I wonder when we’ll finally get SA to define ‘terrorist sympathiser’ for us.
-Joe
What makes you think that any major party shares your own personal definition of “party member?”
And if you really hated both parties, why didn’t you check that box that is apparently on every NY state voter registration form? You know, the box that says, “I DO NOT WISH TO ENROLL IN A PARTY?”
What a knucklehead. Worse yet, a knucklehead who wonders why the rest of the world isn’t as “smart” as he is. You literally know jack shit about elections. “Won’t work with you unless you provide statistics?” Ha! You bought that? Unless he’s a campaign manager for someone running for president of the math club, he’s probably trying to get you to stop bothering him.
You (and vibrotronica and Kimstu) just don’t get it, do you?
“Funny” men on the radio, and administration “talking points” aren’t necessary to give liberalism a bad name. Liberalism is its own worst enemy. You don’t seem to be able to grasp that we come to our disagreements with you of our own free will and based on our observations and common sense. No, we couldn’t possibly believe the stupid, knuckle-dragging things we do unless somebody was cramming it into our idiotic heads.
Liberalism is the home of opportunistic politicians and impassioned do-gooders…and as I remember hearing even as a child, more damage is done by impassioned do-gooders than by out-and-out bad guys.
As an example (and just one, as there are are an almost infinitesimal number of others) of the kind of thing liberalism engenders, I give you the recent case of the woman whose baby was taken from her because the father was convicted of a sex offense twenty years ago.
Again, we have the baby being thrown out with the bath water in a misguided and heavy-handed effort to enforce a perfect world where people are forever protected against any possible harm (as long as it’s a liberal hot-button wrong, that is). And now this woman, through no wrong of her own, is having her baby wrenched away from her by an ever-intrusive liberal government bent on having its own way over parental rights that have been largely sacrosanct for this country’s entire history.
In my experience, liberals are the most intolerant, exclusionary and punitive people in this country when it comes to issues they support or oppose…and they are by far the ones who are most willing – eager, even-- for goverment intrusion in order to force their ends upon society.
It’s no wonder to me that liberalism taken to its logical extreme results in communism/totalitarianism.
(And the almost amusing irony is that it is the so-called “intellectuals” who promoted it in the first place who are the first to be eliminated when does.)
where on fucking earth do you get that this was a liberal plan/event? seems to me (POV= some one who’s worked w/offenders for almost 30 years) that pretty much every fucking politician will support any and all restrictions on RSO’s.
If the people running the party know me by name, I am a party member, If they know me as part of a larger number, then I am part of the fan club. Does that distinction make sense to you?
Because party affiliation is pretty irrelevant, as i have been saying.
Actually this is a good friend of mine who I go out barhopping with, and see pretty regularly. He said this after he saw us put together a 1500 person flashmob party that took place across two boroughs three trains, a parade in the street, two marching bands, two sound systems, was coordinated by text messaging on cell phones. Was busted by police, and we even got our very own helicopter. The reason I need statistics is because we are a marginalized group that can be consider politically detrimental, and I need to show proof that we aren’t some fringe faction, but are actually integrated deeply within society, and have legitimate political concerns and can mobilize people for a cause. I can’t mobilize jack squat if I can’t convince the people that there is something unique about this candidate.
There are a whole lot of people out there that could be involved in politics that believe that politics has passed them by, and they have jackasses like the ones in this thread trying to convince them that the system really really works, when they are pretty certain that it’s not working for them, when a war in Iraq is voted on by both Democrats and Republicans, and then teh Democrats in Congress turn around and start pretending there was some trick of the wording, that they didn’t know they were signing off on a war. They sure as hell knew they were signing off on a war, that little trick of procedure only allowed them to weasel out of it when Bush’s approval rating dropped.
Erek
I defy you to prove that this law was written by liberals, rather than law-and-order conservatives who want to get tough on child molestation. Seriously, prove it.
Not only Democrats in Congress, but This Democrat supported the Iraq war. Ya wanna know why? Because the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State told me That Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States. That he was assembling an arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons and had terrorist connections. They showed me pictures of mobile laboratories and other potential threats and they said they had proof. They said Saddam was a bad, bad man who put people into some kind of shredding device, feet-first.
