Where Have All the Lefties Gone?

[keepthefaith]

When you finally get rid of Dumbo Dubya as your "leeder of duh free wurld", life is GOOD! Eight years of a non-Republican president allows people to truly enjoy these United States of America! Much like the Clinton administration, seeing right wingnuts B word and complain and stomp their feet like children always makes me laugh. A pure treat

 

(No, not a typo- EIGHT years..."Willie Horton" Huckabee, "Loony" Sarah Palin and "Brigham Young" Romney are poor excuses for candidates, and we'll be a strong, fast economic locomotive before the election... LOL)

 

So righties (and even lefties for that matter) should not be bitching about the reckless spending that's going on? You support all the trillion dollar or near that number proposals and "acts" that are being rammed through congress at breathtaking speed?

[murra]

Well, for starters, just because I don't B word here, doesn't mean I'm not bitching. I'm staunchly opposed to any foreign entanglements. Having said that, based on Dan Rather's report (fwiw), we're implementing much more "soft" diplomacy by building schools, etc. in Afghanistan. The mission has shifted from "fight them anywhere we can," and for that I'm minimally grateful. But, I'd still we rather not be there, or anywhere for that matter.

 

It's not your fault, but its silly that you talk about this "soft" diplomacy as if it's something we're implementing much more. As in, since Obama has been in office. Again, its not your fault because why would your news sources praise anything or explain to you whats going on in Afghanistan or Iraq under the Bush administration. Essentially, if Americans or civilians aren't dying, it probably hasn't been newsworthy to you for the last 6 or 7 years.

 

So righties (and even lefties for that matter) should not be bitching about the reckless spending that's going on? You support all the trillion dollar or near that number proposals and "acts" that are being rammed through congress at breathtaking speed?

 

I don't think its that we all need to be bitching about this "reckless" spending. I think a different approach should be taken, where the right tries its best to explain the economic ramifications of the administration, beginning with layman's terms, and progressively increases the explanations until the social differences are no longer the largest factor disassociating the left from the right.

 

Essentially, what happens when someone from the right bitches about the economy on these boards? A lefty will simply attest that Bush wasn't exactly a frugal saint, or what have you. From there the righty bitches about the lefty always blaming the former administration, and no progress is made. This banter is why most people avoid the PPP like the plague. Regardless of this fallacy, I believe that a lot of these pointless arguments stem from a serious difference in social beliefs. The problem is that these social differences have poured into all categories, and so there now teams. The right is always wrong in the mind of the left, and vice versa.

 

Bitching will never, ever get anyone anywhere. I would argue that if people began starting threads not necessarily bitching about the economy, but explaining the implications, and showing a cost/benefit analysis of centralized medicare, for example, it would make the debates the more legitimate and entertaining. Similarly, I think you'll find that Mr. Hedd, Steely Dan and the likes would not participate as often, because they know very little about these simple realities. Sure they may chime in with an occasional bush joke, but if ignored long enough, perhaps they will begin to think for themselves and assess the situation in the same grave manner that you or I do.

[Gene Frenkle]

My ideas/thoughts:

 

1. Deport all illegals back to their country of origin. If said country in located in Europe disregard first part of idea/thought number one.

2. All people will have their tubes tied and until they can pass an intelligence test and provide proper income statements the tubes will remained tied.

3. All people on unemployment for longer than six weeks or on welfare are lazy and weak.

4. Abortion should be illegal seeing I feel life begins at conception. Pretty groovy coming from a non-believer like me huh?

5. Round up all the homeless people and lock them up. Where? I don't give a ****, just get them off my street.

6. Nancy Pelosi sucks balls and she's lucky I don't carry a gun.

7. Gays and lesbians are arguing over semantics regarding marriage. It's just a !@#$ing word you gay bastards.

8. If you think Bush only cut taxes for the rich your a parrot squaking mother !@#$er.

9. Want to get to the leaders of Al Queda put a chip in the top detainees in Guantanamo and let them "escape."

10. If it weren't for the gay, limp wristed, tree hugging mother !@#$ing panzy assed, law ignoring liberals in SF it would be the best city in the world.

And number 11......."hey Obama, suck my lily white dick!"

 

Now, if that don't get you blood boiling..................

1. In my head, you were always a black guy.

2. Agreed. Now what if one of the proven wants to reproduce with one of the unproven?

3. The system you thrive in will always have a certain percentage of unemployed - strictly a product of the system.

4. I agree, but I'm torn because I think a person should be allowed to make choices about what happens to their own body. It's miscast as a political issue IMO.

5. As long as you have a good final solution for them.

6. Agreed.

7. You're right, it's just a !@#$ing word you holier-than-thou bastards.

8. Bush was a !@#$ing retard. Thanks for the rebate checks !@#$!

9. We have the technology?

10. Nobody's forcing you to live there.

And number 11.......See #1

[Gene Frenkle]

Just curious...is there anyone who wants to defend Donald? Anyone?

 

 

 

I'm somewhat distressed I didn't make your list.

