RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (Full Version)

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



Message


mcbride -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 2:04:00 AM)

"The Liberal Party in Canada is very supportive of Bush." - luckydog1

Now *that* gave me a chuckle. Wanna take another run at that, luckydog?




MistressCamille -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 2:21:39 AM)

Yes, I saw him say that on TV (taking the blame for Iraq). It was supposed to be an attempt to help the Republicans who are running for office but I think any mention of Iraq only hurts.

Now I hear the gay marriage thing is being trotted out again, with him attacking the decision in NJ to allow it. Bush pushes fear to gain votes. He did it both times he ran for president.




nefertari -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 2:29:32 AM)

Well, it seemed to work for them before, so I'm not at all surprised they are at it again.  God forbid we should actually want people to vote based on the real issues.




Sinergy -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 5:21:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Sinergy, it goes back further than "Liberals" passing laws!
It's because of UNIONS!
I know a few Union guys and they are decidedly not "Liberals."
For some reason the TEAMSTERS are definately not "politically correct" and don't believe in the Liberal philosophies.
And they're one of the first Unions that pushed for all those benefits.



Which union was it that passed the legislation to put chlorine in water systems in the United States, popeye1250?

Which union was it that passed laws requiring seatbelts in automobiles?

Labelling laws on food had some union influence, but the laws that got passed were passed by Liberal congresses.

The Teamsters are one of those lovely unions that sold out to The Mob in the 1960s in an attempt to secure their power base, and ended up getting kicked off the waterfront when they attempted to undercut the union I belong to.

Where are the Teamsters now?

Sinergy




Sinergy, what do chlorinating water, seatbelts, and food labels have to do with Unions?
Everyone knows that the Teamsters were "Mobbed Up" in their later stages. They made movies about it. The people and companies that they were against used "goons" too!
I have a brother who's a Teamster and one of his friends "Johnny D." is ah,......"Associated" with some people shall we say.
But, that's not just in the Teamsters, I know people in the Longshoreman's Union in Boston too and let me assure you that they are no angels either! Arson fires, beatings over the years and other things.
The whole point is that Unions were in the forefront of getting benefits and decent pay for themselves as well as a lot of other Americans.
Before Unions the workweek was 6 days a week.


The story of the film so far:

I make a comment about Liberals passing laws for things like clean water, clean air, food labelling, 8 hour work day, benefits, etc.

You correct me and claim that these laws had nothing to do with liberals, they were passed by "unions."

I dont recall it unions being involved in clean water and air acts, although they were involved in laws in the work force, and tangentially in the food packaging industry.
So I ask you to clarify your attempt to correct my statement.

You ask me "What did unions have to do with chlorinated water?"

You were the one who made that statement that clean water laws were passed by unions, so please explain your comment.

Thank you,

Sinergy




CrappyDom -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 7:06:35 AM)

quote:

"Liberals are the only ones who saddled up and volunteered to fight fascism on behalf of another country. "  Crappy Dom that is nonsense, and you know it. 
 
      On a serious level the term "liberal"  changed meaning in the late 60s/early 70s.  The Chicago Democratic Convention is often considered the turning point on that.  "Liberal" used to(and still does in Canada, Australia, Uk, ect) mean freedom, including economic freeedom/ laisee faire economics.  The Liberal Party in Canada is very supportive of Bush.  In the 60 the left wing/ socialist/ Pacifist movement took control of a segment of the Democratic party and took over the term.  These people are now usually called progressives.   It was a repudiation of the Liberalism of FDR and JFK.  Ronald Reagan was absolutly a "classic liberal".  And most Americans do not support most of the progressive agenda( Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton know this), hence to most people it is a derisive term


Your kidding right?  This is over the top sarcasm?  Please don't ruin my day by telling me you actually believe any of this horsehit?




luckydog1 -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 10:12:41 AM)

No, your comment on "only liberals volunteered to fight facism" is horseshit.  What in my post do you not agree with? 




CrappyDom -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 10:50:05 AM)

Name a time and place where large numbers of Republicans en masse saw and injustice overseas and went there to fight and die for that cause?

I am not talking about joining the US military, I am talking about believing so strongly in something that you left your own country to take up the cause of justice on your own?

