This is a joke, right?
Mr. Moto doesn’t get it that “fellow traveler” and “loony wacko” are in the eye of the beholder.
George W. Bush is a liar and a fraud. He has ruined lives and has incited a war that has left thousands of people dead. Yet he was nominated to run for the Presidency of the United States during prime time at the Republican National Convention.
You “just felt” that way? Isn’t Congress supposed to be allowed to “dither over some specifics”? Aren’t they supposed to be based in reality?
Mr. Moto: You really don’t seem to have much grasp on basic civics or the Bill of Rights. I don’t believe in putting a gag on “loony wackos.” Thomas Jefferson and a few patriots wouldn’t have liked it much. But if we did that sort of thing in this country, don’t you know that you would be gagged periodically?
This is exactly what Wesley Clark was talking about in the OP. We have the op, which was well crafted and meaningful. It did not devolve into sniping at the supporters of the President, and not two posts later, we have someone doing exactly that.
By post 15, we have 10 replies which make absolutely no sense with regard to the op (Liberty Breezes? WTF?!) And it gets no better from there. If you have points to make, MAKE THEM! Don’t babble on uselessly and throw out witty one-liners. This is exactly why y’all lost the last election (Having voted for Badnarik last election, I guess I can say the same thing, huh?) If you’re gonna take your shots, take 'em and make 'em count! By God, using your freedom of speech to waste oxygen does nothing for liberals around the United States, and nothing for the United States as a whole (on all sides of the political spectrum.)
You complain about how the Bush Administration can and does spin facts and events to their liking. It’s not like you make it difficult for them to spin you in a bad way. Again, take the first fourteen replies here. You have Wes, the op, which raises questions which either are addressed or are brushed off, and if they’re brushed off that’s political fodder for your cause. “Why did So-and-so not respond?” Instead we have Merijeek cranking up the absurity dial to 11. Following that, Fear Itself not only makes himself look stupid, but (had this been a debate or arguement of any import) disqualified himself as a moron in front of his jury. Picker does a dandy with following up the Merijeek comment with an even more pointless one liner, and on and on. Stop! Just stop!
If this is the best that the left has to offer, then it should be no suprise that the middle is shifting right.
~Mang, lifetime member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (who wouldn’t mind seeing the left go more center next time.)
Okay, Weslay Clark tell us how you cured schizophrenia? My older brother really wants to know since he has it. So, tell me.
Thank you. You’ve proven my point better than I could ever have.
I’m serious if you were too I apoligize. So, Wesley how did you cure schizophrina?
Fush, perhaps the reason no one is directly addressing the OP is that there just isn’t much to argue about. As far as I’m concerned, Wes and the other 20% or so of this country that just now realized the epic corruption and incompetence of this administration can cram it. We needed you to pay attention a year ago, and now it’s too late. We’re stuck with these bastards, and next election I suspect you’ll eat up the party line all over again: “George was a dope, but Jeb shares my values!”
Initech, you must have missed my statement on how I voted (libertarian, not republican.) In the end, however, that doesn’t change the fact that liberals and the Democratic Party still hasn’t effectivly addressed the center of the American voting populace.
You said that the fence sitters who fell right needed to wake up prior to the last election. Perhaps if the DNC had put forth a candidate who was moderate, engaging, and could garner respect from both sides of the asile there would have been an upset in the race (as opposed to the near upset that occured.) General Clark, Senator Edwards or Senator Liberman would fit the bill. Instead, the Democrats put forth Sentaor Kerry who failed on all three points. From what I can see, it will be more of the same in '08. Some of the names which I’ve seen tossed up for the Republicans in '08 are Senators McCain and Grahmn, Mayor Giuliani, and Secretary of State Rice. McCain sits on the left hand side of the asile on so many issues that to call him anything other than moderate would be a lie. Grahmn was a member of the “Group of 14” who broke the filibuster deadlock. Giuliani is respected by both sides, and Rice is a practical conservative who moves to the left and right as she sees is necessary for the well being of the US. On the Democratic side, however, I’ve seen only a few names. Senators Clinton and Kerry, General Clark, and Governor Richardson. Senator Clinton is a proven left winger who would get next to none of the Republican vote, seeing as her proven stances are too far left to be acceptable to the right, or most centerists for that matter. Kerry’s weaknesses were seen in this past election, and while he is a good senator and a decent man (from what I’ve seen,) I doubt he’ll overcome those shortcommings. General Clark would be a logical choice in this time of war (and he’d be the first general in the White House since Eisenhower,) but I doubt that the Democratic Party would shift that far center to present him as their candidate. I must confess that I do not know enough about Governor Bill Richardson to make an informed opinion, but that (at least from my point of view) would be his sharpest challenge.
It’s not that the Democratic Party can’t engage the moderates of America, it’s that they seem to resist the idea. Instead, and sadly, they entrench themselves on the far side of the asile and fight off anyone who wants to join up. This is, of course, simply my opinion. But I do know that had Joe Liberman or Wesley Clark been the Democratic candidate, I’d have voted for them. They’re moderate democrats who share my values. Hilliary doesn’t. And it’s a shame to see that she’s the dog’s bollocks right now.