Fucking-A I was in favor of invading Iraq.
Then I found out they were lying. So now I’m against the Iraq war. I’m just another Democratic flip-flopper, I guess.
Um, yeah. An infinitesimal number, huh? Herein lies the problem. You say “This is how liberals destroy things!” and you point to one example, and base all liberal views on your one extreme example. Not all liberal views are extreme, just as not all conservative views are. Kindly take your cookie cutter elsewhere, sister. I don’t fit into it.
Thats an interesting observation…especially in light of the fact that the Dems don’t control any of the elected branches of government at the federal level in the US. How do you account for that?
So, you think most American’s would be ‘liberal’ if only the Republican’s hadn’t made it a ‘dirty word’? Yet, somehow the Republican’s have enough influence on all these would be Democrats so that they go along with the Republican meme on this. How do you explain this?
-XT
You’re right. Live and let live doesn’t win elections. Nor should it. Otherwise, our friend liberal might be the President. Howdja like them apples?
Personally, I think Weirddave is on to something.
I take your point about hate and fear being effective election mechanisms, Maureen. But I think it’s more accurate that people vote for “something” far more readily than they vote for “nothing.”
Bush stood for “something”; even if his “something” was so controversial and polarizing. Kerry was “nothing” - he failed to strike a bold vision because he reflected the disconnects and contradictions within his party. He had all the traits of a “committee” candidate, and as we all know, hardly anything good ever comes out of a committee.
I also think Democrats were too content to focus all their intellectual firepower, formidable as it may be, on the negatives of Bush. It was an easy and comfortable fortress to shoot rhetorical bombs from, and the Democrats had plenty of bombs to throw. But I don’t think Kerry nor the Democrats paid nearly enough attention to laying out their vision for an America which, in 2004, was experiencing the frightening effects (terrorism, competition for jobs, rising cost of living, etc.) of a rapidly shrinking world. The time was right for bold action, bold vision, and the Democrats simply failed to come through.
Kerry could count on a respectable showing if he and his party stayed in this fortress; he wouldn’t get blown out McGovern-style. But he wouldn’t win. If he and the party had come out of the fortress with a vision - a narrative - sure, he risked an epic loss. But it was the only way to actually win, given the current demographic realities.
In short, Democrats failed to answer the simple, but penultimate question: “What would you do?”
All Democrats are now are like those two old guys in the Muppets Show, too old and talentless to actually act, and reduced to just kvetching about what lousy actors Kermit and Miss Piggy are. It’s pathetic. And in this day and age, with all the issues the nation has on its plate, this refusal to lead is a betrayal.
And I, sir, defy you to prove I said it was.
I implied that this kind of thing is an outgrowth of liberalism, where hysterics over certain hot-button wrongs result in ever-increasing governmental encroacment over our lives.
Furthermore (and if crow-eating should turn out to be in order, I will do so), it is my impression from the article I read online that this infuriating governmental encroachment on parental and individual rights was the result of a judicial ruling, not law written by accountable individuals.
What, like “Athiests are trying to supress the fact that America is a Christian nation!” ?
:smack:
Atheists.
Atheists.
Atheists.
sigh…
I don’t suppose you could actually give it to us, could you? Like, in the form of a link to something that shows the event you’re asserting actually occurred?
Thanks loads.
Anyone get the feeling that, if someone took a dump on her, mswas would yell at the person who told her she was covered in shit.
Here 'tis. I’ve seen a more recent article but I can find it. Starving Artist’s interpretation of the events is, of course, debatable.
FYI, the mayoral election in New York City in 2010 will be held in 2009. Go figure.
So, the kind of thing liberalism engenders is tough penalties for sex-crimes and drug abusers, huh? Whereas noble conservatives like the ACLU are the ones saying, “I think they’re sending the message that if you or any member of your family screws up, you can kiss your parental rights goodbye”?
Crazy world!
Daniel
I remember hearing as a child that Santa Claus was a real person who lives at the North Pole.
That’s one of the worst “logical connections” I’ve ever seen you make. I realize we’re supposed to be running mates in 2008 (remember that thread), so maybe you better let me do the talking.
Or a mime. In SA’s case, that might be superfluous, even excessive. And a mime is a terrible thing to waste.