take full responsibility for the government we have, and, as a voter, I urge all other voters to take full responsibility as well, and to discharge that responsibility conscientiously at the ballot box.

slvemike4u -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 1:14:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Alas, it's the nature of the game, but I wouldn't start making meritocratic allusions about 'the government we deserve' and 'full responsibility'. I assert precisely that. I voted against Clinton and against George Bush. Didn't get the President I wanted any of those times....but with the exception of 1992 when I voted for George H. W. Bush, I am confident that the President elected was better than the potential likely alternatives (not a fan of Clinton but he was better than Dole in 1996). As a voter, I am quite at peace saying I, as a voter, have the government I deserve, and that I, as a voter, am the one charged with changing it if I don't like it. As a voter, I happily take full responsibility for the government we have, and, as a voter, I urge all other voters to take full responsibility as well, and to discharge that responsibility conscientiously at the ballot box. Regarding your asertion that voting is a responsibility we can find common ground.Sadly as this election winds down we shall find little else to agree about...it is enough for now....you sure you couldn't bring yourself to say Obama....man you are going to have a rough couple of years ,what with learning how to say President Obama and all BTW how is everything in Houston,eveyone allright..?

celticlord2112 -> RE: published article that makes a lot of sense (9/26/2008 1:22:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u BTW how is everything in Houston,eveyone allright..? My slave and I are fine. Power restored, internet restored, hot coffee available in the mornings. "Everyone" is not "all right", as there are still, at last count, several hundred thousand without power. That being said, Houston is doing a lot better than Galveston, Kemah, and Bolivar Peninsula. No lights and no running water was no fun, but at least my place was still standing. Not everyone was that lucky.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875