Since it seems clear you have no idea what I am talking about, google the Abraham Lincoln Brigade...they fought the Nazis at the same time people like Bush's family were handling their investments.




popeye1250 -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 11:56:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Sinergy, it goes back further than "Liberals" passing laws!
It's because of UNIONS!
I know a few Union guys and they are decidedly not "Liberals."
For some reason the TEAMSTERS are definately not "politically correct" and don't believe in the Liberal philosophies.
And they're one of the first Unions that pushed for all those benefits.



Which union was it that passed the legislation to put chlorine in water systems in the United States, popeye1250?

Which union was it that passed laws requiring seatbelts in automobiles?

Labelling laws on food had some union influence, but the laws that got passed were passed by Liberal congresses.

The Teamsters are one of those lovely unions that sold out to The Mob in the 1960s in an attempt to secure their power base, and ended up getting kicked off the waterfront when they attempted to undercut the union I belong to.

Where are the Teamsters now?

Sinergy




Sinergy, what do chlorinating water, seatbelts, and food labels have to do with Unions?
Everyone knows that the Teamsters were "Mobbed Up" in their later stages. They made movies about it. The people and companies that they were against used "goons" too!
I have a brother who's a Teamster and one of his friends "Johnny D." is ah,......"Associated" with some people shall we say.
But, that's not just in the Teamsters, I know people in the Longshoreman's Union in Boston too and let me assure you that they are no angels either! Arson fires, beatings over the years and other things.
The whole point is that Unions were in the forefront of getting benefits and decent pay for themselves as well as a lot of other Americans.
Before Unions the workweek was 6 days a week.


The story of the film so far:

I make a comment about Liberals passing laws for things like clean water, clean air, food labelling, 8 hour work day, benefits, etc.

You correct me and claim that these laws had nothing to do with liberals, they were passed by "unions."

I dont recall it unions being involved in clean water and air acts, although they were involved in laws in the work force, and tangentially in the food packaging industry.
So I ask you to clarify your attempt to correct my statement.

You ask me "What did unions have to do with chlorinated water?"

You were the one who made that statement that clean water laws were passed by unions, so please explain your comment.

Thank you,

Sinergy


Sinergy, misunderstanding.
I said that Unions were in the forfront (pioneers) of the 5 day week, vacations, decent pay etc for workers.
It is largely because of them that laws were made in those areas.
I don't know if Unions had anything to do with chlorinated water, or food labeling.
The Unions were on the forefront of labor law changes in the 20's, 30's and 40's way befor those laws were changed.
I don't really know much about those other things that you mentioned.
My whole point was that Unions were "Pioneers" in changing labor laws. That's all.
I wouldn't credit them with say, having anything to do with changing Environmental Laws for example.
Perhaps I didn't state that clearly enough. That was the only point I was trying to make.




Level -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 4:42:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

quote:

"Liberals are the only ones who saddled up and volunteered to fight fascism on behalf of another country. "  Crappy Dom that is nonsense, and you know it. 

     On a serious level the term "liberal"  changed meaning in the late 60s/early 70s.  The Chicago Democratic Convention is often considered the turning point on that.  "Liberal" used to(and still does in Canada, Australia, Uk, ect) mean freedom, including economic freeedom/ laisee faire economics.  The Liberal Party in Canada is very supportive of Bush.  In the 60 the left wing/ socialist/ Pacifist movement took control of a segment of the Democratic party and took over the term.  These people are now usually called progressives.   It was a repudiation of the Liberalism of FDR and JFK.  Ronald Reagan was absolutly a "classic liberal".  And most Americans do not support most of the progressive agenda( Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton know this), hence to most people it is a derisive term


Your kidding right?  This is over the top sarcasm?  Please don't ruin my day by telling me you actually believe any of this horsehit?


The part about the word "liberal" once meaning "freedom... laisee faire economics" is correct. Generally, it's now called libertarianism, but some, especially in Europe, still refer to it as being liberal, or classically liberal. Now, I'd definitely disagree as to call Reagan a "classic liberal"... he was far too enamored with the military and with intervention to be regarded as such, I believe. As for the rest of it..... *shrugs*




phantom1174 -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 4:51:32 PM)

Defeat looms for the monkey?  And thank whatever God you choose for that.  How that oaf got into office in the first place is a mystery to me.  And I, as a Briton, can't hold my head up either with Blare - but at least Blare has a modicum of intellect - the apeman has no redeeming features whatsoever, as far as I can see.