Partially. Miller is not the racist pig that Duke is, I’ll admit. But he’s just about as nutty as a fruitcake.
Another dumbass so concerned about the Democrats that he would like the Democrats to become something else. How about trying to find something novel to write, or at least aim for being more concise than half a page of text! If the 48% of America that voted for someone who you claim had no ability to reach out to moderates is thus all Democrat, we should be in pretty good shape. Fucking moron.
Again, I think the frustration is that everything Wes Clark said is flatly obvious and horrid. And yet, nothing gets done, there’s no accountability. Those on the right, who ostensibly should care about all those issues, simply spend all their time kicking liberals while they’re down, cherrypicking the looniest arguments and focusing solely on them.
Meanwhile, we find out that the former head of FEMA, the guy who left to make zillions in Iraqi contracting leaving a failed horse show manager in charge, made it to the hurricane zone to prepare for making even more money days before his former agency. Lobbists travel faster than the governments they are lobbying for juicy post-hurricane contracts, it seems.
We also learn that his former deputy sent his initial team down with a surely critical mission: to help prepare to “convey a positive image” of the federal response. surely we can all agree that they failed in THAT mission, right?
I mean, does any of that nonsense have ANYTHING to do with conservative principles of a small, efficient government. No: if anything, they are directly in constrast to it. But expect to find most of the right engaged in a passionate defense of it anyways.
LMAO. I realized I had it and it went away, honestly. I don’t know what to tell you. From 1996-2000 I had schizophrenic delusions, while reading info online about mental illness on Dec 14th 2000 I came across a website on schizophrenia, saw that I had like 10-15 symptoms and realized ‘wow, I have this and everything I believe is a lie’. That was the end of it and I haven’t had problems since. Mine is probably not organic/biological schizophrenia though, it was more stress induced.
Fush, what made Kerry an unacceptable choice for you in the last election?
(I apologize for accusing you of supporting Bush–that’s a heavy thing to throw at someone)
Kerry’s stance on abortion was the thing that kept me from voting for him. Well, not his stance on it, but the fact that he’s a Catholic (as am I) and that he’s pro-abortion. That debate’s a whole 'nother can of worms, but the way I see it is you can be pro-abortion, pro-choice, or anti-abortion. I’m pro-choice, with a leaning towards education about adoption as another option. The law says you can do it, so I back a woman’s right to choose. Doesn’t mean I like it. Kerry’s pro-abortion stance didn’t include anything about alternate options to abortion, so I couldn’t support him.
Hey jackass, did you bother to look at the exit polls? Among the Republicans and concervatives who voted for Kerry, only 13% actually supported him. Hell, Gore got more conservative votes than Kerry did! GORE, for God’s sake! Kerry didn’t earn very many conservative votes, Bush lost them. So, here’s an idea. You, and your hardcore leftie buddies can shut the fuck up unless you’re willing to change your party at an elemental level, because if a sensable Republican like McCain gets the nod, you’re gonna lose again. If Clinton runs, you’re gonna lose in a bad way. The center of the American voting populace has been leaning more and more to the right since '94, and the Democrats aren’t moving to match. The Republicans are, and did, and thats why they kept the White House even with all of Bush’s monumental failures. Keep it up guys. You’re giving Nader a better name every year.
Sorry to continue this hijack, but there ain’t enough :rolleyes: in the WORLD.
We already have plenty of Republicans. Why do we need more? Look fool, the point of the Democratic party is to reflect the ideals of the people who call themselves Democrats. If people truly move away from those ideals, the party should and will collapse. But the only way to know is to fight for those ideals, not to abandon them. I can tell you’re a lying sack of shit, because someone who voted for Badnarik would know that their vote wasn’t going to win an election. A person voting like that wouldn’t be seeking to vote for the winner, but to vote for an ideal, and wouldn’t call for others to abandon ideals just to win votes.
We don’t need more Republicans. We need more forceful defense of liberal ideals. Take your advice and shove it up your politically confused ass.
Not really, no. Otherwise those ideals wouldn’t have changed so much over the years.
The Democratic Party is a much more permanent part of American politics than any of the transient issues it stands for. Same with the Republican Party. I regard this as a good thing, myself, but I’m somewhat pragmatic when it comes to this.
The point of the Democratic Party is to win elections. If it doesn’t do this, it really isn’t living up to its point very well.
If they are fighting for the same principles, it doesn’t really matter who wins. Republicans really do frame this as a matter of counting up the victories, don’t they? Why is that? Is it because you guys were so inconsequential for so many years? Is there a big chip on your shoulders that makes all of this a matter of “party before country” or “party before principle”?
Quick hijack but it you actually believe that Hillary will draw more independents than Al Gore, I suggest you need serious psychiatric help. Hillary would practically
guarantee a Republican victory. The only person she could beat is the one man inelligible to run (thank god), GWB.
You don’t have to sell out your whole soul, though, Hentor. Just little pieces of it. 
Don’t think the Republicans haven’t had to do this too. They’ve come to terms with policies like welfare and Social Security, and don’t propose eliminating these things, do they?
Similarly, I think if Democrats were to come to where the American public clearly is on gun control, national security policy, and overall taxation levels, they’d win more elections. And you don’t need to sell out core tenets of liberalism or your union alliances to do it.