You will be on the whack-job contrarian egomaniacal Libertarian narcissists list when that comes out. You and Darin.

[Gene Frenkle]

Frito Bandito PM'd me to stick up for him.

[GG]

6. Agreed.

 

Expect a note from the Bishop.

[Gene Frenkle]

Essentially, what happens when someone from the right bitches about the economy on these boards? A lefty will simply attest that Bush wasn't exactly a frugal saint, or what have you. From there the righty bitches about the lefty always blaming the former administration, and no progress is made. This banter is why most people avoid the PPP like the plague. Regardless of this fallacy, I believe that a lot of these pointless arguments stem from a serious difference in social beliefs. The problem is that these social differences have poured into all categories, and so there now teams. The right is always wrong in the mind of the left, and vice versa.

Good stuff. This is why anyone who lines up with 90% of what either major party says is a chump. That said, it certainly seems difficult not to fall into that trap.

[Gene Frenkle]

Expect a note from the Bishop.

I simply agree that Pelosi sucks balls and is lucky Chef Jim doesn't carry a gun.

[DC Tom]

You will be on the whack-job contrarian egomaniacal Libertarian narcissists list when that comes out. You and Darin.

 

I object to that. I belong on the pedantic supercilious anal orifice list.

[Chef Jim]

1. In my head, you were always a black guy.

2. Agreed. Now what if one of the proven wants to reproduce with one of the unproven?

3. The system you thrive in will always have a certain percentage of unemployed - strictly a product of the system.

4. I agree, but I'm torn because I think a person should be allowed to make choices about what happens to their own body. It's miscast as a political issue IMO.

5. As long as you have a good final solution for them.

6. Agreed.

7. You're right, it's just a !@#$ing word you holier-than-thou bastards.

8. Bush was a !@#$ing retard. Thanks for the rebate checks !@#$!

9. We have the technology?

10. Nobody's forcing you to live there.

And number 11.......See #1

 

Regarding your reply to my #10...you're a !@#$ing idiot for saying that. There is a single group in power that has been in power for decades that has turned a large part of a city that could be one of if not the best in the world into a cesspool and your response is "eh, if you don't like it, move"? Sorry that's not how I operate. I know it's been like this for a long time so what can I do? Not sure but what I do here will allow me to get in front of people that can actually do something about it. This is a city of misdirected priorities. Can a homeless guy **** and piss in the street? I guees so. Can I buy foie gras in a restaurant? Apparently not. This is a city of unenforced laws, rules and regulations and all it would take is to enforce these rules and laws and the city would be much better. No, sorry I'm not leaving. I'm going to do what I can to make it better. Cover me....I'm going in.

[Taro T]

I object to that. I belong on the pedantic supercilious anal orifice list.

Who says you can't be on both lists?

[The Big Cat]

It's not your fault, but its silly that you talk about this "soft" diplomacy as if it's something we're implementing much more. As in, since Obama has been in office. Again, its not your fault because why would your news sources praise anything or explain to you whats going on in Afghanistan or Iraq under the Bush administration. Essentially, if Americans or civilians aren't dying, it probably hasn't been newsworthy to you for the last 6 or 7 years.

 

My fault? Did I do something wrong? I made the statement based on what Rather (a person reporter who's visited Afghanistan 11 times since the 80's) said to be true. He was there during the Bush years and he just got back a few weeks ago and said definitively that the strategy has shifted, that our tactics aren't nearly as aggressive, that fighting is no longer the goal, and that we are implementing more school building, etc.

 

I'm unabashedly parroting what Rather said because of all the things I've listened to (mainly from my good friends at NPR), his explanation (which was on point with every other report I've heard) was the easiest to relay. If you think I'm "wrong" (for whatever reason) your beef is with Mr. Rather. I haven't been to Afghanistan and I only know one person fighting there and we haven't spoken since high school basketball. I can only chime in with what I've heard, and frankly I trust my sources.

[PastaJoe]

You know it interesting when they had their run of bitching about the Bush administration the right put up a fight and was here regularly here. Now that the shoe is on the other foot it's become cricket city. They're showing the true wusses that they are.

 

When you know the policies are correct, you don't have to constantly defend them. Insecurity or a lack of confidence in the direction of an administration compells some to go on the defensive. Unlike the right with Bush, I'm confident in the current policy directions, and therefore don't really worry about the right thinks. Debate wouldn't change your views anyways, so why bother.

 

 

I've personally admitted to being asleep behind the wheel, so what's the noisy lefty excuses? Here's are equally good questions: how come the lefties have stopped bitching about going to war when we're adding 30,000 to Afghanistan, still in Iraq, and Guantanamo remains open (with no closure in site) in spite of a pledge to have it closed by now? Why have you stopped parading Cindy Sheehan and her message around, even though she's still out there protesting the wars? And how come you've STOPPED getting pissed about spending while Obama is setting new spending records?

 

The more people like myself admit having mistakenly been asleep, the more dudes like yourself who struggle for original thought get their logic destroyed.

