/dev/null Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Like Dennis Miller says, "You need to surround yourself with smart people like a hole surrounds itself with a donut." 227306[/snapback] the current democratic leadership is more like a loose vagina... surrounding themselves with dicks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 the current democratic leadership is more like a loose vagina...surrounding themselves with dicks 227494[/snapback] And the Republican administration is gonorrhea... we have it, it hurts badly, we can only treat it and hope one day it goes away!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 And the Republican administration is gonorrhea... we have it, it hurts badly, we can only treat it and hope one day it goes away!!! 227516[/snapback] you can do better than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 you can do better than that 227566[/snapback] ARE yOu SUre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I'll be the first to admit the Democratic party really screwed the pooch big time, but I'm getting really tired of this ridiculous argument that Bush somehow now represents the values of this entire country. Yes, Joe will happily point out that he won a true majority. That doesn't really apply to the issue, however. It just means that, of all the people who voted, the majority preferred Bush. Last I checked, it was a fairly slim majority. There is a large faction of our society that has a strong distaste for this President. Almost half didn't want him as President. And almost half don't think he's doing a very good job. And this somehow equates to representing the entire country? Blather all you want in this conservative Republican circle-jerk called PPP about our beloved Bush, but let's face it, you're living in your own reality if you think all of America believes in him. While he may have the everlasting puppy love of many conservatives, he is just as equally despised by a huge portion of this country. 227442[/snapback] But he did get more than half and therefore a majority no matter how slim. That is something the previous president never di during 2 elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 But he did get more than half and therefore a majority no matter how slim. That is something the previous president never di during 2 elections. 227595[/snapback] Who cares what the previous president did? What does this have to do with him? And what does having a majority have to do with the argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Who cares what the previous president did? What does this have to do with him? And what does having a majority have to do with the argument? 227731[/snapback] You brought it up. At least this president got a majority. That means most people who care enough by a majority of all other candidates, felt he was the best qualified to lead this country. That means every one else is just a whining minority. Unnlike the past president, he cannot say that as he never won the majority and therefore didn't have a mandate of the majority to implement his plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 You brought it up. At least this president got a majority. That means most people who care enough by a majority of all other candidates, felt he was the best qualified to lead this country. That means every one else is just a whining minority. Unnlike the past president, he cannot say that as he never won the majority and therefore didn't have a mandate of the majority to implement his plans. 227755[/snapback] I fail to see how exactly I brought that up. I never mentioned anything about the most recent President, or any other President for that matter. I'm just talking about this President, and that's all that is really relevant. "At least this president got a majority." I don't really see how that's much of an argument. A majority, particularly a slim one, means nothing more than one thing: more than half the people who voted, voted for the guy. I don't see how it's any different than if the final tally showed Bush winning with 49.99% of the vote, or anything less. You might as well just say "at least my candidate was bigger than yours." I was hoping you could do more than just fall back on the typical "whining" label, but I guess it gives you and all the others some sort of warm fuzzy feeling of baseless superiority, so knock yourself out. It's always the easier thing to do, like calling Kordell Stewart or Tom Brady "gay" for no particular reason other than it feels good. Which is probably the reason everyone keeps repeating the "mandate" thing over and over, it feels good and who knows, maybe if we keep repeating it enough the other half of the country will just submissively give in to the idea that Bush and his ideas are what everyone in this country wants anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I fail to see how exactly I brought that up. I never mentioned anything about the most recent President, or any other President for that matter. I'm just talking about this President, and that's all that is really relevant. "At least this president got a majority." I don't really see how that's much of an argument. A majority, particularly a slim one, means nothing more than one thing: more than half the people who voted, voted for the guy. I don't see how it's any different than if the final tally showed Bush winning with 49.99% of the vote, or anything less. You might as well just say "at least my candidate was bigger than yours." I was hoping you could do more than just fall back on the typical "whining" label, but I guess it gives you and all the others some sort of warm fuzzy feeling of baseless superiority, so knock yourself out. It's always the easier thing to do, like calling Kordell Stewart or Tom Brady "gay" for no particular reason other than it feels good. Which is probably the reason everyone keeps repeating the "mandate" thing over and over, it feels good and who knows, maybe if we keep repeating it enough the other half of the country will just submissively give in to the idea that Bush and his ideas are what everyone in this country wants anyway... 