What's more, Bush is a mass murderer.  He might blame Al Qaeda for all the world's ills, but anyone with half a brain can see that the Twin Towers was an inside job.




NorthernGent -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 4:54:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

"Liberals are the only ones who saddled up and volunteered to fight fascism on behalf of another country. "  Crappy Dom that is nonsense, and you know it.  
  
"Liberal" used to(and still does in Canada, Australia, Uk, ect) mean freedom, including economic freeedom/ laisee faire economics. 



luckydog,

Liberalism in the UK is, as you say, in essence, free market economics. The belief is that the market is better equiped than the Government to raising the living standards of the poorest socio-economic groups in society.

Liberalism in the UK never has been and never will be left-wing because of its adherence to free market economics.





Level -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 4:54:44 PM)

............and tonight, tin-foil stocks went through the roof............




NorthernGent -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 4:56:44 PM)

And your point is bang on when related to Britain. It wasn't "liberals" who went to fight in the Spanish Civil War it was the left i.e. Socialists and Communists.




NorthernGent -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/27/2006 4:59:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: phantom1174

Defeat looms for the monkey?  And thank whatever God you choose for that.  How that oaf got into office in the first place is a mystery to me.  And I, as a Briton, can't hold my head up either with Blare - but at least Blare has a modicum of intellect - the apeman has no redeeming features whatsoever, as far as I can see.

What's more, Bush is a mass murderer.  He might blame Al Qaeda for all the world's ills, but anyone with half a brain can see that the Twin Towers was an inside job.


He's simply a talking head. The problems are cultural - he has not come down from Mars, he is a product of the same society as other Americans. Focusing on Bush is a complete waste of time (even though he's in my sig [:D]).




luckydog1 -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/28/2006 9:57:32 AM)

ok I looked it up, 2800 americans joined the fight in Spain.  I do not think 2,800 out of 100,000,000 is "en masse"  seems like a tiny%.  Also according to google, and history, they were working for the Comintern( which was controlled by the USSR/ Stalin).  Thanks for demonstrating again how Left wingers took over ther term liberal.  Incidnetally hundreds of Americans volunteered to join the RAF and fight facism under the british flag.  And not only was Bushes grandpaw linked to germany....Ted kenedy's grand father was a massive Nazi supporter.  Which is another example of your hyper partisan ship.  Why is Bush somehow bad because of his grand fathers ties to the Nazis, but Kenedy ( whos grand father actually supported the Nazis) not bad because of it? 




orfunboi -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/28/2006 10:07:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTRsubNW

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissifytoserve

Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons



Yes, my reading on the upcoming election indicates the same.

Bush will not be the President in 2008.

(You heard it here first)


Well seeing as he has already served 2 terms and that is the limit....

Yea, he won't be president in 2008

Of course unless the Dems find someone worthwhile, he will just be replaced by another Republican.




Sinergy -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/28/2006 10:44:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

And not only was Bushes grandpaw linked to germany....Ted kenedy's grand father was a massive Nazi supporter.  Which is another example of your hyper partisan ship.  Why is Bush somehow bad because of his grand fathers ties to the Nazis, but Kenedy ( whos grand father actually supported the Nazis) not bad because of it? 



I do not recall stating that I supported Kennedy over Bush.

Many of the old-money wealthy, politically connected families in the United States, including Kennedy, Bush, Roosevelt, Getty, etc., made their fortunes hundreds of years ago gun running, bootlegging, moonshining, slave trading, etc.

Then they involved themselves in politics and found a legal way to nurse at the golden teat.

Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.

Sinergy




MrRodgers -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/28/2006 11:50:16 AM)

Goldwater: Old line conservative...economically, socially and believing that we avoid committing to foreign relationships that obligate our treasure and lives be put at stake. (minimize-conservative) Never went beyond the senate, so we can't judge any executive legacy.