 

Since you asked, I always supported the war in Afghanistan, and still do. And we now are in the process of moving combat forces out of Iraq and closing Gitmo, where previously there was no such committment. If Gitmo was handled properly in the past, the detainees would have already faced some form of justice, and it would be a moot point now. Sheehan's main gripe was with Iraq, which I agreed was the wrong war at the wrong time. If she thinks we should get out of Afghanistan, then I disagree with her on that seperate issue. And I've never had a problem with gov't spending, and realize that much of the current spending is to get us out of a historic recession and prevented a depression. Cutting taxes while paying for two wars was stupid, but the problem there was reducing the income, not the spending (I opposed the Iraq invasion, but supported spending for the military to maximize their abilities). My only issue is the hypocracy of the Republicans and their supporters who scream about spending now that they're out of power, but did nothing to stop it and increased it when they were in power. Most of the Republicans in Congress who now complain were there when they were increasing the spending.

[murra]

My fault? Did I do something wrong? I made the statement based on what Rather (a person reporter who's visited Afghanistan 11 times since the 80's) said to be true. He was there during the Bush years and he just got back a few weeks ago and said definitively that the strategy has shifted, that our tactics aren't nearly as aggressive, that fighting is no longer the goal, and that we are implementing more school building, etc.

 

I'm unabashedly parroting what Rather said because of all the things I've listened to (mainly from my good friends at NPR), his explanation (which was on point with every other report I've heard) was the easiest to relay. If you think I'm "wrong" (for whatever reason) your beef is with Mr. Rather. I haven't been to Afghanistan and I only know one person fighting there and we haven't spoken since high school basketball. I can only chime in with what I've heard, and frankly I trust my sources.

 

Exactly, its not your fault. I don't blame you at all. Why should you expect something called "biased news"? When you're writing an article, or doing a report, you have to have some sort of thesis, polemic, or a point (whatever you want to call it). Say your point is, "We need to get out of the middle east". You're more likely to include any cons to the wars than mention the soft diplomacy, right? It's the nature of the beast. I don't know why you italicized fault, as I made it clear twice in my previous posts, that its not your fault.

 

And yes, you did do something wrong: You assumed that Dan Rather and NPR are reporting everything to you, and not just what they want to report to you.

[The Big Cat]

Exactly, its not your fault. I don't blame you at all. Why should you expect something called "biased news"? When you're writing an article, or doing a report, you have to have some sort of thesis, polemic, or a point (whatever you want to call it). Say your point is, "We need to get out of the middle east". You're more likely to include any cons to the wars than mention the soft diplomacy, right? It's the nature of the beast. I don't know why you italicized fault, as I made it clear twice in my previous posts, that its not your fault.

 

And yes, you did do something wrong: You assumed that Dan Rather and NPR are reporting everything to you, and not just what they want to report to you.

 

Are you suggesting NPR has an agenda? Because if you are, this conversation is moot.

[The Big Cat]

Exactly, its not your fault. I don't blame you at all. Why should you expect something called "biased news"? When you're writing an article, or doing a report, you have to have some sort of thesis, polemic, or a point (whatever you want to call it). Say your point is, "We need to get out of the middle east". You're more likely to include any cons to the wars than mention the soft diplomacy, right? It's the nature of the beast. I don't know why you italicized fault, as I made it clear twice in my previous posts, that its not your fault.

 

And yes, you did do something wrong: You assumed that Dan Rather and NPR are reporting everything to you, and not just what they want to report to you.

 

Link

 

(note the absence of thesis)

[GG]

Are you suggesting NPR has an agenda? Because if you are, this conversation is moot.

 

You must be joking, right?

 

Whether or not they have a preordained agenda or not, you cannot seriously think that NPR is devoid of partisanship to a particular side which blatantly slants their reporting.

[murra]

Are you suggesting NPR has an agenda? Because if you are, this conversation is moot.

 

I'm speechless. How could you possibly be that naive?

[blzrul]

So what kind of "presence" would you be looking for? You just want someone to attack. What do you expect "lefties" to say? Bush sucks? Yeah, he did. But he's mercifully history. And now Cheney should STFU.

 

After all, Uncle Dick, I thought that IN TIMES OF WAR YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO QUESTION THE PRESIDENT? Remember that one? Oh yea, that's right, questioning the President in times of war makes you UNPATRIOTIC. It means you HATE FREEDOM.

 

I look at it this way: The wingnuts HATE Obama. The far-left is DISAPPOINTED in Obama. That means he's pretty much right where he should be - working for everyone in the middle. The TARP money (a Bush initiative I supported) is starting to come back. Foreclosures are slowing, and housing values starting to improve. Interest rates are still low. Unemployment is still a concern, but after an economic meltdown jobs are ALWAYS the last thing to come back (as I learned in the first Bush recession). Who knows, maybe Obama will even find the WMDs just before we turn out the lights in Iraq.

 

There you go. Have fun.

[Gene Frenkle]

I object to that. I belong on the pedantic supercilious anal orifice list.