227776[/snapback] So you deny everything? You said There is a large faction of our society that has a strong distaste for this President. Almost half didn't want him as President. And almost half don't think he's doing a very good job. And this somehow equates to representing the entire country? The problem is the "MAJORITY" did vote for him. The Democrats who are now complaining that they are not being listened to (which in my book is whining) have not won a majority of the vote in this country for 28 years (Jimmy Carter in case you were wondering). That means the Democrats do make up a minority of the people in this country, whether you like it or not. That also means while it would be good for the President to include everyone in the discussions he still has to consider the people who got him into office based on his agenda and satisfy their needs first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 That means the Democrats do make up a minority of the people in this country, whether you like it or not. 227782[/snapback] I really like it. Now if the Republicans would just practice what they preach. Like that's going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 So you deny everything? Hardly. You don't really seem to be responding to what I'm arguing here. You just keep coming back to the "majority" thing. This started because someone expressed their joy that we finally have a president that represents the entire country. I'm pointing out that that is, quite obviously, not the case. The problem is the "MAJORITY" did vote for him. The Democrats who are now complaining that they are not being listened to (which in my book is whining) have not won a majority of the vote in this country for 28 years (Jimmy Carter in case you were wondering). That means the Democrats do make up a minority of the people in this country, whether you like it or not. Perhaps if I ever tried to argue that the Democrats are not a minority, your argument might actually hold some weight. Don't recall ever doing that. Perhaps if I ever tried to argue that I'm not being listened to, that argument might actually hold some weight. Don't recall ever doing that, either. That also means while it would be good for the President to include everyone in the discussions he still has to consider the people who got him into office based on his agenda and satisfy their needs first. 227782[/snapback] Never really argued this point, so I'm not sure if this requires any response. I think I'll just go back to the "Is JP ready yet?" threads, as I'll probably get just as much intelligent discourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I really like it. Now if the Republicans would just practice what they preach. Like that's going to happen. 227784[/snapback] And that is where you and I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Hardly. You don't really seem to be responding to what I'm arguing here. You just keep coming back to the "majority" thing. This started because someone expressed their joy that we finally have a president that represents the entire country. I'm pointing out that that is, quite obviously, not the case.Perhaps if I ever tried to argue that the Democrats are not a minority, your argument might actually hold some weight. Don't recall ever doing that. Perhaps if I ever tried to argue that I'm not being listened to, that argument might actually hold some weight. Don't recall ever doing that, either. Never really argued this point, so I'm not sure if this requires any response. I think I'll just go back to the "Is JP ready yet?" threads, as I'll probably get just as much intelligent discourse. 227785[/snapback] This was your point: I'll be the first to admit the Democratic party really screwed the pooch big time, but I'm getting really tired of this ridiculous argument that Bush somehow now represents the values of this entire country. And what I am saying is that he does represent most (even if by a slim margin) the values of the people in this country. It really is that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Finally, we're getting there, but thanks for making my point. Where we disagree is that my argument is this: ...I'm getting really tired of this ridiculous argument that Bush somehow now represents the values of this entire country. While you said ...what I am saying is that he does represent most (even if by a slim margin) the values of the people in this country. Maybe we disagree, but I don't think that a slim majority means that his values now represent the values of the entire country. You apparently think so, I don't. This was the simple argument that I started with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Finally, we're getting there, but thanks for making my point. Where we disagree is that my argument is this:While you said Maybe we