Lyndon Johnson: Liberal, social programs, expanded welfare and other programs like it in the 'War on Poverty.' Expanded social government spending. Expanded by 50% our commnittment in Viet Nam, that proved wrong, didn't run again when he could have. Signed the first Federal Civil Rights Act in 1965

Richard Nixon: Conservative in foreign affairs didn't know it at the time but really just opened up the Chinese communist gulag so Sam Walton could makes billions selling their toys, t-shirts abd 'tennis' shoes at Wal-Mart. Liberal on many social affairs. Created the EPA, reformed without cutting the new AFDC (aid to familes with dependant children) (unintendended consequences of disquailifying any assistance with an able-bodied man at home, an incentive for 'fatherless' families). Ended the military draft., reduced voting age to 18. Tried...and failed...with price controls. (YEEEAH RIGHT !)

Gerald Ford: Conservative: Vetoed every bill to hit his desk. Didn't or wouldn't change a thing. Pardoned Nixon (Watergate). Lost the election.

Jimmy Cater; Liberal in almost everyway while still a cold war hawk being a former naval nuclear-sub skipper (Captain). Suffered two oil embargoes...high inflation that resulted, led to a deep recession. Generally expanded government social programs and spending. Was as responsible for the beginning of the end of the cold war as anybody, including Reagen by convincing the Europeans, on our dime, to install (up to 40,000) medium range nukes to counter the Soviet advantage that didn't truly exist. Signed the document securing the release of our hostages in Iran only a week before Reagen basked almost as if it was he who accomplished that, at his inauguration.

Ronald Reagen: Social conservative, economic liberal like no other. Preached conservative government values (govt. IS the problem) only to expotentually expand government (cut tax revenue, not taxes) and set record after record of deficit spending under the justification of the the theory of  'supply-side' (sic) economics, using the theory of something called the 'Lauffer Curve' it worked and most economists laughed alright. Signed tax reform and welfare reform neither of which entirely stuck with a return to expanding welfare needs and the impending onslaught of futher specific changes in the tax code. Became known as the teflon president when he wasn't even touched by the Iran-Contra affair...selling missiles to Iran to secure the released of a kidnapped and a very valuble CIA Marine Col. in Lebenon.

George Bush I: Social conservative that continued the liberal big govt. deficit spending of Reagen but on less social programs. Pursued 'welfare' reform (people welfare, not corporate welfare) that failed to materialize. 'Had' to raise taxes after pledging...'No new taxes.' Lost to Clinton...and some believe only because Ross Perot ran and took votes from Bush.

Bill Clinton: Socially liberal and economic progressive which to me is defined as neither strick conservatism or liberalism...yes more centrist as exemplifyied by the most dramatic and actual reform of welfare and the end of AFDC as we knew it with more responsibility is placed on the states. Womanizer, Rhodes Scholar (Oxford Univ.) and sent the proper message to Wall Street and the speculators with first tax/spending bill (51-50 tie broken by Al Gore) and started interest rates down to historic lows. Actually reduced federal spending and its size by some 200,000 people. This all resulted in the greatest economic boom in the 20th century...and while creating the Federal governent revenue surplus in about 40 years.

George Bush II: Conservative socially, economic liberal with yet more big government, deficit spending the expansion of which on both counts...are setting records. No much of a man really, never had a real job, made money on investments with daddy while losing money on his own in the oil and gas business. Rode daddy's coattails to the white house, only to become an even more arrogant and incompetant punk. I most likely wouldn't feel comfortable in the same room with this man.

I personally have been describing this bunch in congress and the executive as neocons since back in the 90's. Nowhere in Goldwater's conservatism would we see anything like what is going on now. It is possible that if he was elected (1964) we wouldn't have any or near as much problem with Islam or government or taxes and the new ones coming, and as we seem to be up against now.






MrRodgers -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/28/2006 12:17:07 PM)

For the record: John Kennedy's grandfather was not a contemporary of the Nazi regime coming to power in Germany. He couldn't possibly have lent support to a group not formed with any power until the 1930's Joseph Kennedy, John's father, however was an appeaser in that while attached to the American Embassy in the UK, sided with Chamberlain thinking the Nazis not looking to pursue further Europen expansionism. They were both wrong and both fired. Maybe old Joe was a closet fascist being not too worried how he could make millions here in the US with the bootleggers.




MrRodgers -> RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons (10/28/2006 2:35:21 PM)

BTW: One can replace John with Ted or Robert for that matter.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875