disagree, but I don't think that a slim majority means that his values now represent the values of the entire country. You apparently think so, I don't. This was the simple argument that I started with. 227790[/snapback] Finally, we're getting there, but thanks for making my point. Where we disagree is that my argument is this:While you said Maybe we disagree, but I don't think that a slim majority means that his values now represent the values of the entire country. You apparently think so, I don't. This was the simple argument that I started with. 227790[/snapback] One person representing this country's values, or even this country having one distinct set of values, goes against the very nature of what this country is about, IMO. Yet, the Republicans pretty much have carte blanche to legislate the values of the religious right now. Are their values the only American values? I think some of the less religious libertarians who are in or supported the Republican party are going to be in for a shock once this happens. My hope is that they'll look for an alternative in the coming elections (and that someone, for God's sake, will offer one). Others and especially AD will tell me, I'm sure, that that's wishful thinking, but what do we live for if not to make things better? I think this goes hand in hand with what Mick was saying before in re: to Democrats' need to court the fiscally responsible, tax-cutting, socially moderate/liberal element of the Republican party and its supporters. The Democrats have been played like fools and have happily ceded any of the territory that they owned. I hope they figure out what the hell they're doing -- soon -- for the country's sake. And if the original post of this thread is not what PPP has become about recently, I'm not sure what is. More self-congratulation, which I guess is what's going to happen until someone figures out the secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 My hope is that they'll look for an alternative in the coming elections (and that someone, for God's sake, will offer one). Others and especially AD will tell me, I'm sure, that that's wishful thinking, but what do we live for if not to make things better? 227799[/snapback] Are you kidding me? That'd be the answer to my prayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Are you kidding me? That'd be the answer to my prayers. 227852[/snapback] It'd be the answer to a lot of people's prayers, but for some reason God made all those people anti-organizations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I love how the left (we know...Rabid isnt on the left) keeps saying how the right is "pushing their version of morality on us". Well, what do you call what the left wants to do? Isnt pushing their agenda pushing THEIR version of morality on us? Its the biggest "DUH" in the whole political spectrum....whatever party is in power will "push" "their agenda" for how the country should be. DUH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I love how the left (we know...Rabid isnt on the left) keeps saying how the right is "pushing their version of morality on us". Well, what do you call what the left wants to do? Isnt pushing their agenda pushing THEIR version of morality on us? Its the biggest "DUH" in the whole political spectrum....whatever party is in power will "push" "their agenda" for how the country should be. DUH! 227931[/snapback] I don't buy it. You can hold morals and religious values (not always the same thing, mind you) without legislating them, but rather acting in good faith to promote them with a politics of inclusion -- I think Mrs. Clinton is offering that sort of olive branch/example right now. You don't need to make new laws against everything you don't like, and set up and tear down ethics barriers when it's convenient, as the Republicans are doing right now. Real conservatives should have called for Tom Delay's head by now, but he pulls in too much bread for the party. As regards the example with Hillary, nobody likes abortions but they will always happen, and she has the good sense to know that making it criminal will only make things more dangerous and spring up a new criminal element in our society (kinda like the drug war, though with obvious differences). She knows that eliminating the word "condom" from our society won't eliminate the chances of unwanted pregnancies -- but nor will threatening peoples' religious values. As KRC and others have said before this is a real chance for her (and I don't know that I'd call her left) and the Democrats to stake some moral and rational high ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I love how the left (we know...Rabid isnt on the left) keeps saying how the right is "pushing their version of morality on us". Well, what do you call what the left wants to do? Isnt pushing their agenda pushing THEIR version of morality on us? The difference is that the right wants to restrict other people's rights when it comes to issues of morality, the left says people should be allowed to choose their own morality (within reason, don't start the "Oh, so they should be allowed to marry animals or children" arguement). What moral issue is the left trying to force you to personally engage in? They want you to have options, but not mandate that you must follow one rule. You may disagree with others choices, but who are you or I to tell anyone else how they should define what is moral for their own lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts